Tab Content
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    3 replies | 51 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 06:45 PM
    Fuck you, Mitt Romney, you domestic terrorist.
    49 replies | 1103 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 05:03 PM
    What? You mean San Fran Nan's "Asian hate crimes bill" wasn't enough to assuage Asian American's concerns about rising crime? Seriously? /sarcasm I suspect there will be a significant shift in the Asian American vote this fall.
    3 replies | 51 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    5 replies | 207 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 03:52 PM
    Well I'm glad the SCOTUS finally reversed course a little bit.
    51 replies | 755 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Today, 02:44 PM
    If they weren't such sluts, they wouldn't need an abortion.
    9 replies | 212 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Today, 02:33 PM
    Why should so many Democrats have to change their party? Lizzy baby should change hers.
    5 replies | 207 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 02:22 PM
    The Roe v. Wade "opinion" was written by 9 men, 8 of them white men. Men (especially white men) should have no opinion on abortion. Therefore Roe v. Wade is a invalid "opinion." Make that into a t-shirt and sell it.
    9 replies | 212 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 02:08 PM
    Interesting read. But it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. The founders were careful to put the word "congress" in the first amendment and leave it out of the 2nd.
    51 replies | 755 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 02:07 PM
    Okay. So what do you think is the relevance of the fact that Nunn v Georgia was a state supreme court decision that recognized that the 2nd amendment applied to the states?
    51 replies | 755 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 12:04 PM
    The constitution was ratified as a result of the problems that led to Shays' rebellion. You mentioned "mutual protection" among the states. (I may have your wording off, but I've got the thought.) Shays' was an unpaid Revolutionary War veteran. His local state was still oppressing him and his fellow vets with taxes, he was getting no debt relief from the merchants, and he and other vets were basically watermelon seeds that were being squeezed to hard. In short, the articles of confederation were a provable failure. Yep. There's a lot I don't like about the current system as well. But the "mutual protection" goal that you (and I) agree is necessary for a country, be it federal or confederate, cannot happen either without an individual right to bear arms or a large central military. Over the years the right to keep and bear arms has diminished at the same time the size and scope of the federal military has increased. I don't think that's an accident.
    51 replies | 755 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 11:51 AM
    It's the same video....that's still up. :confused: So....who do you think doesn't want who to see it?
    37 replies | 6248 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    Today, 11:47 AM
    CaptUSA replied to a thread roe GONE in U.S. Political News
    I took a drive during lunch and listened to NPR. The meltdown was glorious! "Oh no! Some women in some states won't be able to kill their children anymore! The horror!!"
    26 replies | 416 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 11:31 AM
    Okay. Well part of that existence is the second amendment and I'm happy for that even though you are not. And states cannot effectively execute the "purposes of mutual defense" (as YOU put it), without either A) a large standing army or B) an individual right to bear arms. It simply cannot happen. So...which would you rather have? The 80000000 ton gorilla that is the military industrial complex that we all see going around the world brutalizing everyone, or the "800 pound gorilla", as you described it, pissing on poor New York's ability to brutalize it's own citizens? Take your pick.
    51 replies | 755 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 10:46 AM
    jmdrake replied to a thread roe GONE in U.S. Political News
    Yeah....that won't last long. It will last long enough for the left to realize the right is better armed and better trained.
    26 replies | 416 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 10:33 AM
    In bankruptcy, unsecured debts are discharged...as in "forgiven." A student loan is, by definition, an unsecured loan. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/chapter-7-bankruptcy-faq.html Chapter 7 bankruptcy wipes out most types of unsecured debt. Unsecured debts are debts that aren't guaranteed by collateral property. (A mortgage is a secured debt guaranteed by the home; an auto loan is a secured debt guaranteed by a vehicle.) Unsecured debts wiped out by Chapter 7 bankruptcy include credit card debt, medical bills, and gasoline card debt. However, you can't wipe out all unsecured debt. For instance, child and spousal support and student loans (except in limited circumstances) are nondischargeable—you'll remain responsible for repaying them after bankruptcy. Some other debts might not be dischargeable if the creditor objects, such as recent debts for luxury goods, debts incurred based on fraud (such as lying on a credit application or writing a bad check), and tax debts first due within the previous three years. Learn more about which obligations remain after Chapter 7 bankruptcy in What Bankruptcy Can and Cannot Do and When Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Isn't the Right Choice. Here is the secret the politicians forgot to tell you. There were already ways prior to this to get student loan debts discharged even though you couldn't do it through bankruptcy. So this is just doing for everyone what those in the know were already doing for themselves. If your concern is the moral hazard, I agree. But there is a moral hazard built into the system the other way too. It's too easy to get a student loan in the first place precisely because they lenders know they are federally guaranteed. The lenders aren't worried about whether or not there is a potential for payout later. The entire SYSTEM is broken. There are some IT schools that have figured this out. They let students go to school for free, help them find jobs, then contract with their new employers to deduct from their salaries later. The schools only get paid if the students get paid. If the student flunks out of school? No money for the school. If the student can't find a job? No money for the school. Job placement becomes the profit center for the school as opposed to an afterthought that typically does a half-ass job of placing students. See:
    7 replies | 217 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 10:15 AM
    So by your logic (which I agree with to some extent), if this voluntary community allows members to own slaves (as did the southern states) and it acts by force to return those slaves to their "owners" (i.e. fugitive slave laws) then it doesn't count as a voluntary community. Which is what existed prior to the civil war including under the Articles of Confederation. And at what point do you think that usurpation happened? The civil war? LOL. What turned into a "constitutional convention" was initially just a meeting to amend the Articles of Confederation. But rather than being amended, they were scrapped. (Which is why I'm against a constitutional convention.)
    51 replies | 755 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 09:59 AM
    And I don't care that you don't care. How about that? :) Yeah...I get it. You'd rather the federal government not exist. I'd rather my individual rights not be brutalized by federal or state government. It's kind of like how I feel about corporations. They are bastardized state created entities that got empowered by the 14th amendment. (The amendment to guarantee rights of slaves has been used to guarantee rights of a made up life form. Imagine that?) Since corporations do exist I have zero qualms about using anti-trust law, or any other law created by the same government entity that NEVER should have created modern corporations, to reign them in. And yep. I'm sure anti-trust law has been abused. (Again.....corporations should not even exist as they do). I have yet to see any limitation put on states by the 2nd amendment that in any way bothers me. But that's just me. If you have an example than by all means share it.
    51 replies | 755 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 09:51 AM
    Don't feel bad. A LOT of people miss this. I noticed years ago that there was something off about the ACLU defending the 1st Amendment as applicable to the states but taking a pass on the 2nd. Their excuse is "Other people defend the 2nd." But there are other groups defending the 1st as well. (And lately better than the ACLU.) But I went all the way through law school, passed the bar, and never heard of the Nunn v. Georgia case even though it was referenced in D.C. vs Heller. (Come to think of it. We didn't study the Heller case at all.) I knew about Cruikshank before going to law school. I read about in the book "Library In A Book. Gun Control." I bought that book for $1.00 at a local library sale. The best $1.00 I ever spent! It's not pro or anti gun control. It just goes over the seminal cases and explains them. (As familydog rightly pointed out, Nunn v Georgia is a state case which probably why it's not in there but considering it's referenced in D.C. v. Heller it should be. And I apologize for being snarky with him. This stuff does take a while to digest.) I need to go ahead and start my blog/vlog to cover issues like this.
    51 replies | 755 view(s)
  • DamianTV's Avatar
    Today, 09:36 AM
    Title Truncated... Bombshell Oxford Study: Less than 6% of “Approved” Medical Drugs Are Backed by “High-Quality Evidence” to Support Their Benefits – “Harms” are Significantly Underreported Across the Board https://www.survivethenews.com/bombshell-oxford-study-less-than-6-of-approved-medical-drugs-are-backed-by-high-quality-evidence-to-support-their-benefits-harms-are-si/
    1 replies | 44 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    Today, 07:52 AM
    Anyone else read the dissent in this case? https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rUqQgvi13_8U/v0 It's a total confusing mess. It's not even talking about the right to bear arms - it's all about gun violence and the methods the states can use to curb it. Um, no it doesn't. It just says that you can't limit people's rights in a vain attempt to reduce gun violence. In fact, your reasons for wanting to limit people's rights are completely irrelevant! And these are SC Justices!
    51 replies | 755 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    Today, 07:22 AM
    You know better than this. Any "tax cut" without a spending cut isn't a tax cut at all. It's just moving the taxes from one place to another to give politicians a way to say that they did something. What we're really talking about here is if it's better to shift the tax burden to future debt and inflation and away from people driving the roads today. With the cost of fuel impacting our economy, I think you can make that case, but let's not let them call it a tax cut.
    1186 replies | 96614 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 05:25 AM
    I remember years ago after donating to Ron Paul, that I started getting phone calls from John Cornyn's PAC. I looked up his voting record and the next time they called I gave the young lady on the phone an earful. They quit calling after that.
    36 replies | 1095 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 05:16 AM
    Loan forgiveness is actually Biblical. And it's the basis of the bankruptcy system that Trump took advantage of more than once during his business career. Deuteronomy 15:1-2 ESV “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the Lord's release has been proclaimed. https://www.abi.org/feed-item/examining-donald-trump%E2%80%99s-chapter-11-bankruptcies Donald Trump, the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, has come under fire from both the media and the other candidates for his business record. Although Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy, he has reportedly filed for business bankruptcy at least four times. Trump responded to the criticism by arguing that businesses often have to file for bankruptcy and that filing for bankruptcy was a financially sound move each time he did it. In fact, during the September 16 Republican debate, Trump observed that “hundreds of companies” have done the same thing. PolitiFact, the Tampa Bay Times’ award-winning fact-checking blog, recently analyzed the claims, from both sides, about Donald Trump’s business bankruptcies in an article straightforwardly titled “Fact-checking claims about Donald Trump’s four bankruptcies.” The website found that there is validity to many of Trump’s points about business bankruptcy being in the best interests of companies. Trump has filed for business bankruptcy four times: the Trump Taj Mahal in 1991, Trump Plaza Hotel in 1992, Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts in 2004 and Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009. Each time, the bankruptcy was a Chapter 11 filing. While Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy deal with personal bankruptcies, Chapter 11 is most often used by businesses filing for bankruptcy. Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows a financially struggling business to reorganize in order to keep going. That said, the entire SYSTEM needs to be re-examined. In the 21st century with the ability to do remote learning there is no reason why education should be as expensive as it is. That's especially true for state funded schools.
    7 replies | 217 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 05:09 AM
    It's not an "LGBT show." Ellen Degeneris is an "LGBT show." This was a sex show. When you have someone dancing for tips, that's a sex show. Really. Until you can acknowledge that simple fact that this was a SEX show at a gay BAR there is no reason to even talk to you about anything else. This is how child trafficking starts. Kids are exposed to the idea that selling your body for money is okay. Then they are encouraged to sell their body themselves. Again, the same twisted logic you are using was used by the New York CPS to justify doing NOTHING about a parent letting her 11 year old son dance for tips at a gay bar. A child, boy or girl, on stage, at a bar DANCING FOR TIPS is doing sex work. You want to say I'm doing "dishonest lawyering" but that would be YOU! Most of the time when someone is performing on stage they don't have dollars thrown at them. I've been to many a concert, comedy show, magic show etc. The only time money is thrown on stage is when the performance is sexual. This is NOT okay:
    37 replies | 6248 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 04:58 AM
    *SIGH* The 2nd Amendment applied to the states prior to the 14th Amendment and the so called "incorporation doctrine." I explained that here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?559312-SCOTUS-strikes-down-anti-carry-NY-gun-law&p=7116466&viewfull=1#post7116466 And here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?559312-SCOTUS-strikes-down-anti-carry-NY-gun-law&p=7116402&viewfull=1#post7116402
    51 replies | 755 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 04:55 AM
    Just because a liberal court might later make an idiotic ruling doesn't mean you have to buy into that idiotic ruling. A plain reading of the 2nd Amendment, and pre civil right persuasive court precedent, and common sense shows that it applies to the states and it has ALWAYS applied to the states. Again, the 1st Amendment was limited by the word "Congress." The word "Congress" is nowhere in the 1st Amendment. And the word "abortion" is nowhere in the constitution at all.
    51 replies | 755 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 04:50 AM
    You do realize that the SCOTUS later referenced Nunn v Georgia in the Hiller Case right? :rolleyes: You SHOULD recognizes that because I freaking said it. Reading is fundamental. There is something in law called binding authority and something called persuasive authority. Nunn v Georgia is persuasive authority because the Georgia Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way people who were alive at the time it was written interpreted it. And you do realize that there is nothing in the wording of the 2nd Amendment to limit it to the federal government the way the word "Congress" limits the 1st Amendment right? Again, reading is fundamental. You should also realize that the U.S. Constitution clearly states that is is the supreme law of the land. Article VI clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Again, reading is fundamental. So...go ahead and make your argument why the Georgia Supreme Court was wrong to interpret the 2nd Amendment, which says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, applied to the state even without the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. I'll wait.
    51 replies | 755 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Today, 02:28 AM
    Sounds better than just giving money to every person that acquired college debt.
    7 replies | 217 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Today, 02:26 AM
    What I know is that solid video proof of any incident is not good enough reason to not be prosecuted or be prosecuted. If anything goes against the propaganda rhetoric it is not valid, goes missing, gets deleted or canceled, or even debunked with illogical nonsense and believers are deemed conspiracy theorists. "Just follow the science, it is irrefutable and we will not give time to anybody that says otherwise!"
    10 replies | 217 view(s)
More Activity

49 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Please stop trying to "out" Erowe1. Let it go.
  2. I know. Like I said I was going to yank your chain but realized that in the current circumstances it would be bad taste even for me.
  3. View Conversation
    At least until every county or so willingly decided to submit to Christ, which I think will happen eventually because I'm a postmillennialist.
  4. View Conversation
    I wish things were a lot more local too. I'm really not looking for a country of 300 million at all. I think that's too big. Those who didn't want to live by Christian law could live somewhere else and choose God's judgment over his blessings.
  5. View Conversation
    And while I do believe the BIble requires civil authorities to punish homosexuality, and with death as the maximum penalty, I don't think it would be legitimate even for the government to just round up people in a gay bar.

    My reasons on the bearing arms bit are much closer to yours (resistance against tyranny.)
  6. View Conversation
    To be perfectly clear, I absolutely oppose vigilantism. I know you were joking around but I just want you to be clear on where I stand.
  7. View Conversation
    Will you kindly give a tongue lashing to the racist of the board, AmericanSpartan? Thank you. I'd like to see it.
  8. Sorry, but you have failed. That verse does not contain the words "Grace is irresistible." You can interpret it that way, but that's not what the verse says. You had to admit there was "relational language" in the Bible. Yet you have stuck to your guns that there isn't a verse that says "Have a relationship with Jesus." Likewise there is no verse that says "Grace is irresistible." If you were honest you would simply admit that. But you aren't honest.
  9. View Conversation
    Acts 13:48
    And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 49
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
About jmdrake

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
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.)

Signature


9/11 Thermate experiments

Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
46,868
Posts Per Day
8.53
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
49
Most Recent Message
11-05-2016 03:40 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 06:50 PM
Join Date
06-06-2007
Referrals
5

41 Friends

  1. affa affa is offline

    Member

    affa
  2. billjston4 billjston4 is offline

    New Member

    billjston4
  3. bobbyw24 bobbyw24 is offline

    Banned

    bobbyw24
  4. bv3 bv3 is offline

    Member

    bv3
  5. Cap Cap is offline

    Member

    Cap
  6. Captain Shays Captain Shays is offline

    Member

    Captain Shays
  7. CaptUSA CaptUSA is offline

    Member

    CaptUSA
  8. Christian Liberty
  9. cjm cjm is offline

    Member

    cjm
  10. Crowish Crowish is offline

    Member

    Crowish
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 41
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
View jmdrake's Blog

Recent Entries

How Ron Paul could smack down Iran critics

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:34 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
Ron needs to quit playing defense and go on offense. It's not enough to say "the Soviet Union was worse than Iran." If he could point out the following documented facts it would shut the naysayer up for good or at least make them back-peddle.

1) In 2003 Iran was the only Muslim country to help us fight and remove the Taliban from power.

See: Jane's Defense Weekly India joins anti-Taliban coalition. "India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

The new bill of rights.

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:33 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
This parody is an attempt to "rewrite" the bill of rights in keeping with the current application by our criminal government. Original text will be in italics followed by a list of possible options.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Federal Reserve advised gold standard for Russia

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:32 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
I ran across this information by accident (providence?) while looking for something else. The first link is an essay from Jude Wanniski who went with fed governor Wayne Angell to Moscow right after the collapse of the soviet union. Note that Angell advocated the new Russia to go to a gold backed currency! The second link is an online Google book from the Mises institute that talks about the same essay. I've excerpted the essay bellow. (It's too long to post directly). It's interesting to note

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Washington Post 2002 : The U.S. pushed jihad on Afghan schoolchildren.

by jmdrake on 09-13-2011 at 01:15 PM
Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad
Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts


By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

06-20-2022


06-17-2022


06-13-2022


06-03-2022


05-29-2022


05-21-2022


05-17-2022


05-15-2022


05-12-2022


05-08-2022


04-26-2022


04-14-2022


03-26-2022

  • 02:05 PM - Hidden

03-17-2022


03-13-2022


03-11-2022



Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

11-17-2017


Page 1 of 354 1231151101 ... LastLast

06-24-2022


06-23-2022



Page 1 of 354 1231151101 ... LastLast