Disqus - Latest Comments for Richard Brodie

Re: Ron Paul vs. Mike Huckabee (this month)

Richard Brodie — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 03:06:17 -0000

will1782, "Radical Islam" is a bad synonym for "violent Islam." "Radical" and "root" have the same etymological derivation. "Radical" is an honorable concept. It just means "fundamental," as in "getting to the root of the problem." If you believe that violent jihadists have perverted Islam, then they have gotten away from the root teachings, and the "radical" Islamists are the peace-loving, tolerant ones.

There is a deliberate linguistic obfuscation going on here, which is being used to destroy our liberties. A wicked piece of thought control legislation has now passed in Congress, and it is entitled "Violent radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007." "Radical" and "violent" are being synonymized, so that a radical movement such as the Ron Paul Revolution, which seeks to identify the root causes of our national economic and foreign policy problems, can be branded as "terrorist facilitating", and those who (in the words of the bill) "adopt" such ideas (i.e. who choose to believe in them) can be accused of being terrorists just for entertaining thoughts.

You don't believe me? Read the God damned thing! The real Domestic "Tear"rorists are the 400+ members of Congress who voted "Yes" on this abominable bill. They are the ones who "Tear" up the Bill of Rights and do legislative Violence to the Constitution.

Re: Open letter to Dr. Ron Paul

Richard Brodie — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:16:04 -0000

I guess every revolution has its Judases and its Benedict Arnolds. This is obviously a hit piece by someone who admits to agreeing with almost nothing Ron Paul stands for, and can only string out a long list of disagreements. But his most fundamental disagreement is with Ron Paul's advocacy of the First Amendment, and specifically the part that talks about Congress (government) being neutral with regard to establishments of religion (belief systems.)

One's position on race is a matter of personal belief, and it spans the spectrum from those at one extreme who deny the very existence of race (race truthers), to those moderates who believe in a multiculturalist elimination of racial diversity through miscegenation (velvet genocide), to those other moderates, the race nationalists (white pride, black Nation of Islam pride, Chicano pride, etc.) who advocate for identity preservation by the avoidance of racial mixing (separatists), all the way to those at the other extreme who believe that one race should rule over other races (supremacists.) Ron Paul realizes that it is not the place of a President (or a presidential aspirant) to use his position to come out, as a representative of the government, in a non-neutral way either for or against any individual or group at any point along this or any other belief system spectrum, unless they exhibit violence against other individuals or groups thereby disrespecting their rights.

Rogel advocates that Ron Paul should ignore the Constitution and start yet another war in addition to the wars on drugs, on terror, on poverty, on illiteracy, etc., namely a war on racism.

Re: Open letter to Dr. Ron Paul

Richard Brodie — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:30:06 -0000

Rogel,

What alternative do you want for 2008? Your continuing to flog this dead horse reminds me of something Huckabee said to Ron Paul in one of the early debates. While trying to justify not leaving Iraq without "victory" even though we may have started the war for the wrong reasons, he said something to the effect that he would rather go down fighting than lose his honor by retreating. You seem to be content to have the "revolution" fail because Ron Paul might not pass one litmus test that you find so important.

I can understand, since you're Jewish, why you would be highly sensitive about race issues. But I also find it somewhat disingenuous (and bear with me here because I'm just one of your stupid goyim :) that you can be so condemnatory towards a White Nationalist like myself, who yearns to have a secure homeland for MY own race, when YOUR own race has been able to achieve such a goal for itself in the racially exclusive nation of Israel. Is it because this privilege of being able to live amongst one's own kind is reserved exclusively for God's chosen?

It has been observed that a Ron Paul rally is the one place you can see skinheads working alongside blacks for a common purpose (after the campaign is over, there will be plenty of time for us to get back to the serious business of hating each other :) Paul is the ultimate Uniter, because he holds forth the promise of a country where people of every conceivable kind of belief will enjoy the freedom of thought (to hold those beliefs), the freedom of speech (to publicly advocate those beliefs), and the freedom of association (to congregate with like-minded folks, in a segregated kind of a way :)

Paul would usher in an new era of harmony that comes with true diversity, by eliminating the resentments and hatreds that inevitably arise when different factions must, at a federal level, contend with each other in an all or nothing struggle to get a single agenda imposed (hopefully one's own) on the entire nation (e.g. segregation vs. integration). Instead of this ugly picture, a Paul Administration would allow for a variegated, multi-"colored", state by state smörgåsbord of preferences to develop that offers each individual the opportunity to find a congenial place were he can best realize his right to the pursuit of happiness.

Re: FOX Poll on Debate: Ron Paul Gets Second!

Richard Brodie — Fri, 18 May 2007 13:21:48 -0000

It's obvious he's really starting to rattle them. We all owe Giuliani a great big "Thank you" for the gift of untold hundred's of thousands of dollars worth of Media attention he donated to Mr. Paul's campaign with his little outburst in the Fox debate!

For your enjoyment here is a 2 minute campaign video that I just posted yesterday on YouTube:

RON PAUL is OUR PLAN

Re: FOX Poll on Debate: Ron Paul Gets Second!

Richard Brodie — Fri, 18 May 2007 14:04:00 -0000

With three-fourths of the American people sick of this futile Iraq debacle, none of the other nine war mongers stands a chance against Clinton. And if that Chinese Communist worshipping globalist [deleted] gets into the White House we can either kiss our country good-bye or there will need to be the kind of a revolution that doesn't have "love" spelled backwards in it.

Re: FOX Poll on Debate: Ron Paul Gets Second!

Richard Brodie — Sat, 19 May 2007 11:06:02 -0000

I don't think the PTB want Obama. They would prefer a mature cynical bittch like Hillary whose husband has already served them faithfully. They will install her as the Democratic candidate, if only to spare them possibly having to do a JFK number on Obama, an idealistic youngster who might, after coming to the realization of who really controls this world's destiny, might become sufficiently revolted and disgusted as to try and throw some wrench into their plans.

I am a fan of the only non-warmonger among her potential oppenents, Ron Paul, and I am a passionate hater of Hillary's Marxist program for the futher destruction of the The Constitution and its first Ten Amendments.

Re: Juvenile behind Obama assassination poll won’t face charges

Richard Brodie — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:59:38 -0000

Let's turn this poll around and ask:

Should Obama be allowed to make American senior citizens die early by cutting half a trillion dollars from Medicare?

__ Yes

__ No

Let's make the conservative assumption that Obama's attack on the elderly will cause the affected people to die an average of 6 months earlier. Since 44 million are now on Medicare, that's a total of 22 million years of life that will be destroyed. Assuming an average life span of 65 years, that is the equivalent of over 300,000 assassinations!

Obama is currently 48 years old. So let's make the generous assumption that he could be expected to live 22 more years, to the age of 70. The question then is: what should be causing us the most concern, one person losing 22 years of life, or all of our nation's seniors losing a million times that much?

So do you suppose that the U.S. Secret Service will be investigating this administration's senior genocide plot? I doubt it.

BTW, my answer to both of these polls is NO.

Re: Juvenile behind Obama assassination poll won’t face charges

Richard Brodie — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:04:03 -0000

Re: Obama Assassination Poll Rocks Facebook

Richard Brodie — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:06:03 -0000

Re: Obama Assassination Poll Rocks Facebook

Richard Brodie — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:20:36 -0000

Re: Juvenile behind Obama assassination poll won’t face charges

Richard Brodie — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:47:22 -0000

Notice that the Secret Service is careful to refer to the offending poll as "these kind of THINGS", not "these kind of THREATS."

Even they know that an interrogative cannot be a threat, only a declarative (or an exclamatory) can.

And not only can a statement ending with a question mark not be a threat, but neither can it be said to be an incitement.

No, it's not a crime just to THINK about killing someone. Let's say that you witness a guy beating up your child. Your first impulse might be to THINK "I'm gonna to kill that son of a bitch." Maybe you even say that out loud, so that there are witnesses to what your were THINKING. You will not be charged with any crime, however, if you do not FOLLOW THROUGH and ACT on your impulse.

A proper legal system will not attempt to punish people for what they think. This was so self-evident to the founders, that they didn't consider it necessary to include wording in the First Amendment to protect the Freedom of Thought.

I guess the assumed that all Americans would have at least a modicum of common sense. But then how could they have anticipated the emergence of that 20th century psychosis known as "progressivism."