How Far Can The State Go?

[NYcarbineer]

"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.

it's not a writing style. it's a quoting style. often out of context, contradictory quotes.

saying it's a writing style implies original thought and analysis, and the closest PC has ever gotten to that is some incomprehensible insults i.e.

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.

what the hell is that supposed to mean? i'm sure in her mind it seemed bright and illuminating, but then in the darkness that is her mind so would a glow-in-the-dark garfield sticker.

Conservatism is a large set of bad ideas. When someone commits to try to defend or advance those ideas, the first problem they run into is the simple fact that they are bad ideas. Even if you like them they're still bad.

Each conservative in that situation copes with that fundamental problem in his or her own way.

This thread, like all her others, is PC's way of coping.

 

[candycorn]

Many use the emergency room as their primary physician......you dope.

Like .... who?

Link?

Amazing isn't it?

The ACA forces people to buy insurance

When/if people come into the emergency room, the insurance they bought gets the bill for some/all of it. You, me and Political Hick pay less to make up the difference.

Before the ACA

You didn't have to buy insurance so when/if people come into the emergency room, the insurance the didn't buy pays none of it. You, me and Political Hick pay 100% of the costly procedure.

So obviously the ACA is reducing our healthcare costs. She is just too fucked in the head to see it.

Now her response will likely be about Sandra Fluke who never asked anyone to pay for her contraception but since Hick has bought the lie hook line and sinker...get ready for it.

 

[candycorn]

"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.

it's not a writing style. it's a quoting style. often out of context, contradictory quotes.

saying it's a writing style implies original thought and analysis, and the closest PC has ever gotten to that is some incomprehensible insults i.e.

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.

what the hell is that supposed to mean? i'm sure in her mind it seemed bright and illuminating, but then in the darkness that is her mind so would a glow-in-the-dark garfield sticker.

She was trying to insult you...very poorly I may add.

 

[Pogo]

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.

First, unimaginatively literal prattle as if it were profundity is my rebuttal to this:

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.

The essence of any form of statism is narcissism, theft, tyranny and so on. . . .

I may accurately assert that. I did accurately assert that. And narcissism has everything to do with the psychology of the statist bootlick and the narcissism of his political ideology.

Solely in your imagination where political ideas take on anthropomorphized zombie bodies. It's still a load of flaming horseshit.

Narcissism is not a political philsophy; it's a personal problem. As are paranoia, misogyny, or any other personal trait developed by definition individually rather than collectively. To declare that "person X is agoraphobic, therefore Republican/Democrat/socialist/fascist/anarchist/whatever" is the height of wackadoodlitity. It boils down to argument from emotion. But if you hold that the progression is valid, well the burden of proof for that theory is all yours.

Second, I wrongfully assumed, apparently, that you were a leftist, given your silly response to my observation regarding Wry Catcher's silly allegations of PoliticalChic's, sans the k of the typo, supposed mindlessness and narcissism. Okay, so you're a righty. I'm not new to the board. I'm just not as familiar with you as I am with others.

As for what you implied: are you saying that Chic is an Objectivist?

It's really fairly simple. I'm affirming that PC is an extreme narcissist as several others already stated and already know. This is common knowledge around here, even self-admitted by the poster herself. That you take issue with it tells me you're not that familiar with her.

I don't know what you wrongly assumed; what I took issue with was addressing points to some wispy unknown strawperson apparently named "Lefty" -- which smacks of a dismissive dehumanizing broad brush generalization -- rather than directly addressing an individual person who made his or her individual point. I'm not claiming "lefty" or "righty". I'm saying keep your damn labels off me and stop tuning out what an individual person says and pretending some intellectual 'caste' full of your preconceived stereotypes speaks as one. Those two fallacies are as far as I'm concerned the lamest dynamics going on in this environment, and to re-invoke my own tired metaphor, more heaps of flaming horseshit.

And additionally it should be noted, two of the main crutches the OP habitually bases her fallacious threads upon, along with both blanket and individual ad hominem, which for me is why said threads are consistently worthless -- even when conceived on useful ideas. They shoot themselves in the foot at the starting line, and it would seem they do so deliberately.

Third, if you think I need to learn how to spell or am in need of an "edumacation", you're obviously not very familiar with me.

-- or me.
You did spell her name wrong, which just confirms that same unfamiliarity.

Fourth, lefty verses righty is just fine as long as it is understood that we are in fact talking about liberty versus tyranny. Semantics. The Socratic Imperative: define the terms.

Fifth, both fascist socialism and Marxist socialism are, essentially, leftist political ideologies relative to the affirmations of the Anglo-American tradition of natural law, the essence of the latter being liberty, the prerogatives of free-association and private property. I don't give damn how anybody else reckons the political spectrum.

I would submit that "fascist socialism" is an oxymoron. Here's where we need terms defined. Very broadly I see "fascism" as an elevation of the State and its power channels over the people, where socialism is the direct opposite. Hence the concept is a paradox. And we've already repeatedly beaten to death this revisionist idea of "Hitler was a leftist" and/or "Hitler was a liberal" -- usually with revisionists who don't even know the difference between those terms.

We can if we like go back and cut-and-paste all those old threads to rehash the same arguments all over again. I'd be more interested in what it is psychologically that gives such revisionists the idea that they can alter known history just by wandering onto message boards and crowing "no it isn't" over and over and over.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

The first principle is that the ACA was passed in accordance with the constitutional process for passing laws, and also survived a challenge up to the level of the Supreme Court in keeping with the constitutional process for such disputes.

If you have to call that 'tyranny' then you reject our Constitution and the government it establishes as tyrannical.

First, I was talking about "the first principles of the reality in which you live", not "the constitutional process for passing laws".

Second, to hold that the government or any one of its three branches has acted contrary to the imperatives of the Constitution is not rejecting the validity of the Constitution. The former presupposes the validity of the latter.

In the consolidated case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (June, 2012), the Court held that the federal government's argument predicated on the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause was bogus; albeit, the Court upheld ACA's compliance penalty on the grounds of Congress' constitutional power to tax. In other words, the Court effectively amended an unconstitutional law to make it constitutional, as the individual mandate is the guts of the entire enterprise. Strike that, and the whole thing collapses.

The Court's action was not just a ham-handed breach of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, it was a flat-out violation of the explicit constitutional limits of the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause!

Judicial duplicity. Judicial complicity. Judicial tyranny.

The current legal challenges are not of an existential nature as far as the survival of the ACA is concerned, though they portend to put a real crimp in its gait, as their essence also goes to the individual mandate in terms of medical services/pharmaceuticals that for-profit enterprises/charitable enterprises with salaried staff might/might not provide. While the individual mandate itself is a serious violation of liberty—a gross breach of human dignity in all but the minds of barbarians utterly out of touch with the first principles of human morality and reason!—these challenges go to the very heart of the most important unabridgible civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The first principle is that the ACA was passed in accordance with the constitutional process for passing laws, and also survived a challenge up to the level of the Supreme Court in keeping with the constitutional process for such disputes.

If you have to call that 'tyranny' then you reject our Constitution and the government it establishes as tyrannical.

First, I was talking about "the first principles of the reality in which you live", not "the constitutional process for passing laws".

Second, to hold that the government or any one of its three branches has acted contrary to the imperatives of the Constitution is not rejecting the validity of the Constitution. The former presupposes the validity of the latter.

In the consolidated case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (June, 2012), the Court held that the federal government's argument predicated on the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause was bogus; albeit, the Court upheld ACA's compliance penalty on the grounds of Congress' constitutional power to tax. In other words, the Court effectively amended an unconstitutional law to make it constitutional, as the individual mandate is the guts of the entire enterprise. Strike that, and the whole thing collapses.

The Court's action was not just a ham-handed breach of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, it was a flat-out violation of the explicit constitutional limits of the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause!

Judicial duplicity. Judicial complicity. Judicial tyranny.

The current legal challenges are not of an existential nature as far as the survival of the ACA is concerned, though they portend to put a real crimp in its gait, as their essence also goes to the individual mandate in terms of medical services/pharmaceuticals that for-profit enterprises/charitable enterprises with salaried staff might/might not provide. While the individual mandate itself is a serious violation of liberty—a gross breach of human dignity in all but the minds of barbarians utterly out of touch with the first principles of human morality and reason!—these challenges go to the very heart of the most important unabridgible civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The ACA does not force individuals to buy insurance. It merely denies you the tax credit that comes from having insurance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The first principle is that the ACA was passed in accordance with the constitutional process for passing laws, and also survived a challenge up to the level of the Supreme Court in keeping with the constitutional process for such disputes.

If you have to call that 'tyranny' then you reject our Constitution and the government it establishes as tyrannical.

First, I was talking about "the first principles of the reality in which you live", not "the constitutional process for passing laws".



Judicial duplicity. Judicial complicity. Judicial tyranny.

Calling the way our system works 'tyranny' (for no other reason than you don't like the outcome of the system working as it was designed) is rejecting the Constitution and the government as tyrannical.

So have your rebellion. Sic semper tyrannis.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

The essence of any form of statism is narcissism, theft, tyranny and so on. . . .

I may accurately assert that. I did accurately assert that. And narcissism has everything to do with the psychology of the statist bootlick and the narcissism of his political ideology.

Solely in your imagination where political ideas take on anthropomorphized zombie bodies. It's still a load of flaming horseshit.

Narcissism is not a political philsophy; it's a personal problem. As are paranoia, misogyny, or any other personal trait developed by definition individually rather than collectively. To declare that "person X is agoraphobic, therefore Republican/Democrat/socialist/fascist/anarchist/whatever" is the height of wackadoodlitity. It boils down to argument from emotion. But if you hold that the progression is valid, well the burden of proof for that theory is all yours.

Oh, for crying out loud! Cut to the chase, boy, and stop wasting time on all this personal crap and irrelevant minutia. I made the meaning of my shorthand expression abundantly clear. Of course narcissism is not literally the same thing as a political philosophy!

Check?

More of the very same unimaginatively literal baby talk as if it were profundity.

Once again, I said that narcissism has everything to do with the psychology of the statist bootlick and the narcissism of his political ideology.

Note: "the psychology of" and "the narcissism of", you dope.

Further, I didn't say anything about political parties/affiliations . . . which you lump together with various kinds of political ideologues.

I'm talking about any form of statism, and nothing else in this regard. I'm telling you in the most literal terms possible, apparently the only terms in which you're capable of understanding anything: persons who embrace the invariably collectivistic trappings of statism are, among other things, narcissistic thugs.

Check?

Doesn't matter, you're still clueless, and you've offered no rebuttal save a smarmy ad hominem. Strike three, caught looking. Point stands.

No. your point, such as it is, is stupid as it has absolutely nothing to do with mine.

Check?

If you don't like having your pants pulled down around your ankles as you think to lecture with baby talk, stop being as obtuse as a pile of bricks.

Check?

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect.

Check?

It's not even close.

Check?

It's really fairly simple. I'm affirming that PC is an extreme narcissist as several others already stated and already know. This is common knowledge around here, even self-admitted by the poster herself. That you take issue with it tells me you're not that familiar with her.

Blah, blah, blah blah, blah. I got that the first time. What I asked you requires nothing more than a yes or no answer. But let me give you the background that I generously attributed to you and express my question again in the most literal terms possible.

I've read PoliticalChic ever since I've been on this board. I know her stuff well. As you say, just ask her. In fact I know boedicca's stuff very well too. Both of these ladies pack intellectual fire power of the first order.

Economically, PoliticalChic leans hard libertarian as do I. However, I'm not an Objectivist.

What I asked you, merely as a matter of passing curiosity, with regard to the instance to which you have alluded again, as if you were going on about something beyond the ken of mere mortals like me: did she say that she is a narcissist in the sense of that psychological pathology, you dope, or a narcissist in the sense of Objectivism's politics and ethics owing to its minarchistic model of laissez-faire and egoism?

If the later, a simple yes or no will do.

If you still don't understand the question, read this: Objectivism: The Uninspired Religion of "Reason".

I don't know what you wrongly assumed; what I took issue with was addressing points to some wispy unknown strawperson apparently named "Lefty" -- which smacks of a dismissive dehumanizing broad brush generalization -- rather than directly addressing an individual person who made his or her individual point. I'm not claiming "lefty" or "righty". I'm saying keep your damn labels off me and stop tuning out what an individual person says and pretending some intellectual 'caste' full of your preconceived stereotypes speaks as one. Those two fallacies are as far as I'm concerned the lamest dynamics going on in this environment, and to re-invoke my own tired metaphor, more heaps of flaming horseshit.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I assumed you were a political leftist. You corrected that misapprehension or, at the very least, have now emphatically expressed your displeasure of being labeled as such. Goody for you.

Initially, you wrote this: "Lefty does not post here. What you quoted is my post, and I'm righthanded."

I know whose post I quoted, and in my response to the above, I assumed you were speaking metaphorically—you know, given the context in which I was speaking—though, admittedly, I should have known better.

So you're literally right-handed, eh? Congratulations. So am I. There's something we have in common.

And additionally it should be noted, two of the main crutches the OP habitually bases her fallacious threads upon, along with both blanket and individual ad hominem, which for me is why said threads are consistently worthless -- even when conceived on useful ideas. They shoot themselves in the foot at the starting line, and it would seem they do so deliberately.

PoliticalChic is more than capable of defending the quality of her OP's. Take that up with her, so she can deconstruct your charge as I deconstructed your boneheaded arrogance in the above.

I would submit that "fascist socialism" is an oxymoron. Here's where we need terms defined. Very broadly I see "fascism" as an elevation of the State and its power channels over the people, where socialism is the direct opposite. Hence the concept is a paradox. And we've already repeatedly beaten to death this revisionist idea of "Hitler was a leftist" and/or "Hitler was a liberal" -- usually with revisionists who don't even know the difference between those terms.

Now, we're getting somewhere. Nevertheless, your contentions are naive. Fascism is the stuff of totalitarian-authoritarian nationalism to be sure. Socialism is a collectivist form of statism, but then all forms of statism are essentially collectivistic in nature relative to the concerns of individual liberty. And once again, Hitler was a political leftist relative to the imperatives of the Anglo-American tradition of natural law. There's nothing revisionist about that at all, given the left-wing aspects of fascism's governing philosophy as distinguished from its more traditionally right-wing social concerns. And I don't know anyone who has ever claimed that Hitler was a liberal in any sense, let alone in the classical sense of the term. Talk about revisionism!

Fascist socialism is merely a different kind of socialism as compared to Marxist socialism or democratic socialism. They are all collectivistic and statist in terms of their nature.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The first principle is that the ACA was passed in accordance with the constitutional process for passing laws, and also survived a challenge up to the level of the Supreme Court in keeping with the constitutional process for such disputes.

If you have to call that 'tyranny' then you reject our Constitution and the government it establishes as tyrannical.

First, I was talking about "the first principles of the reality in which you live", not "the constitutional process for passing laws".



Judicial duplicity. Judicial complicity. Judicial tyranny.

Calling the way our system works 'tyranny' (for no other reason than you don't like the outcome of the system working as it was designed) is rejecting the Constitution and the government as tyrannical.

So have your rebellion. Sic semper tyrannis.

I note that you struck the pertinent portion of my post that would expose this pathetic straw man. Are you a sociopath as well as a narcissist?

Full context:

[T]o hold that the government or any one of its three branches has acted contrary to the imperatives of the Constitution is not rejecting the validity of the Constitution. The former presupposes the validity of the latter.

In the consolidated case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (June, 2012), the Court held that the federal government's argument predicated on the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause was bogus; albeit, the Court upheld ACA's compliance penalty on the grounds of Congress' constitutional power to tax. In other words, the Court effectively amended an unconstitutional law to make it constitutional, as the individual mandate is the guts of the entire enterprise. Strike that, and the whole thing collapses.

The Court's action was not just a ham-handed breach of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, it was a flat-out violation of the explicit constitutional limits of the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause!

Judicial duplicity. Judicial complicity. Judicial tyranny.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

True.

In fact, it’s worse, where the OP lacks the ability to even be wrong on her own.

Otherwise, this rightwing meme of the United States making the ‘mistake’ of entering the war when it did is predicated on the bizarre, inane, and hateful notion that without American intervention, Germany would have been able to destroy Soviet Russia, and the bane of communism along with it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Please educate me, professor. Connect the dots for my feeble mind. Show me the way.

The cows in the dessert are a symptom of The State encroaching into every aspect of our lives. 140 years ago, ranchers were free to graze their cattle on empty land. The land is still basically empty...but the Feds have abused their power by taking it over and using the pretext of a tortoise to steer the benefits of that land to political cronies.

If they'll use a dessert that way, just contemplate how much they desire to control and use people, add the ever increasing surveillance capabilities provided by Big Tech...and voila, it's quite easy to see how implants will become mandatory in order to receive one's monthly stipend and food allowance once the takeover is complete.

How come my taxes subsidize his cattle feed?

Secondly the paranoia over the state implants is ludicrous. The government couldn't get a website right that the private sector does on a daily basis but you expect the government to be able to keep precise tabs on the whereabouts of 300+ million people? The private sector only now is figuring out how to pick up the signal from your cell phone when you enter a mall and they have an incentive to get that to work. The government doesn't have the budget, the resources or the skillsets necessary to create the kind of scifi scenario you are imagining.

A little off topic but the state is more than capable of doing such. The NSA actions have shown that to be very true. They now monitor the calling data of every single person in the nation. If you had a tracking chip – it would be infinitely easy to transfer that to monitoring your location in real time. BTW – that is NOT a futuristic tech. It is done right now with social media. The extension of that from current examples is nothing more than a simple question of resources. The government has a LOT of resource.

Secondly, there will not be a ‘government mandated’ chip. The original post on this did not make that contention at all. Instead, it contended (correctly IMHO) that such a chip will be damn near essential in modern day to day life. That means the government will not have to mandate a single thing – people will get it willingly. Do you have a debit card? Do you have a cell phone? I would bet that you have both and the reality is that almost everyone has both. Neither were mandated.

 

[FA_Q2]

politicalchic, would you like a third party - like say the government - intervening between a doctor and patient and telling them which course of treatment they are allowed to pursue based on that third party's whims?

Conservatives support the free market death panel. If you can't afford healthcare at the market price,

you go without, or at best go begging.

Liberals support the government death panel. Actually, if you support the ACA you support BOTH the free market death panel, as the insurance companies are still there and still pushing profitability, and the government death panel.

Or do you imagine that healthcare is some bottomless pit of infinite resources that can dole out anything to anyone that demands it?


“Death panels” is an asinine term that has the single purpose of drumming up an emotional response to subvert logic. The simple reality is that there are limited resources and there must be a manner in which those resources are ‘doled’ out to people. The market is and has always been an efficient way to deal with limited resources. You seem to think that the government would do a better job. Fine but the use of such tearms certainly does not lead credence to your arguments.

 

[FA_Q2]

If that were true then anyone who is buying health insurance is wasting their money.

The ones who paid for insurance covered the ones who did not. exactly the same as under obozocare, but now we also have to pay for a huge inefficient govt beaurocracy. and you fools call that progress?

Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. Medicare pays out 98% of the collected premiums in healthcare.

Under Obamacare, private insurance companies are now required to get their percentage up to 85% or refund the difference.

Who is inefficient??????

That is because Medicare gets to enforce its own prices and does not include the massive burden that is placed on the supplier (as well as the months in delay that the same waits hoeing that Medicare actually pays).

What you don’t see is the cost that is shifted to the rest of us making that false number of 98%.

 

[FA_Q2]

Many use the emergency room as their primary physician......you dope.

Like .... who?

Link?

Like many affected by ACA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/h...y-increase-er-visits-study-suggests.html?_r=0

Who would of thought that emergency care would INCREASE under the ACA? I thought it was supposed to decr4ease it.

Oh wait - we already knew that it would do so as the same shit happened with Romneycare. Turns out, when you subsidize something - people use MORE. What a surprise.

 

[FA_Q2]

henchmen? seriously?

i'm of the opinion that a pharmacy is licensed to do business, and that part of that license should be the facilitation of legal prescription fulfillment - whether the pharmacist personally objects or otherwise.

if the pharmacist objects that strongly they are welcome to choose a new career. sometimes having religious convictions can require tough choices.

further, your #3 quote doesn't really have anything to do with your position.

That is the opinion that the state should somehow force one person to do something that they do not want to for no other reason than you demand it. That is rather silly.

You don’t have to serve tacos if you own a restaurant – that would simply be asinine. Why then does a pharmacy have to carry a specific drug? Why is it required to dispense that drug? And most stunning of all, why do you chose a drug that is NOT lifesaving or difficult to obtain to be the holy grail of MUST DISPENSE drugs.

Interestingly enough, no pharmacy carries the medication that my son requires. None of them are required to dispense it. Should I lose it or otherwise end up without it then I may have to drive a hundred miles to obtain more. If I do not administer it, my son will die.

Not one single person thinks it is some sort of ‘right’ that a pharmacy carry it though. I guess the medication that allows for you to more easily practice your chosen sex pattern is more important than another’s medication that is required to survive. The hypocrisy is utterly stunning.

The rather simple solution is to allow the business to handle it weather or not that means firing the employee or allowing them to work. That is called freedom – freedom to execute your life and business as you see fit.

As far as the euthanasia issue, I too would like to hear PC actually respond to that issue. It is utterly counter to the belief in freedom to demand that a person and their doctor cannot make end of life decisions. If you want to kill yourself – go ahead. Who the hell am I to demand that such an act be illegal/

well again, i'm not saying that your local pharmacy shouldn't carry the drug you need, or that they should have a ready supply on hand.

i do recognize that it is unreasonable to expect every pharmacy everywhere to carry every drug, but i do believe that it is not unreasonable to expect them, as part of being a licensed pharmacy, to facilitate getting the drug to you.

in other words i believe that you should be able to walk into a pharmacy, any pharmacy, present them with a script, and have that script filled within a reasonable amount of time at that pharmacy.

They don't facilitate anything. simple as that. They are not required to do so because they are a business in it to make a profit and that requires that they discriminate quite widely on the drugs they make available. Somehow, I don't see the difference in discriminating against a product out of principal or profit motive. Further, the particular product in question is an asinine choice to force a pharmacy to supply in general. It is clear that this is nothing more than political asshattery in order to satisfy the demands of a particular special interest group. I see that as a gross misuse of government power and completely unacceptable. You will to when that same exact force gets turned on something that you do not support.

that is the core problem with giving the government such powers - it WILL be used on something that you find abhorrent. The government has no right to demand that a business supply a specific product nor should it - that is the purview of the business. Just because this particular product appeals to some peoples sensibilities should not mean that we simply trow the rights of others aside - that is how you end up without rights at all.

Holland isn't here. Regardless if a pharmacist doesn't want to hand out legal drugs then they can find a new job.

and THAT is exactly right.

muslims and orthodox jews shouldn't work selling pork.

fundie christian extremists shouldn't be pharmacists.

Except that your analogy is somewhat off. This is the equivalent of stating that Jews and Muslims cannot operate a grocery story or a restaurant. They should be FORCED to serve pork at those establishments because, after all, YOU want it.

Of course we know that is actually outright false - they not only have the right to work there but the establishment has the right to not carry those products. You seem to think that the state has a right to demand that they carry such products though and that is certifiably insane.

Perhaps you can explain why the government should have the ability to force all grocers to carry and dispense pork? This should be good.

 

[Pogo]

The essence of any form of statism is narcissism, theft, tyranny and so on. . . .

I may accurately assert that. I did accurately assert that. And narcissism has everything to do with the psychology of the statist bootlick and the narcissism of his political ideology.

Solely in your imagination where political ideas take on anthropomorphized zombie bodies. It's still a load of flaming horseshit.

Narcissism is not a political philsophy; it's a personal problem. As are paranoia, misogyny, or any other personal trait developed by definition individually rather than collectively. To declare that "person X is agoraphobic, therefore Republican/Democrat/socialist/fascist/anarchist/whatever" is the height of wackadoodlitity. It boils down to argument from emotion. But if you hold that the progression is valid, well the burden of proof for that theory is all yours.

Oh, for crying out loud! Cut to the chase, boy, and stop wasting time on all this personal crap and irrelevant minutia. I made the meaning of my shorthand expression abundantly clear. Of course narcissism is not literally the same thing as a political philosophy!

Check?

I accept your apology. But try to word it better next time. Not sure you get your own concession here.

More of the very same unimaginatively literal baby talk as if it were profundity.

Aaaaand right back to ad hom. How far we've come.

Once again, I said that narcissism has everything to do with the psychology of the statist bootlick and the narcissism of his political ideology. Note: "the psychology of" and "the narcissism of", you dope.

And in three sentences he reverts to anthropomorphizing thoughts immediately after denying that's what he's doing. Pulling the same crap out of his ass over and over and expecting different results. Weird.

Further, I didn't say anything about political parties/affiliations . . . which you lump together with various kinds of political ideologues.

Horseshit. Who the fuck is "Lefty" then? I posted a picture of the only "Lefty" I know, and he doesn't post here.

I'm talking about any form of statism, and nothing else in this regard. I'm telling you in the most literal terms possible, apparently the only terms in which you're capable of understanding anything: persons who embrace the invariably collectivistic trappings of statism are, among other things, narcissistic thugs.

Check?

That's what I've been addressing. And I'm telling you, attributing human psychological traits to abstract ideas is batshit insane. I don't give a fuck if you grow a goatee and speak in a Viennese accent, it's still horseshit.

No. your point, such as it is, is stupid as it has absolutely nothing to do with mine.

Check?

If you don't like having your pants pulled down around your ankles as you think to lecture with baby talk, stop being as obtuse as a pile of bricks.

Check?

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect.

Check?

It's not even close.

Check?

Well obviously from the above you DO understand what narcissism is...

You're down to simple trolling now; you made a horseshit point, got it called out, and now you beat your chest and declare yourself king of the world. Go fuck yourself, narcissist.

Blah, blah, blah blah, blah. I got that the first time. What I asked you requires nothing more than a yes or no answer. But let me give you the background that I generously attributed to you and express my question again in the most literal terms possible.

I've read PoliticalChic ever since I've been on this board. I know her stuff well. As you say, just ask her. In fact I know boedicca's stuff very well too. Both of these ladies pack intellectual fire power of the first order.

Economically, PoliticalChic leans hard libertarian as do I. However, I'm not an Objectivist.

What I asked you, merely as a matter of passing curiosity, with regard to the instance to which you have alluded again, as if you were going on about something beyond the ken of mere mortals like me: did she say that she is a narcissist in the sense of that psychological pathology, you dope, or a narcissist in the sense of Objectivism's politics and ethics owing to its minarchistic model of laissez-faire and egoism?

If the later, a simple yes or no will do.

If you still don't understand the question, read this: Objectivism: The Uninspired Religion of "Reason".

Yammer yammer yammer yammer yammer ...

How much longer is this going to take?

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

DO go on, this is most interesting...

I assumed you were a political leftist. You corrected that misapprehension or, at the very least, have now emphatically expressed your displeasure of being labeled as such. Goody for you.

Initially, you wrote this: "Lefty does not post here. What you quoted is my post, and I'm righthanded."

I know whose post I quoted, and in my response to the above, I assumed you were speaking metaphorically—you know, given the context in which I was speaking—though, admittedly, I should have known better.

So you're literally right-handed, eh? Congratulations. So am I. There's something we have in common.

And additionally it should be noted, two of the main crutches the OP habitually bases her fallacious threads upon, along with both blanket and individual ad hominem, which for me is why said threads are consistently worthless -- even when conceived on useful ideas. They shoot themselves in the foot at the starting line, and it would seem they do so deliberately.

PoliticalChic is more than capable of defending the quality of her OP's. Take that up with her, so she can deconstruct your charge as I deconstructed your boneheaded arrogance in the above.

Hell, I did that when I first got here over a year ago. She was the first low hanging fruit I partook of in an extended exchange. I believe it was about guns. But she's not bickering with me here -- you are. Trying to run away from your own point?

I would submit that "fascist socialism" is an oxymoron. Here's where we need terms defined. Very broadly I see "fascism" as an elevation of the State and its power channels over the people, where socialism is the direct opposite. Hence the concept is a paradox. And we've already repeatedly beaten to death this revisionist idea of "Hitler was a leftist" and/or "Hitler was a liberal" -- usually with revisionists who don't even know the difference between those terms.

Now, we're getting somewhere. Nevertheless, your contentions are naive.

I said "very broadly".

Fascism is the stuff of totalitarian-authoritarian nationalism to be sure. Socialism is a collectivist form of statism, but then all forms of statism are essentially collectivistic in nature relative to the concerns of individual liberty. And once again, Hitler was a political leftist relative to the imperatives of the Anglo-American tradition of natural law. There's nothing revisionist about that at all, given the left-wing aspects of fascism's governing philosophy as distinguished from its more traditionally right-wing social concerns. And I don't know anyone who has ever claimed that Hitler was a liberal in any sense, let alone in the classical sense of the term. Talk about revisionism!

No shit. But it's been threaded here, repeatedly, as I said painting Hitler as both "liberal" and "leftist" by those without a clue of the distinction between them. But as for facism's traditionally right-wing social concerns (I have to assume its refers to "fascism", not to "left-wing"), the hypernationalism of the Third Reich, its appeal to a glorious romantic past, its moralistic "Kinder Kirche Küche" mantra, its penchant for making war, all live on the right, not the left. As I said these have been beaten to death on this and other message boards. Still back there in the archives.

Fascist socialism is merely a different kind of socialism as compared to Marxist socialism or democratic socialism. They are all collectivistic and statist in terms of their nature.

All statist maybe, but "fascist socialism" remains oxymoronic. It's like saying "over there-- the left one on the right". Babble bullshit unto oblivion, that's not gonna change just because you repeat it over and over and rattle your ad hom saber.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Pogo, you're a pathological liar and a bore.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pogo, you're a pathological liar and a bore.

I believe you left out 'back-stabbing, ankle-nipping, dirt-eating, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, mouth-breathing mutt.'

 

[Pogo]

Pogo, you're a pathological liar and a bore.

Is not! Is too!

Well that's about what I expected. Thanks for an elevated and thoughtful counterargument.

/sarc

 

[Pogo]

Pogo, you're a pathological liar and a bore.

I believe you left out 'back-stabbing, ankle-nipping, dirt-eating, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, mouth-breathing mutt.'

You want me. Admit it.