lol

I know You're for Obama; and I wouldn't try to convince You that anyone else is better suited..... I Hope He can beat out ol' John.

Love,

tesla

--- On Sun, 6/1/08, Jimi Photon <phatjbp@...> wrote:

From: Jimi Photon <phatjbp@...>
Subject: Re: [CPOP] Re: [reality101_redux] The Truth About Ron Paul
To: cp3@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, June 1, 2008, 1:36 PM

obama for me, tes....been since  the beginning.
fuck mccain.
;)
suck this.
;)
love
jimi

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Angus & tesla <kynd_north_indy_ couple@yahoo. com> wrote:

i have repeatedly asked...ok.. .IF he doesn;t get in, WHO WILL YOU VOTE FOR THEN????? I might go with mccain. suck it america Love, tesla --- On Thu, 1/31/08, Jimi Photon <phatjbp@gmail. com> wrote: From: Jimi Photon <phatjbp@gmail. com> Subject: [CPOP] Re: [reality101_ redux] The Truth About Ron Paul To: "mandala golem" <eyeammg@yahoo. com> Cc: phatjbp@aol. com Date: Thursday, January 31, 2008, 10:56 AM i am not a ron paul supporter. i find it hard to support a man that claimed he would not turn his back on the republican party, obviously he agrees with their ideals enough where to me he is a non-entity.. ..as the current republican ideology is the ENEMY. period. not that any of the damned democrats are better. they aren;t. i don;t feel a single one is worthy of election, but prosecution may do. i disagree with some of the original post myself, but think folks need to think...and i'm not seeing anywhere near as much thought on this issue as i would expect, rather, a flood of 25-200 emails daily espousing ron paul this, ron paul that... i don;t believe he has a snowball's chance in hell of election precisely for all the reasons his supporters love him. the rest of the establishment (largely republican) would never let the man do as he has proposed, and i know despite egos and hurt feelings and frustrations, most realize this as well. we will, as usual, be presented with a choice between two pre-ordained fascists... hillary is a given, the repug choice>? does it matter?? i cannot in good conscience vote for any of the republican candidates, as their ideology is an affront and an abomination to existence. paul stated clearly on CNN that he would not run independant, even if he garnered enough support to do so. further, he told the talking head on the idiot box interviewing him that he would NOT TURN HIS BACK ON HIS PARTY OF TEN YEARS. if he will not turn his back on them, that implies he agrees with and supports them. to do so, even if occultly, he must support their ideology, which tells me quite clearly we are being hised, and most likely his run for the white house, if not to profit from (as i and others have postulated) it is to draw power from other potential candidates, and to make the idea of voting republican far more palatable. were he to drop the republican party? the support and admiration i once had for the man would likely return. but i can have no faith in one that tows his party line, and once in office i don;t trust him. period. not that i trust ANY professional career politician. i agree also som eof the shit in ed and liz' post was rather outlandish, but they did raise some interesting questions. never one to censor, i sent it on, hoping to provoke some thought...which in the case of this email to which i reply, finally happened from someone i knew to be able to speak eloquently on the subject, and from a rare viewpoint of honesty and integrity (yah, i mean you, Nathan...lol) but ultimately, this may as well be american idol, or the feckin' superbowl... . it's a media circus, revolves around cults of personality, and is defined by a system proven to be broken and fraudulant. voter fraud isn;t the issue, VOTE fraud, however, clearly IS an issue of incredible relevance. it would seem the outcome is nothing but a sham, regardless of the voting of the people of this once great nation. one thing that particularly pissed me off was being informed people were registering as republican "just for one day" to vote for paul in the primarys in statesd that are locked. this is fucking ludicrous, all it does is falsely exagerate the man's popularity, as even tho he appears to have gained far more of a percentage of voters, the truth is in the actual election when these folks actually vote for him (were it to reach that point) he would have even LESS votes to tally, as the folks who changed political affiliation are gonna still be the only ones who vote for him...it's not like there will magically be more. seems to me a play straight from the dubya electoral process playbook. i disagree with the man on several key issues, but that is irrelevant. i once supported the man on the reccomendation of mny peers in the internet community, until i took the time to research and step back and watch; only to realize that the fundamental differences in our ideologies made him a poor choce for me personally. i wonder still how many others have had their minds implanted on the matter by peer pressure. i decided it was time to question authority on the matter, and noticed immediately folks would either try and speak for Paul, often wrongly, avoid whater issue or question i brought up, or do the more predictable psycho cheerleader on purple koolaid responses of either " RONPAULRONPAULRONPA UL!!!!".. .or the more insulting variety, used in condescension by folks who obviously don;t have the faith and hope they claim to, and hide this insecurity with affected aires of moral and or mental superiority. all over something unlikely to reach fruition. i have repeatedly asked...ok.. .IF he doesn;t get in, WHO WILL YOU VOTE FOR THEN????? no answers....( cue arid ghost town soundbyte) many who are supporting paul now are former dubya supporters, feeling guilt over their previous excercise in poor choice... it is a pretty sad situation.. anyways.. enough of my commentary bro... on to your well thought out and truthful honest RESEARCHED opinion.... you Ron Paul folks will love the following, something you do NOT expect to come from my keyboard... however, in the interest of fairnes, and because a man i consider my brother asked me to post this to the original recievers, i am posting this away to all who may read it. b3e informed.... make your own decisions... and remember, a fecking turnip may well indeed be the best damn choice we have, next to a radish for pResinhit. namaste jimi ps...i do not necessarilly agree with al of nathan's comments, either... but i respect and support his right to speak his mind on the subject freely, and will hold no malice over differing ideologies or viewpoints.. . On 1/27/08, mandala golem <eyeammg@yahoo. com> wrote: > > This is either one of the worst researched or worst presented loads of > internet spam bullshit to emerge from the 2008 election. It reminds of that > email spammed across the net saying Obama is a radical Muslim political > plant who keeps his hand from covering his heart while refusing to say the > pledge of allegiance. I don't like Obama as a candidate but I definitely > replied to the sender to let them know they were passing along some > repugnant bullshit. > > A big problem with this Ron Paul spam, and I'm not an ardent RP supporter, > is that no links are provided concerning the legislation. That is horrible > form in my opinion. Now Liz Delong does instruct the reader to check this > stuff out at the very end of the post. I started checking it out as soon as > she started citing legislation with no links. > > There's so much fluff blah blah sensationalist bullshit in this spam that > it negates any real meaning the author may have intended. > > Here goes: > > Delong says RP is anti-war candidate. I guess it's implied that he presents > himself as such...or maybe this is just in Delong's head. I've never heard > RP say he is anti-war, as in "I oppose all wars". > > From RP website: > http://www.ronpaul2 008.com/issues/ war-and-foreign- policy/ > > The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more > dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our > direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for > them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of > seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new > leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again. > > > Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in > the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We > are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, > there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women. > > > We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the > globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No > war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the > Congress, as required by the Constitution. > > > Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of > a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United > Nations. > > > Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments > that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported > those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the > Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and > trained them, and now we're paying the price. > > > At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the > American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for > it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, > travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. > --end excerpt-- > > > So right out of the gate Delong is just spouting nonsense that is supposed > to support much of her RP bashing. > > > "Well, Ron Paul is no different then the rest of the lyin', > rotten,murderous, cheatin', dirty, rotten rat bastards. He is contradictory > in every sense of the word and while he may have voted against the war, it > was only because he believes that congress should declare war and not the > president. Even still, his main offense with the continued war is not the > blood and the guts of over a million innocent people, splattered all over > the bomb ridden streets in Iraq - it's the goddamned cost of it all. His > claims of being anti-war are false. Voting against something does not make > one anti- anything." > --Delong-- > > > So to break it down for Delong quoting straight from RP's site - RP's > stated reasons for opposing the war in Iraq (not every war as in anti-war) > in order: > > 1. The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. > 2. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. (not > humanitarian enough for Delong?) > 3. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and > created thousands of new recruits for them. > 4. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously > wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. > --end excerpt-- > > So it seems RP's "main offense" with the Iraq war is that the American > people were lied to in order to sell the war. Where is Delong's "main > offense"..." the goddamned cost of it all"? It's number four...the money > being listed after American lives and last of all his reasons. Should we > really pay any attention to Delong after this gross misrepresentation? She > tells us not to focus on what he says yet she tries to throw it in there > anyway and seriously distorts it. The facts are right here and hard to argue > against sans the bullshit sensationalism. > > And you have to love this one: "Voting against something does not make one > anti- anything."Her attempt to negate RP's vote against the Iraq war is > painfully amateur at best. Again, RP has not stated he is anti-war but he > has clearly stated and acted against the Iraq war by voting against it > making him anti Iraq war. That shouldn't be difficult to wrap your head > around. > > And I have to wonder what Delong has against the Constitutional requirement > for Congress to declare war and not the President... does that not imply all > wars being checked against the integrity of many as opposed to one > Authoritarian figurehead? One can easily conclude that Delong is either > confused in her stance on certain issues or that she is simply being > sensational with certain claims in hopes to bury RP's character. > > Okay, so now on to the legislation. Delong doesn't specify what year the > cited bills were introduced. Type in the bill number to Google and the top > search responses are for 2007. So put HR2511 in the search engine and your > first choice brings up a bill not introduced by RP and of a different > nature. So dig some more, maybe add Ron Paul to the search criteria, and you > get RP's site > info concerning the bill: > > http://www.ronpaulf orcongress. com/html/ veterans. html > > "On May 19, 2005, Congressman Ron Paul introduced legislation designed to > postpone military base closures here in the United States, HR 2511. > Similar legislation > was introduced by U.S. Senator John Thune (R - South Dakota). One of the > conditions of the legislation was that military cuts could not occur until > after U.S. troops in Iraq were back in the United States. Upon introducing > the bill, Congressman Paul said, "We should not be talking about shutting > down military bases here in Texas and across the U.S. while we are building > bases and fighting wars overseas. We should not be shutting down domestic > bases that provide critical support for our troops who are fighting in > places like Iraq and Afghanistan" > > --end excerpt-- > > > And the text of HR2511: > http://www.govtrack .us/congress/ billtext. xpd?bill= h109-2511 > > To postpone the 2005 round of defense base closure and realignment until > the completion of certain specified activities by the Secretary of Defense > and the Secretary of Homeland Security. > --end excerpt-- > > > "Obviously, he thinks both the Secretary of Defense and Homeland > Security have things they need to do before this previously sponsored > and passed legislation by one of his colleagues can actually be forced." > --Delong on HR2511 109th Congress-- > > This is from Sec 2915 contained in the text link I provided above: > > `(b) Actions Required Before Base Closure Round- (1) The actions referred > to in subsection (a) are the following actions: > `(A) The complete analysis, consideration, and, where appropriate, > implementation by the Secretary of Defense of the recommendations of the > Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United > States. > > > `(B) The return from deployment in the Iraq theater of operations of > substantially all (as determined by the Secretary of Defense) major combat > units and assets of the Armed Forces. > > > `(C) The receipt by the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the > House of Representatives of the report on the quadrennial defense review > required to be submitted in 2006 by the Secretary of Defense under section > 118(d) of title 10, United States Code. > > > `(D) The complete development and implementation by the Secretary of Defense > and the Secretary of Homeland Security of the National Maritime Security > Strategy. > > > `(E) The complete development and implementation by the Secretary of Defense > of the Homeland Defense and Civil Support directive. > > > `(F) The receipt by the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the > House of Representatives of a report submitted by the Secretary of Defense > that assesses military installation needs taking into account-- > > > `(i) relevant factors identified through the recommendations of the > Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United > States; > > > `(ii) the return of the major combat units and assets described in > subparagraph (B); > > > `(iii) relevant factors identified in the report on the 2005 quadrennial > defense review; > > > `(iv) the National Maritime Security Strategy; and > > > `(v) the Homeland Defense and Civil Support directive. > > > --end excerpt-- > > Why didn't Delong offer these points from the text if she read it? And why > didn't she provide links? Because she has invented this RP anti-war stance > in her head and decided to spam it across the internet. She has to defend it > and it's much easier to do that by not presenting the whole story. > > Seriously, what's wrong with keeping military bases operational in the US? > Requiring the return from deployment in the Iraq theater of operations of > substantially all (as determined by the Secretary of Defense) major combat > units and assets of the Armed Forces? > > Oh that's right...it's not "anti-war". This kind of crap insults the > intelligence of everyone this was sent to. > > Other bullshit flowing from Delong's keyboard: > > "Please note that Ron Paul has been offered money by the White Supremacy > special interest group and although he denied the contribution (no one > is claiming that he is stupid - they are claiming that he is a racist) one > still has to wonder what potential a special interest group like that > saw in a man like Ron Paul...but I bet we can easily discern what that > might be." > --Delong-- > > The white supremacy special interest group that donated $500 to RP's > campaign is Stormfront. > > http://blogs. usatoday. com/onpolitics/ 2007/12/ron- paul-will- u.html > Ron Paul will use white supremacist' s $500 to spread 'message of freedom' > By keeping a white supremacist' s $500 contribution, Republican > presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul will be taking that money away from > someone with "small ideologies" and using it to "spread the message of > freedom," Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton tells the Associated Press. > > > If supremacist Don Black thinks he can influence Paul, "he's wasted his > money," Benton adds. > > > The story of Black's donation has been around for a while now -- > LoneStarTimes. com broke the news Oct. 25. Today's AP story, though, > underscores again the unorthodox nature of the Paul campaign since it's safe > to say most other politicians would have returned the $500. > --end excerpt-- > > > So he denied the donation? Again, Delong is full of BS on this one. > > "H.R. 1009 - > Whooopie - he wants to redefine marijuana so it doesn't include > "industrial hemp" - That is HARDLY a war on drugs since hemp doesn't > even > get you high! Thank God I didn't hang out with him in highschool! it > would have been NO FUN!" > --Delong-- > > Is she seriously suggesting this is a negative bill from RP? Seriously > inferring that RP would have been smoking industrial hemp in high school > instead of pot? Seriously exposing her absolute ignorance on the difference > between the two plants? Fucking hell this is horribly weak. > > > Text of HR 1009 110th Congress: > http://www.govtrack .us/congress/ billtext. xpd?bill= h110-1009 > > > I'll say it right now, I don't think pot should be illegal. It's complete > nonsense that it is. But complain that RP has introduced a bill that would > strip the DEA of the power to criminalize industrial hemp?! Which is not a > drug in any sense of the term?! And allow states to decide if farmers can > grow industrial hemp?! > > > Do you realize that California legislators have passed industrial hemp > bills that would allow farmers to grow it only to have Gov. Schwarzenegger > veto them citing federal law as the reason? > http://www.enn. com/agriculture/ article/23874 > > > So Delong can tell her dumbass joke to all the farmers who got screwed on > this because if a bill like the one RP introduced had actually been passed > and signed into law Schwarzenegger would not have been able to say no due to > federal law. > > Fuck you Liz Delong. > > > Well, Delong has lost all credibility by spouting such ignorant bullshit. > It doesn't matter that it was about RP. Don't vote for him if you don't want > to. She is just full of bullshit and I call her on it. > > > There is no reason to invest a grain of belief in her sensational > arguments. But I'll go ahead a drive a nail. > > > "H.R.1545 : > To prohibit Federal officials from paying any Federal funds to any > individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions. > So any doctor which choses to save a woman's life - which is the only > time late term abortions are performed by the way - otherwise they are > illegal - is if the mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy - > they get punished for being a life saver." > --Delong-- > > Text of HR1545 108th Congress: > http://www.govtrack .us/congress/ billtext. xpd?bill= h108-1545 > > Here is the definition of partial-birth abortion offered by the bill: > > 4 (b) DEFINITION.- -The term ``partial-birth abortion'' > 5 means an abortion in which-- > 6 (1) the person performing the abortion delib- > 7 erately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living > 8 fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, > 9 the entire fetal head is outside the body of the moth- > 10 er, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part > 11 of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body > 12 of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt > 13 act that the person knows will kill the partially deliv- > 14 ered living fetus; and > 15 (2) performs the overt act, other than comple- > 16 tion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered liv- > 17 ing fetus. > --end excerpt-- > > Here again Delong is proved wrong with ease. No Liz, not just "any doctor > who chooses to save a woman's life". > > Partial birth abortions are only performed to save a woman's life? > > http://www.priestsf orlife.org/ partialbirth. html > > In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a > Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally > claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA > News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a > personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that > "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a > medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He > admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for > this procedure. > > There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this > country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to > preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing > Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony). > --end excerpt-- > > I personally agree with a woman's right to choose up to a certain point, > especially when the act can so obviously be identified with murder. Why > should abortion doctors get federal money anyway? I guess if you like > socialist nazi abortion then federally funded is a good thing. > http://www.lifesite .net/ldn/ 2007/sep/ 07090708. html > > > > "H.J. Res 46: > Proposing to amend the constitution of the United States. This amendment > would > deny citizenship to any persons born in the United States whose parents were > not > citizens themselves." > --Delong-- > > Text of HJ Res 46 110th Congress: > http://www.govtrack .us/congress/ billtext. xpd?bill= hj110-46 > > > Section 1. Any person born after the date of the ratification of this > article to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United > States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, > shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason > of birth in the United States. > --end excerpt-- > > > > > This doesn't stop them from trying the lawful route of application for > citizenship. It only denies citizenship "solely by reason of birth", which > if both parents are not citizens makes sense. > > > Delong hasn't given us any reason to belief this load of bullshit. Do your > homework on internet spam crap because it's often nothing more than that. > > Jimi, in my opinion you are obligated to send this to everyone you sent the > original email to. Hopefully people will learn a lesson here and do some > homework. Again, I don't care who you vote for or if you don't vote for > anybody (certainly not a bad option with the group of ass clowns we have to > choose from). > > Hell, I don't even think RP can win it but not because of his political > views and certainly not because of some internet spam bullshit. Follow the > money people. Clinton is already in and that's not a good thing...she has > the backing of the defense industry...even Rupert Murdoch has organized a > fund raiser for her in the past. > http://www.huffingt onpost.com/ 2007/10/17/ defense-industry -embraces_ n_68927.html > http://www.cbsnews. com/stories/ 2006/05/09/ politics/ main1600694. shtml > > And I'll say it again, fuck you Liz Delong. Clean up your act concerning > this type of journalistic ambition or you will never be taken seriously > again. Don't quit your day job in pursuit of this shit unless being a > bullshit artist is your desired occupation. > > Nathan > > ------------ --------- --------- --- > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it > now. -- "Are these the people that we should bomb Are we so sure they mean us harm Is this our pleasure, punishment or crime Is this a mountain that we really want to climb The road is hard, hard and long Put down that two by four This man would never turn you from his door Oh George! Oh George! That Texas education must have fucked you up when you were very small" Roger Waters IMHO YAHOO SUCKS A__!!!! =)

--
~it's pray for,not prey on~
PLEASE VOTE FOR RON PAUL, WE NEEDJOHN MCCAIN TO FULFILL DUBYA'S
VISION FOR THE NEXT 4-8 YEARS!!
BESIDES, IT'S EASIER THAN RECOGNIZING REALITY.....

daily mantra:
hey hey , NSA, KMA

"Are these the people that we should bomb
Are we so sure they mean us harm
Is this our pleasure, punishment or crime
Is this a mountain that we really want to climb
The road is hard, hard and long
Put down that two by four
This man would never turn you from his door
Oh George! Oh George!
That Texas education must have fucked you up when you were very small"
Roger Waters

IMHO YAHOO SUCKS A__!!!!
=)

(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste this into
(")_(") your signature to Help Bunny Gain World Domination.