What Does Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia and the United States Have in Common?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
In truth, when the People stand resolved to defend liberty to their last dying breath, it matters not who the President is.

Ah yes , very well said sir.

Problem arises when the definition of those freedoms is constantly changing . Would people in the US 80 years ago have a different definition of freedom. I believe they would. 50 years ago.

How about 20 years from now.

A prisoner locked up for 23 hours a day , believes he is free for 1 hour a day, yard time.

(sry , question mark broke on comp)

reply to post by Tw0Sides


Games of semantics do not define how people view freedom. Those who cherish it will not fall prey to games of semantics. Those who revile it will rely on games of semantics to diminish it.

If I declared that freedom was the ability to stay in a box until your master lets you out, I suspect the friends I have made in this site who might read that assertion would either take me to task for that remark or perhaps suspect someone had hijacked my account. They do not admire and respect me because I tell them what to think, my friends admire and respect me because we think alike.

Originally posted by MrSpad
The funny thing is if Ron Paul had been President this law would still be in effect. Do you know why? The majority of congress voted for it and could overide a Presidential Veto. And when that happens your presidency is dead. So Bush or Obama or Ron Paul and veto or no it would still be here.

That may be, but the president could have enough sway to gives speeches that inform the public of the NDAA, and have a much better chance of repealing it than Mitt Romney or Obama, which are the two potential canidates at this point.

Originally posted by neo96
Right electing paul will change anything just like how Obama was elected and things are still the same the idealists meet cold hard reality.

Yawn.

I agree and disagree. Obama is not a good leader, but I doubted he would be.

There are idealists that have created advancement for this country. Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, Abraham Lincoln to name a few.

Ron Paul could be one those people.

Obama got media coverage like he was already president before he was president, it was pretty much written in the books. They set Obama up to look and sound like an idealist, but Obama is an elitist through and through. Ron Paul gets metaphorically hung anytime I see him on the media outside of ATS and its because what he says he wants to do they fear he will actually do.

But, until RP gets the support he needs to win from the people (because those in politics and media arent playing nice) you can bet on Romney as long as he doesnt have slip ups through the rest of his campaign.

reply to post by ImmortalThought


Well if Paul ever makes comments about the left like he has the right like how they are gay haters and muslim haters maybe he will be a leader.

Until then he is just another politician.

good olympic teams ?

You guys are all walking dead men already, and you don't even know it. The fascist takeover is complete. Squawking about it on internet forums didn't stop anything. It's over. You lose.

Originally posted by CaptChaos
You guys are all walking dead men already, and you don't even know it. The fascist takeover is complete. Squawking about it on internet forums didn't stop anything. It's over. You lose.

Yet, here you are squawking about it on the internet. How did you win? Did you do more than just squawk on the internet to win your fascist regime?

reply to post by neo96


If you want to win the game you have to play the game. And unfourtunatly many of us are tied into it at birth. If I had to bet on the election, gamble on a leader, my vote is Ron Paul. But, I dont count on him doing me much or us much good. I wont get my HOPE up like the fools who voted for obama.

I'll make sure to wear a watch and don't spend over my limit.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0

Originally posted by MrSpad
The funny thing is if Ron Paul had been President this law would still be in effect. Do you know why? The majority of congress voted for it and could overide a Presidential Veto. And when that happens your presidency is dead. So Bush or Obama or Ron Paul and veto or no it would still be here.

That may be, but the president could have enough sway to gives speeches that inform the public of the NDAA, and have a much better chance of repealing it than Mitt Romney or Obama, which are the two potential canidates at this point.

The President did and was ignored just like Paul was. The irony is only in a facsit state would a leader have had the power to stop it.

reply to post by MrSpad


The president did what? He signed it... He has veto power......

reply to post by neo96


It's a shame that you think Ron Paul and obomber are comparable. I hope this isn't a common idea. You are incredibly mistaken. Obomber = endless wars and false sense of hope Ron Paul = peace and real hope. Do some research please for the love of god.

to shut up all the RP haters, ask them who they are voting for...

works everytime