REPUBLICANS ARE MORE ETHICAL THAN DEMOCRATS!

[Yssup Rider]

Banned ECCIE trolls will NOT prevail.

This forum is going quite well, don't you think guys?

I suggest Uncle Han gets the Wirly treatment and they both/he can rot on page two three for four.

[Yssup Rider]

Trolls will not prevail. DO NOT REPLY TO UNCLE HAN, WHIRLYTURD OR MARSHALL... LET THEM ROT!

[Seeker]

Just wasted 2 minutes of my life trying to read this shit

[CuteOldGuy]

The Obamatons can't defend this, but it is all too true.

[Yssup Rider]

Fuck you TROLL.

[CuteOldGuy]

I just hate it when you discredit yourself, Assup! Be proud of your accomplishments! You have so few of them. There is only one . . .

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013

ASSUP!!!
The Golem Fuck

[CuteOldGuy]

Obama is telling the truth, Uncle Han and Whirly. He doesn't want to tax all businesses out of business. He wants to regulate them all out of business, so they have to become pawns of the government if they want to stay open. It's called "fascism" or "crony capitalism".

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Uncle Han

...
The ‘smoke out’ theory
With no claim of responsibility, authorities have struggled to identify the goal of the attack.
Sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity, some with close ties to FBI investigators but not authorized to speak officially on the matter, said one major question is whether the attackers knew ahead of time the location of the CIA house, which was roughly a mile and a half away and which came under assault after the diplomatic compound.
One possibility is that an American armored car that fled from the diplomatic compound to the CIA house inadvertently led the attackers.
A more vexing prospect, one source said, is that the CIA house was the actual “end target” and the militants attacked the diplomatic post to “smoke out” the CIA location. That theory draws on a series of details divulged by senior State Department officials during an Oct. 9 background call with reporters.
During the call, one senior official explained how a “quick reaction security team” of “agents” had driven from the CIA house to the diplomatic post in an attempt to rescue Mr. Stevens and others.
After failing to find the ambassador in the smoke-filled compound, the agents piled back into their vehicle and drove back to the CIA house, facing heavy fire along the way.
Driving with two flat tires, the agents at one point careened the vehicle over “a grassy median and into opposing traffic,” the senior official said. They proceeded to weave “counterflow” through oncoming cars before making it back to the CIA house.
The vehicle’s action-packed course would have been highly visible to militants.
The source who outlined the “smoke out” theory said it was notable that the militants left Stevens‘ body behind at the burning diplomatic post. Had he been the end target, the militants surely would have gone back to make sure he was dead.
The attackers even could have seen Stevens the hour before the assault. According to one of the senior officials who spoke with reporters during that Oct. 9 briefing, the ambassador escorted a Turkish official with whom he had been meeting to an area “out in the street” beyond the external gate of the diplomatic post.
The source who laid out the “smoke out” theory said the militants could have been monitoring Stevens prior to the attack....

debka.com described this as the plan of attack I believe on Sept 13. The also had eyewitness accounts naming high ranking AQ leaders in Egypt at the US Embassy attack.

BTW, has the FBI even made it to Benghazi yet?

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

No no you silly guys. Obama doesn't want to tax or regulate all businesses out of business. Only those businesses who have nothing valuable to contribute to Big Brother's spy network.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by CJ7

I know how to post under two different names without the mods knowing, but I don't

the mods prolly know you two are the same asshole, but cant do anything about it... other than get tired of your dishonesty and hamstring your sorry ass, youre pretty much safe ... but you know that eh?

It's possible that I might know more than I let on, eh?

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Naw...Im pretty sure that the ECCIE gods are playing us ALL for idiots.

Whirlyturd continues to be the officially elected DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR and Uncle Hanjob is a reincarnation of a worthless piece of shit previously deemed unworthy to sully this board.

Great fun!

You mouth breathers all SUCK!

It IS fun!

[JD Barleycorn]

@jbravo: I agree that the KKK has a code but I would hard pressed to call it ethical. It doesn't pass the smell test. Their code can't stand up to scrutiny of a philosophical sort either. I also have to point out that the KKK has been a suborgan of the democratic party and not the GOP or conservatives. So I guess you want to bring them up just to try to support your implied claim that conservatives are racist...or am I wrong? Willing to admit you made a mistake now? Of course Occupy is very anti-semitic and very liberal. You might go there next time.
homosexuals have the same exact rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. They can marry anyone they want as long is it someone of the opposite sex and not a relative within one degree of separation (two in some states). They want different and special rights based on their personal sexual proclivities.
As for rules; you mean like limiting soft drink sizes? or maybe transfats? How about table salt? or gunownership? or magazine ownership? (and that is just New York City) Want to tell me a law written by and passed by conservatives that limited anyone's rights? I'll wait.......................... .............................. ..................
the military is not really a part of government, it is a hybrid beast. It takes it orders from a civilian government and the civilian government makes the rules the military operates under but it sure isn't like any part of government that I've ever seen. What happened to the military is under great stress? Won't it make sense to expand the military to relieve that stress?

The kind of people who become conservatives are believers in the rules (and that includes the Constitution) and liberals don't want rules to get in the way of what they want.

[CJ7]

It's possible that I might know more than I let on, eh?

possible is miniscule compared to peoples knowledge with a key to the file cabinet.... no need to let on

snick

I developed/owned/ sold 3 websites .. I know what goes on in the office

[Uncle Han]

The Obama Scandals and the Limbaugh Theorem

By Steve McCann


Virtually all the scandals erupting around the Obama regime involve the loss of individual freedom and the rapid evolution of an oppressive central government. These ongoing revelations eerily mirror the history of repressive nations such as Germany, Italy and Russia during the past century. Nonetheless, per the public opinion polls and the lack of enthusiasm by the mainstream media to cover these scandals, Barack Obama remains above the fray and is not directly linked or blamed for any of these debacles -- even something as egregious as the NSA and domestic surveillance of all Americans.

Over the past few months, Rush Limbaugh has posited what he calls the "Limbaugh Theorem." Essentially he contends that Barack Obama, as part of a calculated and permanent campaign strategy, maintains, with the help of a sycophantic media, high approval ratings despite the unpopularity of his policies. The core of this strategy is for Obama to remain above politics and not be identified with any of the policy failures or scandals surrounding his administration by blaming others for all that has gone wrong, as he is a dedicated "outsider "doing all he can to solve problems; but first he must slay those purveyors of evil rampant throughout the land: Republicans and conservatives.

The Limbaugh Theorem is spot on. However, the Obama tactics have been successful only because of the confluence of three factors that came together at a right moment in American history.

The first is the long-term and intentional dumbing down of the American people. The second, the incarnation of a celebrity culture as a byproduct of the ill-education of the citizenry as well as the concurrent decline of morality and denigration of religion. The third is this nation's unhealthy obsession with race.

The Viet Nam war protests of the 1960's unleashed far more than just a demand for an end to the war. Those that blamed America for all manner of alleged sins in the past and determined to transform the United States into a socialist/Marxist nirvana were able to step out from behind the shadows and enter the mainstream of national legitimacy. This swarm of locusts soon enveloped the higher levels of Academia spawning countless clones to further infiltrate all strata of the education establishment including primary and secondary institutions.

The curriculum throughout all levels of sch.poooling was gradually but inexorably altered to reflect the American left's mindset, not only about the nation, but also their determination to undermine basic societal moral and religious underpinning as a necessary step in assuring the populace would look to government as their savior. While the bulk of the populace slept content and mesmerized by the country's overwhelming prosperity, this process, underway for nearly two generations, has eventuated in creating a massive class of low-information voters unconcerned about the nation's future and susceptible to all manner of lies and propaganda from unscrupulous politicians such as Barack Obama, who will do or say anything to win an election.

Among the consequences of the successful undermining of societal mores and an ill-educated citizenry is the creation of a pervasive celebrity culture. As the concepts of God and individual self-determination were increasingly denigrated and cast aside, the populace began to look elsewhere for so-called role models and guidance. The obvious choice: those that entertain a vast number of people and are adept, through the vehicle of the media, at being constantly in the nation's living rooms, sports venues, movie theatres, magazines and the internet.

While it is difficult for any national politician to achieve overwhelming celebrity status, Barack Obama made that goal his primary campaign objective. Once he achieved that end, his checkered past and his record or philosophical bent became immaterial. Combining that achievement with his African descent, he has been anointed as the national celebrity-in-chief. Barack Obama is therefore above mere mortals to a majority of the gullible.

One of the aspects of American life that those of us who immigrated to the United States from other nations find confounding is the ongoing national obsession with race. Particularly as America has made enormous strides in equality since I first set foot in this country in the early 1950's. In August of 1963, as college student in Washington D.C., I was one of nearly 200,000 people at the Lincoln Memorial to hear Martin Luther King deliver his "I Have a Dream Speech." (Thereafter I became active in the civil rights movement.)

What those in the movement strived to achieve was the end of institutional racism, knowing that in time, the attitudes of the people would change. For the most part, this has been achieved within less than forty years -- a truly remarkable accomplishment in such a short period of time as compared to the history of other nations. Those of us of all races, some of whom gave their lives, were determined to rid this great country of its original sin. It was not to give others the opportunity to exploit race as a means to their devious ends, either monetary or political.

Barack Obama has both cunningly and egregiously played the so-called "race card" whenever it suits his agenda. He is reliant on so-called "white guilt" to stifle criticism or dissent, knowing that the overwhelming majority of Americans are too cowed to call him out on his actions or to be honest with pollsters or each other. Barack Obama wields no greater weapon over the people and the media than his skin color. and as such far too many are intimidated, which allows him to successfully avoid responsibility and accountability.

Thus Barack Obama reveals his abject lack of character by his dependence on manipulating an ill-educated population obsessed with celebrity, and on a society foolishly intimidated by race -- in order to foist his radical and unwanted agenda on the country by any means possible and aggregate more power to the government. He has shown himself to be the most dangerous, dishonest and narcissistic president in the history of the United States.

The scandals currently buffeting the Obama administration should not be a surprise, as Barack Obama and his minions have been emboldened to either break the law or do as they wish regardless of the Constitution or Congress. He and his cronies know full well that they will not be held to account as they go about their stealth conquest of America. There will be more revelations of wrongdoing and more scandals over the next three years, but will the bulk of the American people understand their role in empowering this President and finally hold him to account before it is too late?

[Uncle Han]

Rise in Female Breadwinners Means America Is a Loser

By Selwyn Duke


When women start doing what men have traditionally done, yours is a civilization of the setting sun. This is brought to mind when pondering a recent Pew Research Center study showing that women are now the primary or sole breadwinners in 40 percent of American households. You may have heard the story -- it created quite a stir on Fox News, with Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly (who became quite hysterical) taking exception to male colleagues' warnings about the development's sociological implications. But if these two ladies, and the other critics, had reacted rationally and not emotionally, they would realize what is obvious:

The rise in female breadwinners is a sign of a civilization in decline.

Let's start by first examining the study. While the term "breadwinner" conjures up images of pleasingly plump paychecks, the real story here is the rise of poor single mothers. Among the 40 percent of women in the breadwinner group, 63 percent are single mothers. This isn't surprising, since the rate of single motherhood has risen from about 4 percent in the 1940s to 41 percent today (72 percent in the black community). So what kind of "bread" are we talking about? Writes Amy Langfield of CNBC, "The median income for a single mother who has never been married was $17,400 as of 2011." And, obviously, having large numbers of single mothers, with essentially fatherless children, struggling to make ends meet isn't good for the women, the children, or the society as a whole.

The picture looks better for the married 37 percent of the breadwinner group, but only by comparison. Twenty-nine percent of these women's husbands are unemployed. Moreover, Pew describes these women as older, college-educated, and white. Translation: they're the one-child wonders. These are often women who postpone childbirth in deference to careerism and then, perhaps after dropping a tidy sum at a fertility clinic, have their sole son or daughter. Why does this warrant mention? Because as the documentary Demographic Winter points out, this phenomenon is a significant contributing factor to the plummeting birth rates among Western peoples. Outside New Zealand, there isn't one major European-descent group with a replacement-level birth rate. And for all you secular-feminist chauvinists so proud of your cultural hegemony, what do you think happens to values that cause people to erase themselves?

So why can't the Megyn Kellys of the world perceive the rise in female breadwinners as the warning sign it is? Because their feminist dogma teaches that any female "gain" relative to men is positive, and any criticism of it is blind male chauvinism. These are the people who cheer girls' "better" performance in schools even though this is largely attributable to boys' worsening performance (and improved female test scores aren't relevant, because the exams, like the boys, have been dumbed down). It's a mindset that would consider it a good thing if women won every future marathon because men either lost their legs or stopped running.

And that is the point. If a warring nation must move a few divisions from the southern front to shore up the northern, it isn't a victory for those divisions; it means the war effort is waning. And if the divisions' generals view it as a personal victory because they'll have the opportunity to distinguish themselves, they're self-centered and ignorant.

Likewise, it was a sign of crisis when women had to assume men's roles in the factories during WWII, but the idea was that the crisis would end and normalcy resume. But today we are in perpetual war -- culture war -- in a never-ending crisis in which we fight ourselves and confuse losses with gains. No, the intersex wage gap isn't a bad thing, and it isn't good when it starts to close. The size of that gap correlates with the health of the nuclear family; the larger it is, the greater men's ability to support their families and women's opportunity to stay at home with the children. No, it isn't good when girls outshine boys in school, as this reflects a society of undisciplined lads and a hostile yet permissive, feminist-oriented academia.

And, no, it isn't good when you destroy patriarchy. Why? G.K. Chesterton put it best when he wrote, "What is called matriarchy is simply moral anarchy, in which the mother alone remains fixed because all the fathers are fugitive and irresponsible." If you want matriarchy, just go into the black community. Women rule the roost there, but they reign in a hell born of degraded morals and family breakdown. There has never been a successful matriarchy -- the notion of a matriarchal prehistory is a myth -- and there never will be.

This is why, ultimately, the feminist model is destined for the dustbin of history. The only system that ensures the perpetuation of civilization (replacement-level birth rates) is patriarchy; the only system that compels women and men to fulfill their responsibilities to hearth and home is patriarchy. And this is why, barring the end of man or a dystopian future in which children are lab-created assembly-line style to be the collective's drones, patriarchy is inevitable.

There is no substitute for tradition. The Soviets learned this the hard way, for after undermining the family, sex roles, and religion, mass murderer Joseph Stalin actually outlawed abortion in a vain attempt to combat a bottomed-out birth rate. But today Russia's population is still declining by 700,000 per year -- the wages of their statist sin.

When a people would be invaded or conquered years ago, the men and boys above a certain age would sometimes be killed. Emasculate a society, and it's no longer a force to be reckoned with. But we have emasculated ourselves, killing off manhood by neutering men emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. This won't end well, but for sure it will end. Because the feminist band can play on, but the rising water will soon drown out their music -- for good.

[Uncle Han]

Big Government Can't Fix Immorality

By Trevor Thomas


We see it time and again. Whether the problem is poverty, bad schools, gun violence, crime in general, or even the spread of disease, the liberal answer is always the same: more government. The recent gun debate raging in America illustrates this well.

After the wickedness at Newtown, true to their "never let a crisis go to waste" mantra, Obama and his subordinates all across the U.S. have engaged in a full-on press to enact significant gun control legislation. This continues in spite of the Senate's defeat of a bill in mid-April that would have increased background checks and banned certain "assault" weapons.

For President Obama, this allows him to carry on his never-ending campaign and give more speeches on the matter. Whether speaking in Mexico (where his administration is responsible for placing thousands of untraceable weapons in the hands of criminals) or before police officers, Obama has vowed to keep fighting for gun control.

On June 5 of this year, USA Today highlighted "the plague of inner-city gun violence." Much of the focus of the piece is on 20-year-old Anderson Baker -- a former gang-banger from Camden, New Jersey who (rightly) scoffs at the idea that gun control measures such as banning "assault" rifles and large gun magazines and increasing background checks would stem the tide of gun violence that is rampant in America's urban culture.

By his late teens, Baker had been involved in dozens of shootings. The tough gun laws in New Jersey -- in 2011, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ranked N.J.'s gun laws the second toughest in the country -- never once hindered Baker in securing his weapon of choice.

"I wanted to shoot people because that's what I saw growing up," said Baker who "grew up" without a father and whose mother had the first of her four children at age 13. The USA Today article reveals that Camden city officials also have little hope that more gun laws, such as those proposed by Obama, are the answer. Instead, Camden officials are clamoring for "a holistic solution that gets to the heart of why people such as Baker turn to violence in the first place."

As is so typical with today's liberal media and liberal politicians, and in spite of the plain evidence staring them in the face, there was not one mention of the breakdown of the family being at the root of what really plagues urban America. Instead, USA Today notes that Camden lawmakers "almost to a person" were focused on "a failing education system, a dearth of jobs and a street culture that rewards and even encourages criminal behavior."

They left out poverty, lack of health care, and George W. Bush. Of course, the reason why such things are given focus is that they beg for a political solution. When confronted with the countless cultural tribulations that result from the millions of Americans who are living without a mother and father at home, almost any solution that can get people to the ballot box is preferred.

Another critical point: do you notice the often circular nature of the liberal arguments? It can go something like this: violence is the result of poverty; poverty is the result of a lack of education; kids don't go to school because the schools are too violent. It's dizzyingly maddening!

Now some might be wondering: with all of the conservative efforts when it comes to the "social issues," are not conservatives also using politics as a means to a moral end? "Legislating morality" is often the accusation.

Conservative efforts are both the same and different. First of all, as I have noted many times, all law is rooted in some morality. Second, it is one thing to attempt legislation that encourages liberty, individual responsibility, and limited government while being true to God's Word; it is quite another to support legislation that promotes servitude and dependence and massively grows government -- to the tune of trillions of dollars -- and that is driven by whatever morality seems to be most popular at the time.

When dealing with the immorality that is destroying our nation, good government must recognize what it takes truly to change bad behavior -- something that "gets to the heart" of individuals, to quote the officials in Camden -- and, at best, partner with such efforts, or at least do nothing to hinder them.

In other words, we can't have a government that encourages sexual immorality, be it through taxpayer-funded abortions, promiscuous sexual education, or the promotion of homosexuality, and then wants to pay for the consequences of such immorality with billions in taxpayer-funded welfare. We can't have a government that seeks to cure poverty or violence with a godless secular education system. We can't have a government, as Grover Cleveland put it, that "encourages the expectation of paternal care" while weakening "the sturdiness of our national character."

In other words, we don't need a government that thinks that it can, through mere secular means, cure all that ails our culture. We need a government (of course, that means elected officials) that understands that truly to change someone, truly to change behavior, requires getting to the heart of individuals. And of course, this requires spiritual efforts, and we all know where that leads.