Originally posted by Devil King
Dude the MOVIE was based on FACTS that actually happened.most of the movie is based on FACTS.The FACTS prove the warren commission is a fairy tale con job.They ignored facts like witnesses reporting they saw a rilfeman behind the picket fence.If it did not fit their official version,they did not want to hear about it. surely you must be aware of this known fact?its a worldwide known fact. 🙄
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's just not true. It doesn't help society as a whole. There are two aspects to my argument, on the one that I think it wouldn't have the disadvantages that people claim it would and on the other that it would have advantages.Public eduacation as we have it today, does not help society as a whole. That much is pretty sure.
More people with an education does help society, like I said, there is a finite amount of peon jobs out there. If you were an employer, would you hire someone without even a H.S. degree (washing dishes, mopping floors aside)?
You make public education to be far worse than it is, sure it isn't perfect and could use an overhaul, but like DK said, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Originally posted by Robtard
You weren't around for Bush Sr., but you liked Kennedy?You realize that JFK was a movie, which was heavily biased. Not saying it was pure shit, but I wouldn't run my life around it.
read my last post.the evidence is overwhelming that stones movie was by far a hell of a lot more accuaate and closer to the truth than that fairy tale warren commission report.I only said thats what got me interested in Jfk originally was the movie,I didnt say thats ALL I have gone by for several years.I have read over 50 books on the assassination and am fortunate enough to know an american history teacher who has researched the case for over 40 years who supports Stones version and Jim Garrison.He has throughly researched the case and can back up everything he says when he defends stones film to the people who support the warren commission.smartest guy I ever met in my life I'll tell ya that. oh and stone throughly researched the case and the history for years before making the film just so you know.he didnt just make things up.
Originally posted by Robtard
More people with an education does help society, like I said, there is a finite amount of peon jobs out there. If you were an employer, would you hire someone without even a H.S. degree (washing dishes, mopping floors aside)?
T-there is also a finite amount of leader jobs around. And what is even worse, there is only a very, very limited amount of people that are capable of achieving it anyways. And if there weren't a million people applying with HS degrees I'd consider them. I'd always consider the person best suited, today we just take the Average grade and pretend it provides any real information at all, but it doesn't. As I said, those are public educations problems you try to apply to a free market education system which would not create them.
Originally posted by Robtard
You make public education to be far worse than it is, sure it isn't perfect and could use an overhaul, but like DK said, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
I don't think it is the worst thing around. But that seems to be the topic at the moment and it is pretty bad.
Originally posted by Devil King
And one of the most unrealistic aspects of it.What about [B]FDR
? [/B]
Cared about the people? Haha.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
my agenda? uh all I know is that he once was saying that he did not believe the official version and that for some reason he has reversed his stance on that.why? I dont know.I dont the aswers for that.But I do know thats what he was sayingoriginally because I saw a video a few years back before where thats what he WAS saying ORIGINALLY. and I do know from an article that was published in USA TODAY that he is the only candidate that has never raised taxes and wants to get rid of the IRS.its been all over news outlets that he is AGAINST those things.I even saw a billboard in my city where they were advertising he would abolish the IRS.
But he is not a member of the 9/11 truth like so many "truthers" believe. He is not part of that and does in no way, shape or form follow the ideas of the "truthers". He thinks (and this is on record) that the government was inept in it's duties of national security, but ineptness doesn't equal "perpetrating".
Originally posted by Robtard
Remember when Bush Sr. said "read my lips, no new taxes" in '88?
On an unrelated note, while I do think the JFK movie is a good one and Kevin Costner (I think he was in it) did well; I do not take it as factual.
Originally posted by BigRed
Well let's remember that Ron Paul actually is consistent with his view of no new taxes and reducing spending and taxes all together. He's been rated as literally 99% by the people for reducing taxes (I forget their name). Consistency is the key.On an unrelated note, while I do think the JFK movie is a good one and Kevin Costner (I think he was in it) did well; I do not take it as factual.
Point was, what a candidate says before they take office, doesn't necessarily translate with what they do or are allowed/able to do once in office.
Originally posted by Bardock42
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
Good Russell quote. You've been waiting a long time to use that one, huh?
Originally posted by Bardock42
See, see, not all Ron Paul supporters are nutjobes. Really cry
Not all, just most.
Originally posted by RobtardThough, he seems to be the only one saying that he doesn't have the power to do all he wants, but will work for it.
Point was, what a candidate says before they take office, doesn't necessarily translate with what they do or are allowed/able to do once in office.
You know...
The truth.
Originally posted by Devil KingWhat about FDR? [/B]
Like Bush,he was an evil Bastard as well.People have this mistaken belief that he was a hero when like Bush,he also knew that the japenese were going to attack us and allowed it to happen,he had forewarnings and took no aaction to alert the fleet.The fleet commander himself voiced his anger over it how FDR blantenly ignored his warnings he gave to him that they had information that they were going to attack them and did nothing with it.Thats been documented.its been all over the history channel.Theres this really great book out thats based on over 10,000 previously classified documents that were released I believe sometime back in the 90's through the freedom of information act that document all of this.This author who wrote this book,based it on all those documents that are NOW declassified.its a great book.Its called DAY OF DECEIT.That history teacher that I mentioned earlier recommened that book to me.Its a great read.should read it sometime. 🙂
Originally posted by Robtard
Point was, what a candidate says before they take office, doesn't necessarily translate with what they do or are allowed/able to do once in office.
He has done as much for seventeen years as a Congressmen, he has spoken out during his (I believe) twelve year break from Congress and to this day continues speaking along those same convictitons. So again, there is no room to suggest that he will differ when he gets into office.
Keyword: when.
Originally posted by BigRed
Fair point as far as "able or allowed" to do. But I don't think there is any doubt that what Ron Paul says he will do (or at least wants to do) is what he will in fact do whilst in office (or at least attempt to do).He has done as much for seventeen years as a Congressmen, he has spoken out during his (I believe) twelve year break from Congress and to this day continues speaking along those same convictitons. So again, there is no room to suggest that he will differ when he gets into office.
Keyword: when.
I hate to re-break this to you, but Hillary has a better chance in winning in Texas, than Ron has in winning the nomination.
Point: Ron Paul will not be the Repub candidate, for better or worse aside.
Originally posted by RobtardWell, yeah. And Hitler had better chances in Berlin than ...
I hate to re-break this to you, but Hillary has a better chance in winning in Texas, than Ron has in winning the nomination.Point: Ron Paul will not be the Repub candidate, for better or worse aside.
Well, you get the point.
Originally posted by Robtard
I hate to re-break this to you, but Hillary has a better chance in winning in Texas, than Ron has in winning the nomination.
Nonetheless, I think a lot of people will be surprised when primaries come around, then when the nomination time comes and finally the general elections. Ron Paul is literally the only candidate to grow in support. The other ones either go up or go down with their support. Ron Paul just grows and grows. His supporters are strong and willing to go the distance and I honest to God do not think Ron Paul will lose.
His supporters won't have it any other way haha.
From what I can gather. His supporters are hoping for the biggest snow storm to ever hit Iowa come voting night (what is that January 3rd?). They know that his supporters will come out in droves to vote for him and that if a snow storm hits, the few primary voters that do usually come out, probably won't. Not to mention, I think a big football game is playing that night.
If Ron Paul can place third (highly plausible) in Iowa, I think he is in good shape. Especially after he gets second or first in New Hampshire.