The Police State

[Guest]

I used to be a registered Libertarian and active in the Libertarian Party. But then I became racially aware and realized that freedom only works in White societies. Blacks and Indians/Mestizos are just too wild. The price of multiculturalism is a police state.The important thing is that we stay in charge of it.

Drug laws and drunk-driving laws and so on, as much as we hate them, they affect blacks and Mexicans way more than whites, and thereby help to keep us safe.

From a cops perspective, it is often very difficult to bust someone for a violent or property crime, but that little bit of drugs on them or that bit of alcohol in them, will allow a sure-fire conviction and get a scumbag off the street.

The police state in America is doing the best thing for the White race possible: keeping vast hordes of blacks and Mexicans locked away for years at at time.

You Libertarians and Constitutionalists out there, I am with you in theory and spirit, but in American reality, the heritage of freedom is no longer possible in today's country. Until we get a homeland of our own, i.e., put the minorities on their own reservations or deport them back to their homelands, we will never see that kind of freedom again. Nor would it be a good thing.

Think about that when you contemplate helping BO to office by failing to vote for McCain.

 

[Don Wassall]

The price of multiculturalism is a police state.The important thing is that we stay in charge of it.

Who's "we" that you maintain is in charge? If "we" were in charge there wouldn't be either multiculturalism or a police state. And why didn't whoever "we" is close the border with Mexico on September 12, 2001?Edited by: Don Wassall

 

[Guest]

Don I believe what 89Glory means by "we" means clear thinking, rightous, moral, fair and people with good judgement. Yeah we could be back in the 1850's where we ruled hand over fist but we are not.

There are some in "we" that are not white, its 2008. And we are no longer totally in charge and never will be again. It just the truth. Our mission now as whites in my opinion is to stop the media's marginalization of whites and have whites be treated fairly and without discrimination, such as in pro sports. You lead the way in that forum.

Don, we are going to have devise a strategy where as whites, we have an even hand in everything. There was a study done were whites are going to be the minority in 2040!

President Bush's biggest mistakes was in fact not sealing the northern and southern borders after 9/11/01, the other was uncontrolled spending favored by the republicans from 2000 to 2006, who were mimicking the dems, incorrectly thinking that it would keep them in office.

Don, I believe we(me an d89Glory) are on our groups side, its just sometimes you and other members (InfamousOne) start the attack or belittle our positions in voting White. Sure, McCain there are questions, but I would rather deal with his, than a half black closet marxists who hates half of himself as President.

 

[White Shogun]

It wasn't a 'mistake' on Bush's part to leave the borders open. That would imply that he didn't know what he was doing.

The police state in this country is going to be used AGAINST white people, not FOR them. Worst case scenario, this site and others like it will be shut down; people will actually be convicted of 'hate crimes' here just like they are in Canada and Europe; and no one will be allowed a dissenting opinion.

The problem we have in this election is that both Obama AND McCain are in favor of the 'police state.'

 

[Don Wassall]

the heritage of freedom is no longer possible in today's country. Until we get a homeland of our own, i.e., put the minorities on their own reservations or deport them back to their homelands, we will never see that kind of freedom again. Nor would it be a good thing.

Think about that when you contemplate helping BO to office by failing to vote for McCain.

Here's another beauty from our libertarian turned neo-con. We can no longer have freedom in a multicultural police state run by 89Glory's friends the Republicans, but somehow "we" are going to get a homeland of our own under this police state by "putting minorities on their own reservations or deporting them."


The twisted "logic" in some of these posts is really too much.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

The twisted "logic" in some of these posts is really too much.

Yes sir, I agree with that completely.

 

[Guest]

It seems that the "Happy Hour" forums have indeed degenerated into threads of members riduculing and attacking each other(neocons, twisted logic etc.). What a shame. This forum is called "Happy Hour" in truth it should be some of the more important threads and subjects relating to our interest. Rather than bitching about white players who refuse to stand up and protest their unfair treatment, i.e.;Mike Hass formerly of da Bears.

I was really interested and looked forward to learning and understanding other members points of view in politics. But I am realizing that is asking too much. Oh, well I guess I will start to regulate my future posts to boxing, where white men kick ass and don't fanatize about maybe, "I can make the scout team and wear a f..king NFL team Jersey." Oh, there is more, "maybe I can prove myself, while the affelets unload on me in practice. Maybe the TRAITOR White GMs and White Coaches will discover me and give me a chance to be on the special teams." How pathetic.

Go Kelly Pavlik, JC, Wlad and King Arthur and John McCain. Get serious and think WHITE!

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

The twisted "logic" in some of these posts is really too much. 

Yes sir, I agree with that completely.

me, too.

It seems that the "Happy Hour" forums have indeed degenerated into threads of members riduculing and attacking each other(neocons, twisted logic etc.).

you call that "ridiculing and attacking?"

you label others as race traitors, stupid, and so forth while you and 89Glory stake out neocon positions, yet are grievouslyoffended at being called a neocon? wow.

and you have used twisted logic logic, mate, if what you use can be considered logic at all. often you do not use facts at all to support your position. i'm still waiting on your response to the "conspiracy myth of the police state," for example.

 

[Guest]

Jimmy, I am not offended by the posts attacking me and 89Glory, just disappointed that it has come to this. Calling me a neocon is an attack, if you really new what a "neocon" is, I suspect you to would also be offended. Here is a clue, "Jew".

Jimmy I have served in our armed forces during Desert Storm and currently in law enforcement of a major city, so I do know what I am talking about. Moreover, my posts were opinions backed by facts contrary to your assertions.

Lastly, I never called any of the posters TRAITORS, only the f..king WHITE TRAITOR NFL GMs and WHITE Headcoaches of the NFL that continue to undermine/marginalize qualified white players.

My response to the "Myth of the police state" will be withheld, becuase I will not waste my time on this forum anymore. Find some other Law Enforce Professional to call twisted, neocon etc.

 

[Don Wassall]

Jimmy, I am not offended by the posts attacking me and 89Glory, just disappointed that it has come to this. Calling me a neocon is an attack, if you really new what a "neocon" is, I suspect you to would also be offended. Here is a clue, "Jew".

Jimmy I have served in our armed forces during Desert Storm and currently in law enforcement of a major city, so I do know what I am talking about. Moreover, my posts were opinions backed by facts contrary to your assertions.

Lastly, I never called any of the posters TRAITORS, only the f..king WHITE TRAITOR NFL GMs and WHITE Headcoaches of the NFL that continue to undermine/marginalize qualified white players.

My response to the "Myth of the police state" will be withheld, becuase I will not waste my time on this forum anymore. Find some other Law Enforce Professional to call twisted, neocon etc.

Kukulcan, I referred to 89Glory as a "libertarian turned neo-con." I haven't called you a neo-con and I don't think anyone else has either, though some of your positions echo those of the neo-cons so I don't understand why you would consider it a grave insult.


Second, I don't use "neo-con" as a euphemism for "Jew." George Bush and Dick Cheney are neo-cons and they aren't Jews. A very long list of other non-Jewswho are neo-cons could be cited. Neo-cons often are Jewish and they are marked by a strong devotion to Israel that I believe is harmful to the United States, but all neo-cons aren't Jews, and many Jews aren't neo-cons.


And think about it, by using the term "libertarian turned neo-con" I couldn't possibly be referring to someone's ethnic background. It was an ideological description.


In addition tothose incorrect assertions by you, I do find your reasoning muddled at best and your postsmostly ignorewhat others have written in response to your posts, preferring instead to maintain a passive-aggressive posture.


And it's nothing personal. I'm glad to hear you're in law enforcement and want to serve and protect law-abiding Americans and bring the criminals to justice. I have no doubt you're dedicated and courageous in what you do.Edited by: Don Wassall

 

[Guest]

I agree with Kukulcan, it is totally inaccurate to call me a neo-con. I am not FOR the police state, I am just a realist. The police state is not going to be put away. In fact, the more "multiculturalism" we get, the more we need the police state to keep the peace.

Just one question for you: who would be a greater threat to you in charge of the police state: Democrats or Republicans?Pretty obvious answer, isn't it? Who do you think supports hate crime legislation, and who do you think opposes it? If you want to keep yourself free of hate crimes laws, you should be supporting the GOP.These are basic facts, beyond dispute.

I apologize for using the term race traitor. But again the facts: the Democrats are 100% the party of the racial minorities, they know it and they celebrate it. If you really think it doesn't matter which party is in control of the White House, you are just not living in reality. The GOP represents white interests, if not 100% up to your standards, at least more than the other party, and there are no other options.

For example, here in Arizona, the Democrats are 100% against the enforcement of any laws against illegals. If it wasn't for a valiant County Attorney (Andrew Thomas) and Sheriff (Joe Arpaiao), we would not have any enforcement at all. The Democratic governor has vetoed countless laws which our Republican legislature has passed trying to get rid of illegals.

George Bush has dropped the ball on the issue, obviously, and is out of step with his own party. Why you would condemn the whole party because of one man, that just doesn't make sense.

 

[Don Wassall]

I praised the Arizona legislature in another post and said the way they are dealing with the immigration problem is what all states should be doing. Oklahoma and Georgia are also doing some good things.


Really, that's one of the main issues here. At the national level the GOP does not represent white interests; the best that can be said is that it is not as fervently anti-white as the Democrats. We can agree to disagree on that, butmaybe we can agree that local, state and even regional action holdsmuch more promise as far as enacting policies that can positively impact white people individually and as a group. Washington can only be brought to heel from the bottom up, not by expecting change from the top down.

 

[Guest]

Don, my last post wasn't entirely directed at you, more so with Jimmy Chitwood. You didn't call me neocon, but did include me in "twisted logic". I don't ignore others posts. Who made you and others the supreme law givers? I read your posts, decide if they have any relevence or valid points. I have in the past stated your valid points.

You state that my logic is muddled at best, I can find many who don't and subscribe to what I have stated. I question some of your and other "senior" members posts but I don't demean or call you a "euphemism" or say your logic is twisted. It is just another point of view.

I have never called anyone on this site a race traitor. Its things like this with no merit that pit us against each other that's all. I am glad I have found your site but will question if it worth posting or learning in this forum.

My whole intent is to perserve the white race, history, traditions, morals, accomplishment and pride. Just becuase I think BO will have a more negative effect on US and country doesn't mean I should be called twisted or a neocon, or the false accusation of calling members "Race Traitors".

 

[jaxvid]

I agree with the assertion that drug laws fall disproportionally on minorities and are thus a net positive for white people in general. I have made this arguement several times. I don't think the drug war is a good thing but all things considered it has at least incarcerated a good percentage of the worst black criminals in this country.

Really any attempt to increase state control is a short term gain for white people. That is because white people tend to be culturally law abiding and thus less effected by restrictive laws. For instance white people did very well in Nazi Germany except for that killed in battle thing, and I don't think any one is eager to reproduce that situation.

Also with the current anti-white crowd running the show white people will be the jews in the american version of nazi germany.

 

[White Shogun]

Who made you and others the supreme law givers?

Uh... Don actually IS the supreme law on Caste Football. It is owned, maintained, and supported by him.

 

[Menelik]

Who made you and others the supreme law givers?

Uh... Don actually IS the supreme law on Caste Football. It is owned, maintained, and supported by him.

All hail the mighty Don!

 

[White Shogun]

Who made you and others the supreme law givers?

Uh... Don actually IS the supreme law on Caste Football. It is owned, maintained, and supported by him.

All hail the mighty Don!

Amen!

Edited by: White Shogun

 

[Colonel_Reb]

Who made you and others the supreme law givers?

Uh... Don actually IS the supreme law on Caste Football. It is owned, maintained, and supported by him.

All hail the mighty Don!

I second that!

 

[Maple Leaf]

I don't think you white Americans have any choice in this election. You can either waste your federal vote on some small party that is not going to win a free can of beer, or, you can vote for McCain. Voting for Osama is a vote in favour of Black power. That is how the blacks see it and that is what blacks want.

White people have to maintain control and power over the culture and society they built or the whole thing will fall apart. And I don't give a sh*t if voting for the Republicans is an endorsement of the neo-cons or what ever bullsh*t label one likes to throw around.

 

[Don Wassall]

Uh... Don actually IS the supreme law on Caste Football. It is owned, maintained, and supported by him.

All hail the mighty Don!

Today Caste Football, tomorrow the world!!!!!!!!


Muhahahahahahahahaha!


Muhahahahahahahahaha!

 

[Ground Fighter]

Muhahahahahahahahaha!


Muhahahahahahahahaha!

You tell 'em Dr. Evil.

Edited by: Ground Fighter

 

[guest301]

Uh... Don actually IS the supreme law on Caste Football. It is owned, maintained, and supported by him.

All hail the mighty Don!

Today Caste Football, tomorrow the world!!!!!!!!


Muhahahahahahahahaha!


Muhahahahahahahahaha!

We are not worthy, we are not worthy, we are not worthy...

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Don, my last post wasn't entirely directed at you, more so with Jimmy Chitwood. You didn't call me neocon, but did include me in "twisted logic". I don't ignore others posts. Who made you and others the supreme law givers? I read your posts, decide if they have any relevence or valid points. I have in the past stated your valid points.

don't call me out, mate. i didn't call you anything. i was quoting you. see?

Posted: 02 September 2008 at 2:17am

It seems that the "Happy Hour" forums have indeed degenerated into threads of members riduculing and attacking each other(neocons, twisted logic etc.).

and you do ignore posts that reply to yours. mine, for instance, which was very relevant and valid.

furthermore, you make broad sweeping generalizations in many of your posts, then become angered when called on it. when others (in this case, myself) post factual evidence that refute your claim, you ignore it and claim either victory for defeating things you yourself introduced, or claim victim status because someone labeled your position within a political grouping. you can't be both a stand-up guy and run from the facts, man.

You state that my logic is muddled at best, I can find many who don't and subscribe to what I have stated. I question some of your and other "senior" members posts but I don't demean or call you a "euphemism" or say your logic is twisted. It is just another point of view.

stating you have muddled logic is a factual assessment. however, you are right about one thing. we both made conclusions that we shouldn't have. you assumed that whoever called you a "neocon" meant you were a Jew. that is very unlikely. and i lumped you in with 89Glory on the "race traitor" bit. i apologize. as did he, in a later post regarding his statement.

when you say, that your whole intent is to preserve the white race, history, traditions, morals, accomplishments, and pride, i believe you. so please remember, this is just several proud men having a debate. don't take it personal. we all want what is best for white folks, but we just sometimes disagree on how that should happen.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

Forgive my weak attempt at "peace maker" here, but we ought to strive against in-fighting (when possible). The Good Lord knows we have more than enough real foes out there...the Globalist Elite, the social Marxist, "mainstream" media, Hollyweird, etc.

P.S. - Not to brown-nose but I've been very impressed with Don's insight on a number of topics and praise his management of CF and ANU (two top notch site indeed)!

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

thought i'd revive this thread by getting it back on track.

now, you are assumed to be involved in criminal activities for simply riding in the passenger seat of a car.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.

The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.

The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana.

The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.

The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.