Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
2..".... associate republicans and conservatives with fascists or Nazis."
" Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred.
A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right." WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010
Nazi...national socialism....based on nationalism and/or race...
Communism....international socialism.
2..".... associate republicans and conservatives with fascists or Nazis."
" Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred.
A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right." WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010
Nazi...national socialism....based on nationalism and/or race...
Communism....international socialism.
Riiight, because appending a name makes it happen. And Grape Nuts are made of grapes, and the Pennsylvania "Dutch" are Dutch, and the Democratic Republic of Korea is all that. That's the ticket.
And this just in... Liberalism is on the right now.
"National Socialism" (Nazism) was fascism. Ain't no way around it.
There are, of course, significant differences between fascism and Progressivism, but these are mainly attributable to the cultural differences between Europe and America- and between national cultures in general.
The Germans, representative of European thought, have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, The state says you must obey . The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest
Ralf Dahrendorf, "Society and Democracy in Germany"
And in the above post one can hear the echoes of jackboots on cobblestone.
Ever cared for a terminally ill patient? When life is nothing but very expensive torment the most monstrous thing of all is the government telling you that you have to endure more suffering because the church people demand it. My mother suffered the torments of the damned before she died many months after life had lost it's last shred of dignity. Who the fuck are you people that you require the terminally ill to suffer?
First of all she is not thoughtful, within both meanings of the word. One might expect that from a narcissist, so that's a given; however, your question is profound and not one she is capable of understanding. I guess the simple answer is she doesn't give a damn about others and that alone requires a social/psychiatric evaluation.
Ever cared for a terminally ill patient? When life is nothing but very expensive torment the most monstrous thing of all is the government telling you that you have to endure more suffering because the church people demand it. My mother suffered the torments of the damned before she died many months after life had lost it's last shred of dignity. Who the fuck are you people that you require the terminally ill to suffer?
First of all she is not thoughtful, within both meanings of the word. One might expect that from a narcissist, so that's a given; however, your question is profound and not one she is capable of understanding. I guess the simple answer is she doesn't give a damn about others and that alone requires a social/psychiatric evaluation.
Narcissist? PoliticalChick?
Behold how the collectivistic statist justifies his violations of others rights.
Socialism = Narcissism. Socialism = Theft. Socialism = Tyranny.
2..".... associate republicans and conservatives with fascists or Nazis."
" Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred.
A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right." WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010
Nazi...national socialism....based on nationalism and/or race...
Communism....international socialism.
Riiight, because appending a name makes it happen. And Grape Nuts are made of grapes, and the Pennsylvania "Dutch" are Dutch, and the Democratic Republic of Korea is all that. That's the ticket.
And this just in... Liberalism is on the right now.
"National Socialism" (Nazism) was fascism. Ain't no way around it.
2..".... associate republicans and conservatives with fascists or Nazis."
" Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred.
A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right." WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010
Nazi...national socialism....based on nationalism and/or race...
Communism....international socialism.
Riiight, because appending a name makes it happen. And Grape Nuts are made of grapes, and the Pennsylvania "Dutch" are Dutch, and the Democratic Republic of Korea is all that. That's the ticket.
And this just in... Liberalism is on the right now.
"National Socialism" (Nazism) was fascism. Ain't no way around it.
You really don't understand the nature of the issue. Fascism, Communism, Socialism...and all of their variants are forms of Totalitarianism.
Left vs. Right is meaningless. The real conflict is between Individual Liberty and State Power.
2..".... associate republicans and conservatives with fascists or Nazis."
" Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred.
A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right." WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010
Nazi...national socialism....based on nationalism and/or race...
Communism....international socialism.
Riiight, because appending a name makes it happen. And Grape Nuts are made of grapes, and the Pennsylvania "Dutch" are Dutch, and the Democratic Republic of Korea is all that. That's the ticket.
And this just in... Liberalism is on the right now.
"National Socialism" (Nazism) was fascism. Ain't no way around it.
You really don't understand the nature of the issue. Fascism, Communism, Socialism...and all of their variants are forms of Totalitarianism.
Left vs. Right is meaningless. The real conflict is between Individual Liberty and State Power.
Totalitarians need the People to worship the State. They certainly can't have them worshipping God. There can be no higher power than the State. People need to understand that. That's what's going on in our World today. The NWO Globalist Elites are a vicious Godless lot.
First of all she is not thoughtful, within both meanings of the word. One might expect that from a narcissist, so that's a given; however, your question is profound and not one she is capable of understanding. I guess the simple answer is she doesn't give a damn about others and that alone requires a social/psychiatric evaluation.
Narcissist? PoliticalChick?
Behold how the collectivistic statist justifies his violations of others rights.
Socialism = Narcissism. Socialism = Theft. Socialism = Tyranny.
Hey that looks like fun, I want a turn.
Apple = orange. Orange = forgery. Ergo apple = forgery.
Weird game.
You can't take a psychiatric term and equate it to a political philosophy. "Socialism" has nothing to do with psychiatry and "narcissism" has nothing to do with politics.
You must be new here but the original assessment is correct; PC invented narcissism. Just ask her. That doesn't make her a socialist or non-socialist or anything else on the political spectrum. It just makes here an egomaniac.
Anarchy is the new conservative religion.
Laws that aren't voluntary are the new tyranny, according to conservatives.
Of course the only modifications to the above are that government and laws that conservatives like are acceptable.
This has been explained to you before. Your reasoning is that two wrongs make a right, and you're embracing one of the two wrongs. That's mindless acquiescence to tyranny. Bottom line: what you're calling anarchy is the opposition to governmental violations of the unabridgible civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights! Seriously, what's wrong with you?
Narcissist? PoliticalChick?
Behold how the collectivistic statist justifies his violations of others rights.
Socialism = Narcissism. Socialism = Theft. Socialism = Tyranny.
Hey that looks like fun, I want a turn.
Apple = orange. Orange = forgery. Ergo apple = forgery.
Weird game.
You can't take a psychiatric term and equate it to a political philosophy. "Socialism" has nothing to do with psychiatry and "narcissism" has nothing to do with politics.
You must be new here but the original assessment is correct; PC invented narcissism. Just ask her. That doesn't make her a socialist or non-socialist or anything else on the political spectrum. It just makes here an egomaniac.
Lefty can always be counted on to prattle the most unimaginatively literal technocratese as if they were profundities.
Anarchy is the new conservative religion.
Laws that aren't voluntary are the new tyranny, according to conservatives.
Of course the only modifications to the above are that government and laws that conservatives like are acceptable.
This has been explained to you before. Your reasoning is that two wrongs make a right, and you're embracing one of the two wrongs. That's mindless acquiescence to tyranny. Bottom line: what you're calling anarchy is the opposition to governmental violations of the unabridgible civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights! Seriously, what's wrong with you?
Conservatives call Obamacare tyranny. Conservatives call making Clive Bundy obey the law tyranny.
This has been explained to you before. Your reasoning is that two wrongs make a right, and you're embracing one of the two wrongs. That's mindless acquiescence to tyranny. Bottom line: what you're calling anarchy is the opposition to governmental violations of the unabridgible civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights! Seriously, what's wrong with you?
Conservatives call Obamacare tyranny. Conservatives call making Clive Bundy obey the law tyranny.
Congratulations. Now, see if you can objectively state, without rancor, why conservatives believe these things to be true . . . as if you whole-heartedly agreed with them. In other words, demonstrate that you grasp the actual political argument asserted by the American classical liberal, from premise to conclusion, relative to natural and constitutional law.
Hey that looks like fun, I want a turn.
Apple = orange. Orange = forgery. Ergo apple = forgery.
Weird game.
You can't take a psychiatric term and equate it to a political philosophy. "Socialism" has nothing to do with psychiatry and "narcissism" has nothing to do with politics.
You must be new here but the original assessment is correct; PC invented narcissism. Just ask her. That doesn't make her a socialist or non-socialist or anything else on the political spectrum. It just makes here an egomaniac.
Lefty can always be counted on to prattle the most unimaginatively literal technocratese as if they were profundities.
Lefty does not post here. What you quoted is my post, and I'm righthanded.
Doesn't matter, you're still clueless, and you've offered no rebuttal save a smarmy ad hominem. Strike three, caught looking. Point stands.
As for PoliticalChic (learn to spell), as noted you seem to be new here but her threads are always good for a cornucopia of fallacies. QED.
Check my first post in this thread. Get chew a edumacation.
You can't take a psychiatric term and equate it to a political philosophy. "Socialism" has nothing to do with psychiatry and "narcissism" has nothing to do with politics.
Conservatives call Obamacare tyranny. Conservatives call making Clive Bundy obey the law tyranny.
Congratulations. Now, see if you can objectively state, without rancor, why conservatives believe these things to be true . . . as if you whole-heartedly agreed with them. In other words, demonstrate that you grasp the actual political argument asserted by the American classical liberal, from premise to conclusion, relative to natural and constitutional law.
Stop pretending you're intelligent.
Conservatives call Obamacare tyranny because conservatism in America has been an irrational mass of hysterical hyperbole.
Congratulations. Now, see if you can objectively state, without rancor, why conservatives believe these things to be true . . . as if you whole-heartedly agreed with them. In other words, demonstrate that you grasp the actual political argument asserted by the American classical liberal, from premise to conclusion, relative to natural and constitutional law.
Stop pretending you're intelligent.
Conservatives call Obamacare tyranny because conservatism in America has been an irrational mass of hysterical hyperbole.
In other words, you're not very bright and are historically illiterate to boot. You've never even bothered to note the first principles of the reality in which you live. Your ideology is a mindless collection of slogans and cliches.
PC is a far right opus dei type of pro-fascist who believed that Hitler winning WWII would have better than the West. I am glad she blogs, for it allows us to identify the enemies of America.
" pro-fascist who believed that Hitler winning WWII would have better than the West." Here we have an example of a poor loser who has been spanked numerous times, and can do no better than lie and slander as revenge. Here's hoping you get all you deserve in life.
PC is a far right opus dei type of pro-fascist who believed that Hitler winning WWII would have better than the West. I am glad she blogs, for it allows us to identify the enemies of America.
" pro-fascist who believed that Hitler winning WWII would have better than the West." Here we have an example of a poor loser who has been spanked numerous times, and can do no better than lie and slander as revenge. Here's hoping you get all you deserve in life.
I know it hurts when you are exposed as a pro-Hitler sympathizer.
Hitler would have won if the USA had not intervened.
Yet you condemn America for doing so.
Expect no sympathy.
" pro-fascist who believed that Hitler winning WWII would have better than the West." Here we have an example of a poor loser who has been spanked numerous times, and can do no better than lie and slander as revenge. Here's hoping you get all you deserve in life.
I know it hurts when you are exposed as a pro-Hitler sympathizer.
Hitler would have won if the USA had not intervened.
Yet you condemn America for doing so.
Expect no sympathy.
"I know it hurts when you are exposed as a pro-Hitler sympathizer."
Au contraire.....
It is you who have been exposed as a lying scum, as you have not been able to provide any quotes of mine.....and there must be tons of posts.....that support your slander.
Since they don't exist, you must be an ankle-nipping, back-stabbing whiner who has been and will continue to be, seen as the dishonorable wretch that you are.
The explanation for you lies is simply how thoroughly I've embarrassed you in our exchanges.....and more to come, below.
Now to show how ignorant you are of historical facts.
"Hitler would have won if the USA had not intervened."
1. Not only is there no evidence to show that, but "....advisers had had the gall to suggest not only that the democracies could survive a Nazi conquest of the USSR...but that, in such an event, the United States should not recognize a soviet government in exile. George Kennan echoed those feelings.
Weil, "A Pretty Good Club," p. 106.
2. . The decision to fight a land war against Germany was the first of a long series of tragic mistakes in the prosecution of the war. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:
" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"
3. "By the beginning of 1945, before the invasion of the homeland itself, Germany was reaching a state of helplessness. Her armament production was falling irretrievably, orderliness in effort was disappearing, and total disruption and disintegration were well along. Her armies were still in the field. But with the impending collapse of the supporting economy, the indications are convincing that they would have had to cease fighting-any effective fighting-within a few months. Germany was mortally wounded."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.116
4. What could, should have happened? When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!
"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by
Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.
So....what have we learned?
Certainly not that Jakal is a congenital liar....that has long been established.
But that in addition to being lying scum, he knows nothing about the history of WWII....as testified to by George Kennan, Hanson Baldwin, Martin Weil, Chesly Manly, and a ton of Soviet experts.
Also....I have fun doing this!
I know it hurts when you are exposed as a pro-Hitler sympathizer.
Hitler would have won if the USA had not intervened.
Yet you condemn America for doing so.
Expect no sympathy.
"I know it hurts when you are exposed as a pro-Hitler sympathizer."
Au contraire.....
It is you who have been exposed as a lying scum, as you have not been able to provide any quotes of mine.....and there must be tons of posts.....that support your slander.
Since they don't exist, you must be an ankle-nipping, back-stabbing whiner who has been and will continue to be, seen as the dishonorable wretch that you are.
The explanation for you lies is simply how thoroughly I've embarrassed you in our exchanges.....and more to come, below.
Now to show how ignorant you are of historical facts.
"Hitler would have won if the USA had not intervened."
1. Not only is there no evidence to show that, but "....advisers had had the gall to suggest not only that the democracies could survive a Nazi conquest of the USSR...but that, in such an event, the United States should not recognize a soviet government in exile. George Kennan echoed those feelings.
Weil, "A Pretty Good Club," p. 106.
2. . The decision to fight a land war against Germany was the first of a long series of tragic mistakes in the prosecution of the war. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:
" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"
3. "By the beginning of 1945, before the invasion of the homeland itself, Germany was reaching a state of helplessness. Her armament production was falling irretrievably, orderliness in effort was disappearing, and total disruption and disintegration were well along. Her armies were still in the field. But with the impending collapse of the supporting economy, the indications are convincing that they would have had to cease fighting-any effective fighting-within a few months. Germany was mortally wounded."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.116
4. What could, should have happened? When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!
"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by
Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.
So....what have we learned?
Certainly not that Jakal is a congenital liar....that has long been established.
But that in addition to being lying scum, he knows nothing about the history of WWII....as testified to by George Kennan, Hanson Baldwin, Martin Weil, Chesly Manly, and a ton of Soviet experts.
Also....I have fun doing this!
Posting someone else's opinion without evidence to back it up is not really different than posting your own opinion without evidence to back it up.
You're claiming that the US should have held off engaging Germany in 1941? Because of your writing style it's hard sometimes to figure out what you're trying to say (no offense, it's just a fact).
If that's the case, then Germany would have been able to hold out years longer, which by any reasonable estimate would have made it almost a certainty that Germany would have gotten the atomic bomb.
PoliticalChic said:With very little effort you have become our main source of greenhouse gases.
you windbag....you're the explanation of why the Hindenburg ended up the way it did.
