Words vs. Actions: Presidential Hypocrasy

Seems to me that's four things we can all agree on, assuming my math is correct.

 

We don’t have capitalism; that is the problem. Markets are not free and open, we have monopolies in several sectors, regulations stifle completion and we are left with winner take all capitalism.

 

They are now calling themselves "Xe" (pronounced zee) as is Vfourbear's foil hats are zee ultimate defense against our mind probes.

Honestly dont know, they wont stop eating long enough to do anything. They did ask if I had your phone number though, maybe they think there's food at your house.

Hadnt thought about that .......creative little minds here.

Btw, the total hijacking of this thread is nearly complete, more cheesecake photos should just about do it.

 

Outstanding Tink.......

Who the hell keeps asking me who John Galt is? Is that you Ayn?

 

I'm more concerned with direction our Country/people/government/etc. is going. right now there are 3 Navy Seals on trial for doing their job(as far as I'm concerned they're on the front line, how they choose the act is their choice. If someone doesn't like it take their place). Most of Europe is being taken over by Jihad's and the regular Moslems who just follow the flow(which is where I'm seeing this Country going, if it's not changed)... The only countries that seem to be trying to control this problem is Italy, and Israel.And of course Australia. They are going to use our P-Correctness against us, that's what's going though Europe now.

As for as our government they'd like nothing better than to conrol us, with the exception of some that really care about our freedoms Re;McCain.... I could care less about the party's.... It's what each elected poser is going to do, not say.

ARABS AND AZTECS
Behind The Lines
Dr. Jack Wheeler
Friday, April 30, 2004

Cortez and his Spanish soldiers who conquered the Aztecs are known to
history as Conquistadors. That label of Conquerors was applied to
them by their contemporaries -- but it originated a generation
earlier. It was first used to describe the Spaniards who liberated
their own country from Islam.

Arab invaders had swept across Spain in the early 700s, and it took
centuries for the Spanish to kick them out. Cortez was not yet 10
years old when they were finally ejected from their last stronghold
in Grenada in 1492. When Cortez first looked upon the pyramid temples
of the Aztec gods, he called them mezquitas -- mosques.

Cortez saw himself as a liberator -- just as his fathers had
liberated Spain from the Islamic yoke, so he would liberate New Spain
from the Aztec yoke. Yet he had little idea of how deep were the
political-religious parallels between the Arabs and the Aztecs.

The parallels go beyond the death worship of Aztec warriors and Arab
suicide-bombers. One of the latter responsible for the train bombings
in Madrid declared in a letter: You (Christians) love life -- we
(Moslems) love death. Compare this Aztec poem:

There is nothing like death in war Nothing like the flowery death So
precious to the gods who give us life Far off I see it! My heart
yearns for it!

The deeper parallel is this: both the Arabs and the Aztecs invented a
Religion of Jihad as a rationale to justify their imperialist empires.

For the Aztecs, war was their purpose for existence, the sacred
manifestation of their religion. War for the Aztecs was always Holy
War.

The Aztecs were a tribe of primitive nomads when they first entered
the Valley of Mexico in the early 14th century. They were shunned as
barbarians by the inhabitants, descendants of the disintegrated
Toltec Empire, and were forced to live on swampy islands in the
valleys huge lake.

The one thing the Aztecs knew was how to fight. So they hired
themselves out as mercenaries to the warring Toltec-remnant
principalities. Before long, they had an army big enough to take over
the principalities -- which they proceeded to do.

No empire can be held together with simple brute force, however. It
requires a rationale, and the Aztecs soon invented one: a religion
with gods who need them, the Aztecs, to wage continual war to keep
the universe together.

The Aztec god of the hunt was Huitzilopotchtli (The Hummingbird on
the Left). Once the Aztecs began conquering other kingdoms in the
1430s, he was transformed into a universal power controlling the
earth, the heavens, and the rising of the sun. For reasons the Aztec
Witch-Doctors could never explain, Huitzilopotchtli, although a god,
required food to sustain his labors in keeping the cosmos in one
piece.

The food the Aztec god must have so the sun would rise tomorrow was a
daily -- daily -- supply of dozens -- dozens -- of live, beating
human hearts, physically ripped out of a living human being chest and
placed in the chacmool, the sacred receptacle, fresh, hot, and still
palpitating.

In 1487, to celebrate the completion of the Great Temple of
Huitzilopotchtli in the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan, 20,000
prisoners were sacrificed in fourteen days, with long lines of
victims stretching from the temple in four directions as far as the
eye could see.

It was decreed that other gods were perpetually hungry. Tlaloc, the
rain god, needed the hearts of children and babies so that it would
rain. Xipe, the plant god, needed human skins acquired by skinning a
victim alive, so that plants would grow.

Naturally, the tens of thousands of victims needed annually for these
cosmic sacrifices could not come from the Aztec people, or else they
would quickly kill themselves off. The only way to get them was to
capture them as prisoners of war.

Thus war -- Holy War -- became the purpose of the Aztec State. All
soldiers in the Aztec Army were Holy Warriors, Warriors of the Gods.
Peace was dangerous. No war meant no prisoners to sacrifice, no food
for the gods, which risked the destruction of mankind and the
universe itself. The only way to avoid cosmic disaster was for the
Aztecs to accept the burden fate had given them and wage perpetual
war for the salvation of humanity.

All in all, a pretty clever rationalization for a monstrous
imperialist tyranny, wouldn't you say? Sounds like they were taking
religion-inventing lessons from the Arabs.

For just as the worship of Huitzilopotchtli was an invention to
provide a religious justification for Aztec imperialism, so Islam was
an invention for the purpose of providing a religious justification
for Arab imperialism.

It is commonly taught that the purpose of the Arab Conquest -- Arab
hordes exploding out of Arabia in the middle of the 7th century to
conquer all of the Christian Middle East, Zoroastrian Persia and
Central Asia, Hindu Northern India, and Christian North Africa and
Spain in 100 years -- was to spread Islam. It turns out this is the
opposite of what actually happened.

That is, just like other nomad hordes that swarmed out of a desert
and infested civilizations through history -- like Attila Huns or
Genghiz Khan Mongols -- so did the Arabs. Finding themselves in
sudden possession of a vast empire of vastly different peoples and
all of them non-Arab, the Arabs invented a religion to justify their
ruling it, and aptly named it Islam, which in Arabic means
Submission. They claimed it meant submission to the Will of God, but
what it really meant was submission to them.

This is detailed in The Myth of Mecca, written shortly after the
September 11 Moslem attack on America. It is posted in the Classics
section of To The Point News, and I could not encourage you more
strongly to read it. [ed., article is open to non-subscribers]

At long last, serious scholars have begun researching the history of
Islam origins. Their conclusion, in the words of one, I.M. Al-
Rawandi, is that the life of Mohammed chronicled in the Sira (the
official Islamic hagiography) is a baseless fiction. It was made up.
He never lived in Mecca, and if he lived at all, he was a bandit
chieftain named Ubuâl Kassim (Mohammedis not a name, it a title
meaning The Praised One) who lived in what is now southern Jordan.

An additional conclusion is that the Koran is made up as well --
stories and quotations from scores of varying sources and authors
stitched together over a century or two after the Conquest.

This is why the Call to Jihad is hard-wired into the Koran. Jihad is
why Islam exists. The Moslem religion was invented by Arabs in order
to claim their conquering of other peoples and religions was ordained
and approved by God.

After the tide of Arab imperialism was turned back in 15th century
Spain, the Ottoman Turks took up the call of Jihad, plundering
southeastern Europe for slaves and booty. The Islamic threat to
Europe was stopped at Vienna, where the German-Austrian-Polish forces
led by Polish King Jan Sobieski defeated the Ottoman invaders on
September 12, 1683. Now the threat of Jihad has arisen once again
from the deserts of Arabia.

The threat is much closer than in Iraq. Earlier this week (April 26),
the New York Times featured an article entitled Militants in Europe
Openly Call for Jihad and the Rule of Islam. It focused on a group of
Moslem radicals in England called Al-Muhajiroun (The Immigrants) and
one of its leaders, a young man calling himself Sayful Islam (Sword
of Islam).

The Times story was based on interviews reporter David Cohen of the
London Evening Standard had with Sayful and his followers. Mr. Cohen
article, Terror on the Dole, is in this issue of the TTP Weekly
Report under Guest Authors. Here is an excerpt:

It was the events of 11 September that crystallized Sayful's
worldview. "When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I
felt elated," he says. "That magnificent action split the world into
two camps: you were either with Islam and al Qaeda, or with the
enemy. I decided to quit my job and commit myself full-time to al-
Muhajiroun."

Now he does not consider himself British. "I am a Muslim living in
Britain, and I give my allegiance only to Allah." According to
Sayful, the aim of al-Muhajiroun (The Immigrants) is nothing less
than Khilafah - "the worldwide domination of Islam". The way to
achieve this, he says, is by Jihad, led by Bin Laden. "I support him
100 per cent." Does that support extend to violent acts of terrorism
in the UK?

"Yes," he replies, unequivocally. "When a bomb attack happens here, I
won't be against it, even if it kills my own children. Islam is
clear: Muslims living in lands that are occupied have the right to
attack their invaders."

I suggest you re-read that quote and let it sink in. And lest you
think this is just an _expression of radical Islam to which all
moderate Moslems are opposed, here are the words of Sayful followers:

The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else to us.
Let's just say that the face you see and the face we see are two
different faces, says Abdul Haq. Believe me, adds Abu Musa, "behind
closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims. Centuries ago, Western
Civilization had the ability to produce heroes like Cortez and
Sobieski who had no qualms over fighting murderously evil empires.
Today, even the most courageous leader on earth, George W. Bush,
proclaims Islam to be a religion of peace-- when the terrifying
reality is that it is a religion of war.

Without perpetual war against the infidels, without Jihad, Islam has
no driving purpose. It is therefore incumbent on all those who wish
not to someday submit to an Islamic yoke to demand of Moslems that
they publicly renounce the Koran Call to Jihad. Civilization only
path to peace is for Arabs and their Islamic converts to stop
behaving like Aztecs

Note: Jack Wheeler has a web site "To The Point"
To The Point News - To The Point News

 

Gotta hand it to those Aztecs for those chicas, chicle and chocolate. We must also thank Mr. James Durante for his theme song representing the other Latin culture. "Inca Dinka-Doo."

 

Yup, it's Rand.

 

Monk, I really tried to read all that stuff in your post but my thoughts kept going here:

 

Dude, you've gone off the deep end. Was this Hannity's selection for book of the month?

What does this have to do with cabinet appointments? Any opportunity to stoke the fires of fear and influence the ignorant, huh?

 

Please tell me it wasn't someone from SoCal who quoted Monk's entire post? Ah $h!t, it was, Damnit.
Nice write up Monk. My second favorite thing to Motorcycles and Hot Chicas is History about Motorcycles and Hot Chicas.
Hey wait... All that Aztec history and not one word about the hot Aztec princesses or Myan sex slaves???
wtf, was this thread about? Oh yeah, politics. I plead the 5th. Carry-on.

 

I'm with Monk up until the time he posts shit like that and I don't care if he doesn't like the luvly latina ladies or the fancy frauleins. IMO, this thread should include more pix of "you know what" and less about "you don't know what."

 

My point of relevance to this is that I think we need to be careful who we elect, by knowing what they've done for us.... Just vote knowledgeably.

I thought about if to post that piece from the past... I thought if someone was interested they'd read it.... If not don't read it.

But, it did get some opinions, even if they don't agree. It's just good that someone is interested enough to want to argue the point.

The thing that's pissing me off are these Navy Seals having to face a court marshal, for their actions in a combat zone.

 

Just because they're in combat doesn't mean they shouldn't be accountable for their actions should they stray from "proper" code of conduct. They're pros; therefore, they should act accordingly. I don't know if they are guilty or innocent, but if a claim has been made against them, it should be vetted. I understand that these people are under much stress and in an environment I can't even comprehend, but if they break rules, they need to be responsible for their actions. Being engaged in combat does not give a soldier carte blanche to do as he pleases.

 

Even though we have different opinions..... I'd rather see that than the "who gives a S---".....