Massive Obama-Backed “One Nation” Rally...

[bigrebnc1775]

Photo-shopped pictures. OK. Typical of the far right loons. Here's one for you mainstream Americans. Who said, "Starkey you are a lying ******. You are a worthless piece of shit. Which after all that is what a ****** is a lazy good for nothing trashy piece of shit, no matter what their race maybe ******* are scum and that would be you starkey. White black red Brown yellow. Skin color matters not with what a ****** is but their character does, and yours is that of a ******." Yepper, you are all true Americans.

If you are going to quote me keep it in context
1. I am not mainstream anything
2. I call you a lying white ******
GOT IT?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Interesting....we have our resident neocon parrots and tea party wonks doing EVERYTHING to distort and discredit what the One Nation Rally was about by wailing about attendence size, refuse left behind, etc........people pushing to get behind their politicians to get on the stick about creating real JOBS in the near future, as well as civil rights and education issues.

Of course, our resident teabagging neocons only focus on the Socialists and Communists that attended the rally, while ignoring everyone else. Here's a more accurate list of who, what and why

One Nation Working Together

It wasn't a PR stunt were some asshole starts acting like a evangelist preacher who's handlers tell the attendees NOT to bring their signs....there was a lie about what was the exact purpose of the gathering.

The Washington Post gives a fairly objective review

Tens of thousands attend progressive 'One Nation Working Together' rally in Washington

And this from C-Span

"One Nation" Rally - C-SPAN Video Library

Like it or not, you had a more quality rally than Beck's bullhorn and using the tea party like a PR prostitute.....the trick will be not to let One Nation die there, but to transfer that energy into real political activism for a prevention of the return of Reaganomics on steriods...aka the 2 terms of GW Bush....and the continuation of the PNAC agenda...of which Obama's foreign military policy is complying with. Time will tell.

The only ones who have distorted the truth about this rally are those who started the rally. Anyone with any ammount of common sense knows that one nation main supporters are communist socialist and marxist.



Just look at the one nation web page and group supporters.



And another thing from their own words they are a liar
We are conservatives and moderates, progressives and liberals, non-believers and people of deep faith, united by escalating assaults on our reason, our environment, and our rights.
Mission | One Nation Working Together

One Nation Working Together

You're not too bright, are you? Guys like you keep thinking that your opinions, speculations, suppositions and conjecture are the equivalent of facts and logic (hint: they are not).

I mean, there's a LIST of the attendees....the Socialist and Marxists are NOT the major players. Add to that the FACT that YOU cannot provide any fact based proof of what you assert, from the source material of the actual website, and you're just blowing smoke as usual. Next time, think it through before you embarass yourself.

You're not too bright, are you?

Famous last words of all liberals that just got this ass kicked in a debate.

Guys like you keep thinking that your opinions, speculations, suppositions and conjecture are the equivalent of facts and logic

Let's see what did I say for you to think I was spectulating

The only ones who have distorted the truth about this rally are those who started the rally. Anyone with any ammount of common sense knows that one nation main supporters are communist socialist and marxist.

I guess you are lacking common sense because all you have to do is look at the groups involved with one nation.

Nothing else that you posted is worth repling to because you have proven yourself lacking in common sense and I hate to beat up mentally challenged pricks

 

[bigrebnc1775]

uh-huh...Do what they want to under the premise that what they produced and accumulated belonged to them first, as opposed to socialized societies of Europe, which viewed the the people as chattel property and their productivity a possession of the state.

uh huh . . . go read. Pilgrims began as a socialistic structure, which they later changed to individual freeholds. Jamestown agriculture began as an imitation of tenant serf, with the Indians then indentured whites then African slaves as captive labor. You say some of the stupidest things. I am beginning to understand that you are not deliberately being a toid; to the contrary, you really don't know.

Pilgrims began as a socialistic structure, which they later changed to individual freeholds.

And why did they drop the socialist system could iut have been that the ones who contributed were fed up with those who did nothing but leach off the group?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Two Thumbs, please share what you are smoking. Son, cons and libs each have their trashtards, son. Grow up. You ever been around on the grounds after a Baptist gospel hour concert?

So are you defending those fucks that tossed trash on a Memeorial out of ignorance or is this you defending your own by saying other people do it?

It's an easy search. You can see how little the people that cared left and how much the libs left.

Good lord man. They dropped the signs in thier hands on the ground instead of taking them away.



They burned they trash when they were done at the gathering I went to. It was allowed by law, no special permits needed.

At a Methodist gathering they had the kids pick up trash before everyone left.

Jake doesn't have a clue sooner or latrer you will realize that. It took me a month now I just call him what he is "a white ******" and move on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And the conloons get their heads handed to them and the polls begin to tighten the races. Folks, who want fiscal conservatism, are waking up to the fact that they know the GOP right know will favor business and not the workingman.

I want responsible Republicans, not the current crew of GOP losers in office. I certainly don't want those that kluckers, like bigreb, support.

 

[Dr Grump]

uh-huh...Do what they want to under the premise that what they produced and accumulated belonged to them first, as opposed to socialized societies of Europe, which viewed the the people as chattel property and their productivity a possession of the state.

And yet from where I sit, a lot of European countries (and NZ and Oz for that matter) are a lot freer than you guys...
..go figure....

 

[JakeStarkey]

In so many ways Europe, NZ, Aus, etc are much free than the US, where ownership has always done its best to make the worker scream for their financial benefit.

The American man and woman, under the Constitution, is the genius of our country, not business. Business is merely a creature to be directed and regulated for the larger, more important creation: the American people.

 

[Oddball]

uh-huh...Do what they want to under the premise that what they produced and accumulated belonged to them first, as opposed to socialized societies of Europe, which viewed the the people as chattel property and their productivity a possession of the state.

uh huh . . . go read. Pilgrims began as a socialistic structure, which they later changed to individual freeholds. Jamestown agriculture began as an imitation of tenant serf, with the Indians then indentured whites then African slaves as captive labor. You say some of the stupidest things. I am beginning to understand that you are not deliberately being a toid; to the contrary, you really don't know.

I have read...The pilgrims damn near starved because of the socialistic Mayflower Compact.

Maybe you're the one who needs to get up to speed on his history, bub.

 

[Charles_Main]

True. Capitalism is not in the Constitution.

Capitalism is the natural law of economics. It's what happens when the government isn't controlling the economy. In a free society, it's what will naturally happen.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand for some people.

It's not difficult to understand at all. Doesn't change the fact that Capitalism isn't in the Constitution. If someone is a Socialist, that does not make them anti-American.

Not anti American no, but often in conflict with the Constitution for sure.

His point is valid. Capitalism does not have to be in the constitution. Because the Constitution was set up to limit government control over Everything. Including the markets. Which implies Capitalism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

uh-huh...Do what they want to under the premise that what they produced and accumulated belonged to them first, as opposed to socialized societies of Europe, which viewed the the people as chattel property and their productivity a possession of the state.

uh huh . . . go read. Pilgrims began as a socialistic structure, which they later changed to individual freeholds. Jamestown agriculture began as an imitation of tenant serf, with the Indians then indentured whites then African slaves as captive labor. You say some of the stupidest things. I am beginning to understand that you are not deliberately being a toid; to the contrary, you really don't know.

I have read...The pilgrims damn near starved because of the socialistic Mayflower Compact.

Maybe you're the one who needs to get up to speed on his history, bub.

I think you can read, but you are unable to comprehend complex sentences. I said Plymouth changed to freeholds. And you ignored Jamestown. How convenient, selective, and non-comprehensive of you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Capitalism is the natural law of economics. It's what happens when the government isn't controlling the economy. In a free society, it's what will naturally happen.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand for some people.

It's not difficult to understand at all. Doesn't change the fact that Capitalism isn't in the Constitution. If someone is a Socialist, that does not make them anti-American.

Not anti American no, but often in conflict with the Constitution for sure.

His point is valid. Capitalism does not have to be in the constitution. Because the Constitution was set up to limit government control over Everything. Including the markets. Which implies Capitalism.

Alexander Hamilton would disagree with you, and so would James Madison in the beginning. Thomas Jefferson was terrified of the power of banking and manufacturing. Certainly no kind of socialist, you certainly can't make a case for TJ and unregulated business, not in his Virginia.

 

[Oddball]

Right...They changed to freeholds, moved away from socialism and everything worked out just fine.

Insofar as the republic of 1786 is concerned, it was designed to be as far removed form socialistic central control as humanly possible.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

uh-huh...Do what they want to under the premise that what they produced and accumulated belonged to them first, as opposed to socialized societies of Europe, which viewed the the people as chattel property and their productivity a possession of the state.

And yet from where I sit, a lot of European countries (and NZ and Oz for that matter) are a lot freer than you guys...
..go figure....

European countries? Explain what is NZ and Oz

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are still ignoring Jamestown, and your view of what the founders were about is very, very distorted. Night, Oddone.

 

[Charles_Main]

It's not difficult to understand at all. Doesn't change the fact that Capitalism isn't in the Constitution. If someone is a Socialist, that does not make them anti-American.

Not anti American no, but often in conflict with the Constitution for sure.

His point is valid. Capitalism does not have to be in the constitution. Because the Constitution was set up to limit government control over Everything. Including the markets. Which implies Capitalism.

Alexander Hamilton would disagree with you, and so would James Madison in the beginning. Thomas Jefferson was terrified of the power of banking and manufacturing. Certainly no kind of socialist, you certainly can't make a case for TJ and unregulated business, not in his Virginia.

There is a definite Difference between regulation and Control. Only Fools want no regulations at all, only bigger fools want government to control things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not anti American no, but often in conflict with the Constitution for sure.

His point is valid. Capitalism does not have to be in the constitution. Because the Constitution was set up to limit government control over Everything. Including the markets. Which implies Capitalism.

Alexander Hamilton would disagree with you, and so would James Madison in the beginning. Thomas Jefferson was terrified of the power of banking and manufacturing. Certainly no kind of socialist, you certainly can't make a case for TJ and unregulated business, not in his Virginia.

There is a definite Difference between regulation and Control. Only Fools want no regulations at all, only bigger fools want government to control things.

Only the biggest fools trust their fellow man. That is the Rule of Man, not the Rule of Law.

See ya all tomorrow.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not anti American no, but often in conflict with the Constitution for sure.

His point is valid. Capitalism does not have to be in the constitution. Because the Constitution was set up to limit government control over Everything. Including the markets. Which implies Capitalism.

Alexander Hamilton would disagree with you, and so would James Madison in the beginning. Thomas Jefferson was terrified of the power of banking and manufacturing. Certainly no kind of socialist, you certainly can't make a case for TJ and unregulated business, not in his Virginia.

There is a definite Difference between regulation and Control. Only Fools want no regulations at all, only bigger fools want government to control things.

That's a concept that jakey does not comprehend.

 

[Charles_Main]

Alexander Hamilton would disagree with you, and so would James Madison in the beginning. Thomas Jefferson was terrified of the power of banking and manufacturing. Certainly no kind of socialist, you certainly can't make a case for TJ and unregulated business, not in his Virginia.

There is a definite Difference between regulation and Control. Only Fools want no regulations at all, only bigger fools want government to control things.

Only the biggest fools trust their fellow man. That is the Rule of Man, not the Rule of Law.

See ya all tomorrow.

I trust no one

You do realize trusting government is trusting your fellow man with POWER.

 

[Samson]

Alexander Hamilton would disagree with you, and so would James Madison in the beginning. Thomas Jefferson was terrified of the power of banking and manufacturing. Certainly no kind of socialist, you certainly can't make a case for TJ and unregulated business, not in his Virginia.

There is a definite Difference between regulation and Control. Only Fools want no regulations at all, only bigger fools want government to control things.

Only the biggest fools trust their fellow man. That is the Rule of Man, not the Rule of Law.

See ya all tomorrow.

I guess I should stop driving.

All driving involves some trust in your fellow man.

 

[Dr Grump]

uh-huh...Do what they want to under the premise that what they produced and accumulated belonged to them first, as opposed to socialized societies of Europe, which viewed the the people as chattel property and their productivity a possession of the state.

And yet from where I sit, a lot of European countries (and NZ and Oz for that matter) are a lot freer than you guys...
..go figure....

European countries? Explain what is NZ and Oz

If I have to explain it to you, there's no point continuing....