Warrior Webb Checks Chickenhawk Bush! [Archive] - HungAngels

View Full Version : Warrior Webb Checks Chickenhawk Bush!

chefmike

11-30-2006, 09:59 PM

A decorated warrior and the chickenshit chickenhawk-in-chief! 8)

It's a damn shame that Webb can't challenge shit-for-brains shrubya to a duel...but then again Bush has no honor, so it wouldn't happen anyway! :lol: :P

Jim Webb continues to FIGHT!

"I have not yet begun to fight" --John Paul Jones, Father Of The United States Navy

Webb, a decorated former Marine officer, hammered Allen and Bush over the unpopular war in Iraq while wearing his son’s old combat boots on the campaign trail. It seems the president may have some lingering resentment.
At a recent White House reception for freshmen members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.

"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

Webb supposedly confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source.

"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall," Webb said in an interview yesterday in which he confirmed the exchange between him and Bush. "No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."

Well, even though Jim Webb is an excellent boxer and a proven fighter...
...we know that he would never resort to such a response to shrubya since Webb's intelligence, intellect and composure under fire are astronomically superior to that of our current chickenhawk-in-chief!

At the very least, shrubya should send his slutty, drunken daughters to Iraq to service the troops... :lol: :P

White_Male_Canada

12-01-2006, 03:02 AM

That would be funny is it wasn`t for the fact Col.Oliver North beat this maggot in the ring to win the Brigade Boxing Championship back in `68.

Obviously something Webb still rages and lashes out at to anyone.

Webb criticized North back in `94 saying that, ``Over the years, many people who have known Oliver North well have marveled at the exaggerations and misrepresentations he has brought to the public arena.''

North slipped Webb`s jab yet again and perfectly countered by recalling his defeat of Webb in the ring and remarking, ``How old are these sour grapes - 26, 27 years?''

Webb got lucky in the large urban areas.Virginia is now stuck with this obvious loose screw for 6 years 8)

chefmike

12-01-2006, 03:30 PM

It's no secret that North once bested Webb in a boxing match.

It's also no secret that North LOST his bid for the Virginia senate!

Nor is it a secret that North is a kook and a member of the lunatic fringe.

Like yourself...

:screwy

White_Male_Canada

12-02-2006, 03:08 AM

First things first.Manners,manners,manners.

Manners are inauthentic. Manners are pretending to have feelings you don't have. And for post-therapeutic man the feelings he does have are the most important things in the world. Not to nurture and fondle them and take them out for public display on the slightest pretext would be to be guilty not only of dishonesty but of "repression" -- than which not even President Bush is more to be hated. That's why Fightin' Jim is so proud to be
a boor ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901267.html ),

a cad ( http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10692 )

and a jerk. It's not just that he doesn't know or care that that's what he is, though he may not. It's that he expects the world's applause for being authentic and true to his feelings. Unfortunately for him, the world rarely does applaud such authenticity, for all its theoretical approval of it. Just because we believe implicitly in true psychic reality -- whether angry, hate-filled or lascivious -- it doesn't mean that we enjoy seeing it on public exhibition.(J. Bowman)

Hate filled,just like you sport.That`s why you like the guy,he`s filled with inexplicable rage.

Secondly, I`ve deconstructed the slur,"chichenhawk". Your further use of it merely exhibits your irrational thoughts.

If the kook left actually believed that insult they sling , they would have to abdicate on decisions regarding peace as well as war.

By "chickenhawk" you imply that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. Therefore,if only left to the Armed Forces,the USA would be more hawkish and Conservative.

So if only those who served in the miltary have the sole moral authority to back a war,then only those who served in the miltary and war, have the authority to oppose war.That would therefore exclude about 90% of the left.

You mindlessly endorse the idea of a military autocracy, juntas, where military experience is a prerequisite in determining the policies of a country.

:wink: Have a Nice Day :wink:

chefmike

12-02-2006, 06:36 AM

:sleep

chefmike

12-02-2006, 07:17 AM

No Pandering Here
Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb is the rare Washington figure who doesn't suck up to power.

By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Updated: 2:42 p.m. ET Dec 1, 2006
Dec. 1, 2006 - Every so often a politician comes along who doesn’t pander to the president. Fresh off a nasty campaign that centered on the war in Iraq, Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb had no interest in a picture of himself with President Bush, and he didn’t want to exchange small talk with the man whose war policies he opposes. So he skipped the receiving line at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, creating the first of what we should all hope will be many ripples in Washington.

Webb’s presumed snub of Bush is rare enough in a city where everybody who’s anybody has a glory wall, and social occasions are geared to a parade of picture taking. But what happened next is where the story really takes off. President Bush, spying Webb across the room, walked over to him and asked, “How’s your boy?” Webb’s son is a Marine in Iraq.

A more seasoned politician might have been flattered that the president knew his son was in the line of fire and bothered to ask about him. That wouldn’t be Webb, a best-selling author who got into electoral politics for primarily one reason, his opposition to the Iraq war. “I’d like to get them out of Iraq,” he replied, according to several published accounts. “That’s not what I asked you,” Bush said, repeating his question: “How’s your boy?” Webb’s reply: “That’s between me and my boy.” Afterward, a source told The Hill newspaper that Webb was so angered by the exchange he was tempted to slug the guy. That might have prompted the Secret Service to pull their weapons, which wouldn’t have been the first time Webb, a highly decorated Vietnam combat veteran, faced the barrel of a gun.

A quirky individualist who wants no part of the phony collegiality of Washington, Webb was rightly insulted when Bush pressed him in that bullying way—“That’s not what I asked you”—trying to force the conversation back to Webb’s son. Webb could have asked how the Bush girls are doing, partying their way across Argentina. He could have told Bush he was worried about his son; the vehicle next to him was blown up recently, killing three Marines. Given the contrast between their respective offspring, Webb showed restraint.

But that’s not how much of official Washington reacted. Columnist George F. Will was the most offended, declaring civility dead and Webb a boor and a “pompous poseur.” Were the etiquette police as exercised when Vice President Dick Cheney told Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy to perform an anatomically impossible act on the Senate floor? Or is that amusing by Washington’s odd standards?

Webb told the Washington Post that his intention was not to offend Bush or the institution of the presidency but that “leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is.” By standing up to Bush, Webb became a hero to a lot of people who voted against this president and this war, and whose views have been sidelined for six years. Symbols matter. Bush certainly understands their importance, or he wouldn’t have jetted onto that carrier in a flight suit and stood in front of a banner that proclaimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED more than a thousand days and thousands more deaths ago. A president snubbed by a junior senator-elect and then, more tellingly by the puppet prime minister in Iraq, should be wondering where he went wrong, not the other way around

It’s justice long overdue for a president who has so abused the symbols of war to get his comeuppance from a battlefield hero who personifies real toughness as opposed to fake toughness. Bush struts around with this bullying frat-boy attitude, and he gets away with it because nobody stands up to him. Bush could have left Webb’s initial response stand, but no, he had to jab back—“That’s not what I asked you.” Webb is not one to be bullied. He knows what real toughness is, and it’s not lording it over people who are weaker than you, and if you’re president, everybody by definition is weaker.

The lords of Washington will say that Webb got off to a rocky start, but so did Paul Wellstone, another iconoclastic citizen turned politician who dared to violate social protocol. It was another Bush and another gulf war, but Wellstone’s initial impropriety set the stage for what turned out to be a distinguished and even inspirational career that was tragically cut short by a plane crash four years ago. A professor of political science at Minnesota’s Carleton College, Wellstone was antiwar even then and had run on a progressive platform. At a White House reception in 1991 for newly elected members, Wellstone used his time in the receiving line with President George H.W. Bush to press his opposition to the first gulf war that loomed on the horizon and to urge more attention to education and health care. After he moved through the line, Bush was overheard saying, “Who is this chickens--t?” It's a sentiment the son surely shares.

chefmike

12-02-2006, 07:35 AM

White_Male_Canada

12-02-2006, 08:57 PM

That`s your best, Eleanor Clift !? :P

She`s a hack`s hack. Wannabe hacks, shills and propagandists grow up

wanting to be just like her.

Clift greatist hits ,

"But I think what we're coming to grips with is the fact that we actually have a mercenary Army,"

Also,

we live in an "apartheid America." :lol:

chefmike

12-04-2006, 08:38 PM

That's your best, George the shill Will? :lol: 8) :roll:

George F. Will: His Unethical Behavior in 1980 Made Him the Role Model For a Pundit Generation

Smart people are talking about the dishonesty in yesterday's column by George F. Will. Although I was shocked by it, too, it was a minor lapse by Will's standards. This is a good time to remember his enormous breach of ethics in 1980 - one which made him the role model for a generation of cynical, dishonest, and self-serving journalists and pundits.

Yesterday, Will altered quotes from his own paper's reporting in order to make Sen-elect Jim Webb look ruder (and the President more polite) during their encounter. In fact, Webb was direct and Bush was - I can't put this more politely - a dick.

The press has tried to cover up W's nasty streak for six years, but it does slip out from time to time - often with the people whose children are fighting his war. But whether you agree with my assessment of the President and Webb or not, quote-doctoring is a journalistic lie.

Yesterday's mendacity was nothing for George F. Will, however. He has been a disgrace to his once-honorable profession for a long time. His sleazy behavior in years past helped pave the way for the debased media of today.

The Carter/Reagan debate, and Will's role in it, changed journalism forever. Will went on national television that year to comment live and "objectively" on Ronald Reagan's debate performance - without disclosing that he was working for the Reagan campaign and had helped Reagan prepare for that very debate - using stolen property.

This unethical behavior set a new low for journalistic ethics. What was equally ground-breaking was the fact that, once his behavior was made public, he paid absolutely no professional price for it. No censure, no widespread criticism, no loss of employment.

Here's what's known, and not in question, about Will's behavior in 1980:

He was an advisor to the Reagan campaign, and specifically coached Reagan on how to handle the one debate he held with Jimmy Carter.
He appeared on Nightline as part of a panel to review the debate the night after he coached Reagan.
Ted Koppel noted that Will "met with Reagan" the previous day, and said that Will was known to have "affection" for Reagan - but did not disclose he was working for the campaign in a professional capacity. (That's an enormous omission - and Koppel appears to have helped "spin" the "disclosure" in Will's favor.)
Will, Reagan, and the rest of the team used a Carter debate briefing book which was clearly stolen property. The result? Reagan's effective "there you go again, Mr. President" routine.
Will praised Reagan highly on Nightline, saying "his game plan worked well." (Viewers didn't know at the time that this "game plan" was Will's own creation.)
The consensus today is that Reagan won that debate overwhelmingly. But, as often happens, it wasn't all that clear at the time. Yes, Carter was weaker than expected and Reagan beat expectations (which, as with W, were deliberately pre-set at a low level by spin doctors.) But the overwhelming Reagan victory pundits recall today was partially the product of contemporary chatter that turned into consensus.

Will's self-serving praise for his candidate (and himself) contributed to the perception that Reagan won - and that, despite popular perceptions, he was actually "Presidential."

What were the repercussions for this shocking breach of journalistic ethics, which included lying by omission, misrepresentation, breach of the public trust, and use of stolen property? How did the journalistic community punish its own?

Will won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary the following year!

With that award, the editorial community made it clear that issues like disclosure, conflict of interest, and lying by omission no longer mattered. Ethical breaches were no impediment to either honor or success in American journalism. ((And they wonder why the profession has lost public respect.)

*****
Honesty, morality, and fair play are the true marks of decency. In those areas Mr. Will - and those journalists and pundits who follow in his footsteps - are sadly lacking.

RJ Eskow
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/3569

guyone

12-05-2006, 02:53 AM

Those brave soldiers fighting in Iraq want to serve their country. Being that there is no draft despite the intentions of Charles Randel. So the old commie pshycological tactic used during the Vietnam war to demoralise our troops no longer works.

And we all know the real reason lefties don't like Operation Iraqi Freedom. It's because we easily toppled a lefty government. Lefties don't really care about an act of war they just naturally side with their fellow socialists. This is quite understandable. I just think lefties should remember who their real friends are.

chefmike

12-08-2006, 08:42 AM

Those brave soldiers fighting in Iraq want to serve their country. Being that there is no draft despite the intentions of Charles Randel. So the old commie pshycological tactic used during the Vietnam war to demoralise our troops no longer works.

Tell that BS to the thousands of military and civilians in Iraq who were killed and maimed for nothing.

Tell that to those in the National Guard who've been called up for multiple tours because of bush the liar's backdoor draft.

Better yet, tell it to these veterans-

Iraq Veterans Against The War

"IVAW is a national group of veterans and active-duty servicemen and women of the "Global War On Terror" who are working to bring our brothers and sisters home now."

http://www.ivaw.org/

An Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq

Many active duty, reserve, and guard service members are concerned about the war in Iraq and support the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The Appeal for Redress provides a way in which individual service members can appeal to their Congressional Representative and US Senators to urge an end to the U.S. military occupation. The Appeal messages will be delivered to members of Congress at the time of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in January 2007.

To read and sign the appeal go to www.appealforredress.org.

One Soldier's Musings
by Ronn Cantu | Sat, 11/18/2006 - 9:01am

The Death of a Pro-War Conservative -or- The Day I got Away with Murder

Vividly I remember the 15th of May, 2004. It had been business as usual and we were heading home from FOB Warhorse in Baquba. By "home" I mean FOB Normandy in the small town of Muqdadiyah, and by "we" I mean Support Platoon, 2-2 Infantry. Ramrods!

We had gone to Warhorse to fill our fuel trucks and pick up a two-day supply of food. We did this every other day for almost the entire year we were in Iraq and so that day was nothing new. Improvised explosive devices (IED) were the norm, as was small-arms fire. It had been two months since we started our convoy operations and we had learned how to avoid, or at least minimize, the damage done to our vehicles by IED.

Our strategy was to drive as fast as possible down the center of the road. Ok, so we had to force the local drivers off the road at times. We weren't concerned about them, just ourselves.

And for the record, I still credit this technique for the survival of everyone in the platoon, but I'm digressing.

I was driving the rearmost vehicle with the convoy commander, my platoon leader, and I was dozing off behind the wheel again (those of you who were drivers in Iraq can probably empathize) when

***BOOOOOM***

I looked up in time to see the largest fireball I had ever seen in my entire life engulf one of our fuel trucks just ahead of my vehicle. Our fuel trucks had been filled while we were at Warhorse and each truck was carrying 2,350 gallons of diesel fuel and it was my belief, at that moment in time, that one of our trucks had exploded.

I was in such a state of shock that I didn't realize that the driver of the 5-ton gun truck in front of me had slammed on the brakes. I hit mine too late to stop in time and had to swerve sharply to the right to avoid smashing into the gun truck, but my rearview mirror was ripped off by the 5-ton's bumper in the process and I ended up coming to a stop to the right of the truck and not in a position to pull the rear security that the rear vehicle is responsible for.

From here it starts to get hazy and I lose track of when exactly certain events took place. So much was happening at the same time and these events took place two-and-a-half years ago this month. But I do remember it was total chaos.

And I remember every weapon in the convoy coming to life. Bullets were flying at everything and nothing at the same time. I was firing my M16 at a house near where the IED had detonated. I didn't really have a target, I was just shooting at the house for the sake of shooting. I saw a white horse in a field and shot at it twice, but it didn't go down and I questioned whether I was actually hitting it. I shot at some clothes on a clothesline and at a satellite dish on one of the houses. All for the sake of making a statement.

Now an IED had gone off in our convoy a few days before all of this and we didn't fire a single round. It was the belief of the chain of command, as well as me at the time, that if we responded to these attacks violently, then the citizens would eventually get fed up and not allow the insurgents to place IEDs in front of their homes or in their neighborhoods.
And like that, the phrase "make a statement" became our unwritten Golden Rule.

I don't remember how long we were shooting, but .50-caliber machine guns, an Mk-19 Automatic Grenade Launcher, an M240B and several M16s were firing at everything while the convoy was stopped. I guess a white pickup truck was trying to speed away and it got shot up. I didn't see it.

I saw the horse I had shot was running around in circles, dragging its rear legs.

During the time when all the shooting was going on, our medic was trying to treat the two soldiers who were in the fuel truck. Now, sometimes you have to give your enemy credit, you really do. This particular IED was something we hadn't encountered before (and ended up not encountering the rest of our tour - thank God). It was simply a 55-gallon drum full of gasoline that was wired to explode. The fireball I saw wasn't the fuel truck, it was the IED itself. With artillery shell IEDs, you always stand the chance that the fragmentation will simply miss you. We had a lot of our trucks scarred by shrapnel, but the soldiers driving those trucks typically came out unscathed.

However, all the armor in the world isn't going to save you when a tidal wave of flaming fuel comes splashing through your window.

But both soldiers were able to evacuate the fuel truck and were being treated by our medic. And here's where it really starts to get fuzzy and I completely lose track of what happened but I remember a Special Forces team showing up to assist us with security and aid of the wounded soldiers. I remember seeing one of the SF guys with this huge head of hair and I remember thinking to myself how I wanted his hair. They came, did their thing, and left.

And at some point one of our Fuel Section non-commissioned officers yelled for everyone to get away from the burning fuel truck. That was pandemonium. Every vehicle started backing up at high rates of speed and anyone who has ever driven any military vehicle knows that rear visibility is always an issue. The gun truck quickly backed up, and I started to follow suit in my humvee, but I didn't realize soldiers were trying to climb in the back and I ended up hitting one and knocking him down. He was fine, but I ran over his M16 and destroyed it. I started yelling for the people behind me to either get in the truck or get the out of the way. I looked forward just in time to see our second fuel truck slam into my humvee.

My humvee's front left tire was blown out, the front end was crushed and since I never bothered to get into the vehicle completely, my door slammed onto my leg, pinning it as the fuel truck started pushing my humvee back. Humvees are big trucks, but those fueler HEMTT (Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck) are bigger trucks. The driver had hit me and didn't even realize it at first. He let off the gas long enough for me to free my leg and back up my vehicle, but the damage was done. The humvee couldn't be driven back to our FOB and had to be towed.

At some point, another soldier and I started pulling rear security when a vehicle started coming up behind our disabled convoy at a high rate of speed. He wasn't that far away and I knew he could see an american military truck in flames or at least all the black smoke. I raised my weapon and aimed at the vehicle hoping that he would see the gesture and get the idea to stop, but he didn't. I knew I had to fire a warning shot but if he couldn't see me aiming at him, how would he see (or hear) me firing into the air? I aimed at the windshield.

I knew better than to aim at the driver. I didn't want to kill him, just give him a warning. So I aimed at the center of the windshield about the time I heard someone behind me yell to shoot.

And so I fired my weapon.

The vehicle fishtailed a little bit and came to a stop. Good. But then a woman jumped out of the rear seat and started screaming. Not screaming in anger, but more like wailing.

“Oh no,” I thought to myself. I turned to the other soldier pulling rear security.

“I think you got someone,” he said to me.

In all, about four people piled out of the car and I realized that the vehicle was full and that my bullet must have hit someone. Going over where the bullet went through the windshield, we figured the bullet hit the person in the neck or face. The woman kept screaming and even though she was between 150 and 200 meters away, she might as well have been in my head. They pulled the man out of the back seat by his legs and stared at him as he lay on the ground. No one just stands around watching someone bleed like that unless they are certain nothing can be done.

My first instinct was to run out there and apologize profusely while trying to render first aid, but I knew I needed a team to wander that far off.

“Doc!” My voice was trembling as I called out for our medic and went to find him. “Doc, I think I hurt someone!”

But I was told that we were going to worry about us, and then worry about them. The medic was still patching up the passenger of the fuel truck, though not much can be done for burns in that type of environment.

I went back to the rear of the convoy in time to see the vehicle speed off. The other soldier who was pulling rear security said they put the man in the trunk and turned around. That's it.

And I remember seeing the horse lying lifelessly on its side.

Immediately afterwards, I remember thinking that I was going to go to jail, that I had just murdered someone who posed no particular threat to me and I was angry. Why didn't they stop? Couldn't they see all the black smoke and the burning vehicle? Didn't they see American soldiers firing weapons at everything? They weren't that far away. Word of my shot had gotten around and one of my superiors even gave me the nickname “sniper.”

At first the guilt was almost debilitating. I told a few friends and a few family members about the incident. I wanted to confess but also wanted to be judged, but at the same time I was also glad to be alive. As time wore on, I was able to put the incident behind me. Even though my first thought was of myself and how I was going to go to jail, it turned out that I had done the right thing, given the circumstances.

So that left me with nothing to think about except the man I had shot.

And the more I thought about it, the more I realized I shouldn't, but I couldn't help it. Who was he? He was probably just someone who woke up that morning in his bed and assumed that he would end his day in the same place. When he ate lunch that day, I'm sure he thought he'd have dinner too. Isn't that what we all assume?

Instead, he got into a car (was he heading home?). He was alive, and then in the course of less than a second, he wasn't, and lives were destroyed. And who was the screaming woman? Was it his wife? His sister? His mother? Was he old enough to have a daughter that age? I never got a good look at him. Who was the driver and the other people in the car? Friends? Relatives? I felt (and still feel) that I owed him a certain something so that his life would not be lost in vain.

Many times have I visualized myself in that vehicle when the bullet went through the windshield. I don't think it would have made much of a sound. Just a small hole would have appeared in the windshield, maybe there would have been a slight cracking sound... and then someone's head explodes.

And it made me think about life in general and how senseless something like war is. After all, don't we all wake up at the beginning of the day assuming we'll go to sleep at the end? When we eat breakfast, don't we think we'll eat lunch and dinner that day too? Don't we all assume we'll live to “old age?” Or at least long enough to see 40? 30? 25? 20?

My mother once pointed out how funny it was that all war is... is people killing each other. I went over possible definitions for the word war in my head, and every single one of them could be dispelled. I think Websters defined war as “Armed conflict between two nations,” but that's not always true. I came to realize that my mother coined the definition for the word "war." War is simply people killing each other. What a silly concept!

When I took my two weeks of mid-tour leave, I went back to the college campus where I had worked on the college newspaper. My former instructors asked me if I wanted to do a guest opinion piece on my experiences overseas and I agreed. I wrote about the above incident because, again, I wanted to confess. While in the newsroom, I was looking over the archives and I came across the last article I had written for the paper. It was another opinion piece about how proud I was to be going back into the Army to fight the good fight. It was a sharp contrast to the piece I ended up writing while on leave.

People are quick to disregard the Vietnam-Iraq comparison by saying that this is an all-volunteer Army. This is true. But most of our soldiers were mislead or simply flat out lied to in order to volunteer. A lot of soldiers enlist out of a baser need (money for school, economic security, job security, the desire to kill another human being) than for patriotism. But for those of us who believed in the war at first (like most of the country), we enlisted to be defenders of the American people, not storm troopers in an American-run police state in a country across the planet. And I believe it's the soldiers/seamen/airmen/marines who enlisted with patriotism in mind that feel the most like I feel.

It's almost ridiculous to hear generals and armchair generals say that we need to put the Iraqis first and things of that nature. When I was still in Iraq, word came down from higher that we were going to start driving the speed limit and stop driving down the center of the roads. My platoon consciously made the decision to ignore that order. To the average combat arms soldier in Iraq, it is quickly realized that they are set up for failure and the idea that he is going to survive at any cost quickly becomes his priority.

"Better to be judged by twelve than carried out by six" becomes his new maxim, and I don't see any of these new policies spouted by politicians and generals trickling down to the lowest rung of the military ladder where the single most thought in a soldier's mind is "Please God don't let me die."

In hindsight, it's almost scary how quickly after leaving Iraq that I had forgotten everything I realized while I was there.

It didn't come back to me until I learned I was going back.

shocked.awed@gmail.com

http://www.ivaw.org/node/365

chefmike

12-10-2006, 09:13 AM

Bravo, Sen.-elect James Webb

Marianne Means
12/07/06

Senator-elect James Webb of Virginia, a Republican turned Democrat, gave President Bush the brush-off at the White House recently and set off a typical political tempest in a teapot.

Bush fans rushed to complain that the rookie Webb had been rude to the president, and displayed bad manners. Their basis for this partisan outrage is the often-held but seldom-observed principle that surface civility must prevail if the nation's business is to be conducted.

Their devotion to bipartisan civility is a new development of the November election, when the Republicans suddenly became the minority party in Washington and as powerless as the Democrats used to be. Back in the day, a nanosecond or so ago, when the GOP controlled both White House and Congress, their partisans didn't bother much with such niceties.

The classic example was the time Vice President Cheney - who stands a heartbeat away from the presidency, for goodness sake - responded to Democratic Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy's proffered handshake with an obscene expression that described an anatomically impossible act. This insult took place on the Senate floor, but the Republican establishment had no public problem with that particular rudeness.

The GOP may, in retrospect, regret it: Leahy is about to become chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, the very venue before which Cheney and the White House right-wingers must parade their extremist judicial nominees.

Leahy's civilized response: "It is better to be sworn in than sworn at."

*****

This patronizing, hypocritical probing did not sit well with the 60-year-old former Navy secretary, Vietnam veteran and well-reviewed novelist who beat conservative GOP Sen. George Allen fair and square.

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb replied.

Webb is a tough guy who doesn't fall for fake gestures of interest when he knows the source doesn't really care.

Webb will make a great independent senator. Bush isn't used to having members of Congress stand up to him. It will be a good change for him, and the country.

"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George Bush on my wall," Webb said afterward.

The reported gist of the conversation was not disputed by the White House and was confirmed by Webb.

The Bushes have always been touchy about discussing their own family, in particular the twins Jenna and Barbara, who are now college graduates living independently. There is no indication that Webb tried to compete in the kiddo game by asking the president how his twins were doing partying it up in Argentina. It would have been interesting to hear Bush's response if he had.

The problem of deteriorating civility in Washington politics has been building for the past few years. But this does not seem a good example of bad behavior. The president arrogantly intruded on Webb's personal space and Webb rebuffed him, a perfectly natural response.

Commentators who complain that Webb displayed a public disrespect for the office of the president have been brain-washed by years of Bush politics, in which to doubt White House superior authority amounted to lack of patriotism and loyalty. Nonsense.

But the rubber-stamp years are ending. The president, unquestioned, has gotten us into a terrible mess in the Middle East, the American middle class is strained and a host of major national problems remain unaddressed while Congress fiddles once again with a marginal anti-abortion measure.

Webb has his priorities straight. Welcome to Washington, senator.

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/88849.html

Caleigh

12-10-2006, 09:42 AM

Saddam Hussein was left wing? Democracies with a social concience (read some social programs) are not the same thing as totalitarian dictatorships that "nationalize" industries as part of process of solidifying control and hoarding wealth.

Guyone, you seem to be equating Canada with Saddam Hussein Iraq.

guyone

12-10-2006, 08:20 PM

Guyone, you seem to be equating Canada with Saddam Hussein Iraq.

You said it. I didn't.

From Wikipedia (the official accredited source for HA):

The Arab Socialist Baath Party (also spelled Ba'th or Ba'ath; Arabic: حزب البعث العربي الاشتراكي) was founded in 1947 as a radical, secular Arab nationalist political party. It functioned as a pan-Arab party with branches in different Arab countries, but was strongest in Syria and Iraq, coming to power in both countries in 1963. In 1966 the Syrian and Iraqi parties split into two rival organizations. Both Baath parties retained the same name, and maintain parallel structures in the Arab world.

The Baath Party came to power in Syria on 8 March 1963 and attained a monopoly of political power later that year. The Baathists ruled Iraq briefly in 1963, and then from July 1968 until 2003. After the deposition of President Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in the course of the 2003 Iraq war, the occupying authorities banned the Iraqi Baath Party in June 2003.

Saddam was another one of those Nationalist-Socialist lefties. There is no socialist dogma on the right.

Caleigh

12-10-2006, 11:34 PM

guyone

12-11-2006, 04:29 AM

Interesting. Could very well be.

White_Male_Canada

12-12-2006, 02:27 AM

Quinn

12-12-2006, 03:40 AM

White_Male_Canada

12-12-2006, 04:07 AM

No? And yet the Nazis were the National Socialist Party and they are pretty much considered the pre-eminent example of a right wing political movement. You see, to many people politics isn't a line left and right but more like a circle, where the extreme at both ends is some form of totalitarian dictatorship.

I have previously gone around in circles debating, in one of my own topics, about the antiquated str8 line spectrum. That one line axis model is over simplified.

I favor a chart that emphasizes the degree of political control,which would place Totalitarianism at one end Anarchy at the other.But most charts today feature a square or circle graph that take into consideration such things as role of the Church,Foreign policy,Foreign trade,Participation,etc.

One example is the Nolan chart,by libertarian David Nolan. Another is PoliticalCompass.As you can see,Nazism is considered by PoliticalCompass as authortarian. My politicalcompass test placed me near Friedman.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

ROTFLMFAO..... How ironic that after repeatedly – and incorrectly – claming that Hitler’s Nazi Germany was a leftist regime, you would post from a source that clearly refutes such an assertion. Oh, well, I guess we'll just count that as yet another one of your idiotic, self-contradicting statements.

You really should take the time to obtain so much as a passing familiarity with this type of subject matter before addressing it – then you might just avoid being bitched on so consistent a basis.

Now, you can engage in what has become – for you at least – a couple of all too frequent activities: backpedaling and selective reinterpretation.

Fuck, you're dumb. LOL..............

-Quinn

I see the Village Idiot still lacks cognitive skills and desperately seeks redemption by stalking me and seeks any perceived opening for yet another ineffectual attack. I captured the village idiot`s qoute before it had a chance to actually think what it typed.But then luck need not play a part. It rarely thinks so it`s post would have remained and there was no worry whatsoever it would be deleted. If I can make it unknowingly defend Judicial Supremacy/Oligarchy I safely concluded this would be a cake-walk. And indeed it is.

What the Village Idiot did not realize is that she/he yet AGAIN took the bait and exposed itself as desperate,ineffectual,inferior, and childish in her/his haste and recklessness. Much like the other leftist I netted when it posted "studies" proving conservatives were somehow abnormal,thereby exposing that one as a Stalinist trioka gulag wanna be.

Read again,I said, " I favor a chart that emphasizes the degree of political control,which would place Totalitarianism at one end Anarchy at the other."

Which is obviously consistant with what I have previously stated. I adhere to the alternative spectrum offered by the American Federalist Journal.Which would place all totalitarian regimes to one side and virtually zero government to the right.

The Nolan and PC charts are cubes or circles which clearly refute your antiquated notions of a simplistic ancien régime line. The PC chart is merely one of the simpler charts used as examples. Examples which doubled as proof of your sophistry I might add. I could have used others,like the Pournelle chart with it`s statism/ rationalsim axis` but that would have confused you to the point of emptying your bottle of Ritalin.

That was the chum I threw in the water hoping for this anencephalic,or any other of the leftist sock puppets to bite. And bite she/he did. Always gullable,always amusing- for a split-second.But mostly an intellectual inferior which renders her/him merely boring.

And you our dimwitted Village Idiot, are wrong again.

PS: That image you used is obviously YOU using a pointer and chart. Is
that your pocket protector and poor fitting shirt? I also notice you
barely have a spine with which to properly keep you upright and
are clearly anemic weighing about 90 pounds.

Infuriating isn`t it,when even your images are mocked and whipsaw
in the same manner as your jejune contentions.

Now that truly is the "FIESTA RESISTANCE" ! :wink:

Quinn

12-12-2006, 05:17 AM

LMFAO..... Nice backpedaling, stupid...... I guess the fact that Stalin is to the far left of the authoritarian spectrum while Hitler is to the right somehow escaped you. Don't worry though, White_Male_Bafflewit, the rest of us caught your latest contradiction just fine.

As for redemption, nothing you tell yourself can ever change the fact that the feedback in our last debate was overwhelmingly against your ridiculously afactual, ahistorical assertions. Your utter failure to win a single point of debate was – pardon the pun, cupcake – icing on the cake.

LOL @ White_Male_Contradiction….

Since you've failed to effectively address even the most mundane political issues, perhaps you would care to tell us more about how you spend your time doing an activity you can't even spell with a weapon whose model you can't even get right. Nice going, White_Male_Phony.

While you were out boating I was repelling from 100 cliffs(sans harness,repell seat) and static target practicing with my trusty AR15HHBARGvt model.What I do or how I train in my spare time is none of your concern nor does it matter.

guyone

12-12-2006, 07:20 PM

I don't want to get in the middle of this but this is on the website:

White_Male_Canada

12-12-2006, 09:00 PM

I guess the fact that Stalin is to the far left of the authoritarian spectrum while Hitler is to the right somehow escaped you.

You must suffer from an inner ear infection. In the example I used from PoliticalCompass, GET IT,COMPASS, Hitler would then be due North not EAST(right).

Authortarianism and Communism fall into the extreme degrees of political control. The American Federalist Journal chart I`ve always favored places totalitarians together.

Sheesh :smh

Since you've failed to effectively address even the most mundane political issues, perhaps you would care to tell us more about how you spend your time doing an activity you can't even spell with a weapon whose model you can't even get right.

You`re only hope is to ignore the obvious facts. Facts are you argued in favor of Judicial Supremacy/Oligarchy without even realizing it. Facts are you had zero comprehension of Article III,etc etc.

Facts are only city leftists have zero idea as to what an AR15GovtModelHbar is when anyone well versed in weaponry recognizes exactly what that is.Facts are I`ve snared many a kook leftist with such simple tricks. Facts are the ones who were dumbstruck and had no clue are the same ones who came to your defense when you yourself had no clue as to what Article III meant let alone originalist judicial review versus supremacy.

You`ve migrated from self-embarrassment to Village Idiot and now to complete irrelevance.

Once more:

" I favor a chart that emphasizes the degree of political control,which would place Totalitarianism at one end Anarchy at the other."

That chart I favor would place Hitler and Stalin where? Totalitarians at one end of the spectrum,which would include Hitler,Mao,Stalin,Lenin,Castro and any other control freak one can think of. The other end, Anarchy,little to no government.

Which is obviously consistant with what I have previously stated. I adhere to the alternative spectrum offered by the American Federalist Journal.Which would place all totalitarian regimes to one side and virtually zero government to the right.

You have zero credibility. You`re rank,below that of all the other kook leftists here. You`re an anemic 90 pound intellectual lighweight. :smh

PS: You`re insane irrational inane blatherings are being cut and moved to my museum,which is named in the honor of retardation, VILLAGE IDIOT :wink:

White_Male_Canada

12-12-2006, 09:11 PM

I don't want to get in the middle of this but this is on the website:

Why suffer a fool who`s coke-bottle glasses cannot distinguish between the points of the Political Compass (N/S/W/E) example I used. 8)

She/he is merely infuriated and wilding flailing away. Ever try rationalize with a petulant child? Same thing :smh

Quinn

12-13-2006, 01:02 AM

I don't want to get in the middle of this but this is on the website:
A good point (your posted image), but also largely irrelevant as non one has claimed or implied that authoritarianism is strictly a right wing phenomenon. For my part, I’m only refuting White_Male_Dullard’s inaccurate, revisionist statements that Hitler’s Nazi Germany was socialist (a leftist political entity) – something White_Male_Illiteracy’s own posted link does quite nicely – even if it doesn’t put Hitler as far to the right as the overwhelming majority of today’s historians and political scientists. Check the website’s Frequently Asked Questions (specifically number 17), which states the following

Why is Hitler slightly right? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.

Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy [sic] relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda !

We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' self-definition of 'socialist' would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic. Incidentally, on fascism, no less an authority than Benito Mussolini declared: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it is a merge of state and corporate power.

Incidentally, on fascism, no less an authority than Benito Mussolini declared: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it is a merge of state and corporate power

If White_Male_Illiteracy doesn’t want to recognize that his own linked website places Hitler on the right of the political spectrum – and not the left where said dolt has repeatedly placed him – then perhaps some of the following might help:.

1. Hitler’s Nazi Germany was a socialist state in the same way that the former German Democratic Republic (GDR, communist East Germany) and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) would be regarded as democratic – rather than as two of history’s most thoroughly totalitarian dictatorships.

2. Hitler and the Nazi Party (NDSP, National Socialist German Workers' Party) never interpreted socialism in classical economic terms to begin with:

A. “Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
-Adolf Hitler

B. “The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood.”
-Adolf Hitler

C. Despite the use of the term "socialist" in the Nazi Party's official name, it is not generally considered a socialist party in the common understanding of the term, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of internationalism, egalitarianism, and common ownership of the means of production, as well as the concept of class struggle, which are some of the primary tenets of socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP

3. While Hitler and the Nazi Party did pay lipservice to certain socialist principles – in an effort to boost its appeal among the working class during the worst of the Weimer Republic’s economically chaotic years – the Nazi Party’s powerbase and enacted policies were anything but socialist.

A. When the Nazi Party faced bankruptcy in 1932, it was Germany’s leading industrialists and financiers (Krupp, Siemens, Thyssen, etc.) who stepped in and assumed the debt to save the Party – not Germany’s socialist elements – who have always gravitated toward the German Social Democrats (SDP), Germany’s true socialist party.

B. It was this same group of industrialists and financiers who petitioned Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor, which he did on January 30, 1933.

C. As previously stated, the Policies enacted by Hitler by and the Nazi Party while in power were decidedly anti-socialist: abolishing trade unions, collective bargaining, the right to strike, and depressing worker wages. Furthermore, in place of unions, the Nazi Party established the “Labor Front,” a pro-Nazi and decidedly pro-business apparatus.

D. The Nazi Party and conservative business elements were integrally linked, in a traditional, Prussian manner:

Throughout the 1930s, German businesses were encouraged to form cartels, monopolies and oligopolies, whose interests were then protected by the state. In his book, Big Business in the Third Reich, Arthur Schweitzer notes that:

“Monopolistic price fixing became the rule in most industries, and cartels were no longer confined to the heavy or large-scale industries. [...] Cartels and quasi-cartels (whether of big business or small) set prices, engaged in limiting production, and agreed to divide markets and classify consumers in order to realize a monopoly profit.

As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government's political and military goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

E. Hitler, in his 1927 Pamphlet to Germany’s business leaders (titled The Road to Resurgence), explained his support for this traditional, right wing position:

It (the movement) feels that an independent national economy is a necessity, but does not consider it a primary force or the molder of a strong state, but, rather, the reverse: only a strong nationalistic state can safeguard such an economy and give if the opportunity to survive and devleop freely.
-Hitler The Road to Resurgence.

4. Germany’s true socialist party – the German Social Democrats – were vehemently opposed to the Nazi Party’s implemented policies (tax cuts, etc.), viewing them as pro-business measures that favored the traditional establishment. Consequently, the NDSP banned the German Social Democrats and threw most of its leaders into concentration camps.

More education and less wishful thinking might lead to less ahistorical, afactual statements on the part of everyone’s favorite yokel. Ouch!!!!!!! LMFAO.....

-Quinn

Quinn

12-13-2006, 02:02 AM

[ You must suffer from an inner ear infection. In the example I used from PoliticalCompass, GET IT,COMPASS, Hitler would then be due North not EAST(right).

Authortarianism and Communism fall into the extreme degrees of political control. The American Federalist Journal chart I`ve always favored places totalitarians together.

Sheesh :smh :

Nice backpedaling, you walking testament to illiteracy. Perhaps it is you who needs to learn how to read a compass – because your own linked website places Hitler to the right of the political spectrum, repeatedly stating as much, and not to the left, where you have placed him by claiming Nazi Germany was socialist. LMFAO………. Nice job, White_Male_Reading_Comprehension….

You`re only hope is to ignore the obvious facts. Facts are you argued in favor of Judicial Supremacy/Oligarchy without even realizing it.

Awwwwwwwww, is White_Male_Cupcake still upset that unambiguous statements by the United States Supreme Court and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary completely smashed your assertion that Congress is the ultimate, final authority with respect to interpretations of constitutionality.

I can see how you would be really bothered by such an overwhelmingly humiliating defeat. Having that thread’s feedback go so overwhelmingly against your idiotic position didn’t help much. Suck it up, nancy boy; here it comes again: .

While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.

In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land, whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.

. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.

See how easy and fun that was?

Facts are only city leftists have zero idea as to what an AR15GovtModelHbar is when anyone well versed in weaponry recognizes exactly what that is.Facts are I`ve snared many a kook leftist with such simple tricks.

Once again, nice backpedaling, cupcake, but the fact is you didn’t get it right until other posters stepped in and called you out on your clearly demonstrated lack of knowledge. The fact is that you wouldn't know an AR15 from a tennis racquet if your life depended on it. Well done, you obvious phony; keep backpedaling for our amusement.

"I favor a chart that emphasizes the degree of political control,which would place Totalitarianism at one end Anarchy at the other."

That chart I favor would place Hitler and Stalin where? Totalitarians at one end of the spectrum,which would include Hitler,Mao,Stalin,Lenin,Castro and any other control freak one can think of. The other end, Anarchy,little to no government.

LOL… The chart you favor?????? Anyway, having so clearly demonstrated that you are an illiterate yokel, you failed to notice that said chard has a left and a right, with Hitler being placed on the right. Backpedal and selectively reinterpret all you want. The fact is that you are wrong – yet again.

So far as credibility is concerned, just how many posters stepped up to ridicule your ridiculous assertions in our last debate. That’s what I though, you self-deluded dimwit. Whine all you want, the record is there for everyone to view, and nothing you say can change its reality. You loose, yet again. Maybe we should change your name to White_Male_France... ROTFLMAO....

-Quinn

White_Male_Canada

12-13-2006, 03:14 AM

White_Male_Canada

12-13-2006, 03:56 AM

Facts are only city leftists have zero idea as to what an AR15GovtModelHbar is when anyone well versed in weaponry recognizes exactly what that is.Facts are I`ve snared many a kook leftist with such simple tricks.

Once again, nice backpedaling, cupcake, but the fact is you didn’t get it right until other posters stepped in and called you out on your clearly demonstrated lack of knowledge. The fact is that you wouldn't know an AR15 from a tennis racquet if your life depended on it. Well done, you obvious phony; keep backpedaling for our amusement.

The Village Idiot steps in it again.

What am I holding in this image,

and what is it`s purpose ?

Come on,you`re the self-professed erudite,

the answer is obvious.

:boring

Quinn

12-13-2006, 05:44 AM

Are you for real!? You fell for it again.
You must suffer from an inner ear infection. In the example I used from PoliticalCompass, GET IT,COMPASS, Hitler would then be due North not EAST(right).

Authortarianism and Communism fall into the extreme degrees of political control. The American Federalist Journal chart I`ve always favored places totalitarians together.

Sheesh :smh
Fell for what, you backpedaling buffoon? The facts are pathetically obvious:

1. You have previously attempted to define Hitler as a socialist and leftist;
2. You then posted from a website that – in it’s own words – puts him on the right;
3. You are now backpedaling.

Once again, according to the website whose link you posted, Hitler’s Nazi Germany was neither socialist nor leftist. Nice job, White_Male_Reading_Comprehension.

You`re only hope is to ignore the obvious facts. Facts are you argued in favor of Judicial Supremacy/Oligarchy without even realizing it.
LMFAO… Cry about it all you want, White_Male_Sissy, but the fact remains: your assertion that Congress is the ultimate authority in interpreting constitutionality was smashed – by both the Supreme Court and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Here, let’s do it, yet again.

While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.

In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land, whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.

. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Your humiliation is my amusement, yet again.

Hey, here’s an idea. How about you again state that McCain-Feingold “shredded the 1st” – to which I’ll again respond by posting links showing that the President, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the US Supreme Court didn’t see it that way. Damn, this is fun.

That chart I favor would place Hitler and Stalin where? Totalitarians at one end of the spectrum,which would include Hitler,Mao,Stalin,Lenin,Castro and any other control freak one can think of. The other end, Anarchy,little to no government.
That’s some fine backpedaling, but, once again – you have previously characterized Hitler as a socialist and leftist, which is not the case (according to information sources you have posted).

The Nolan chart also places control freaks in one section,the bottom.
More fine backpedaling, you prevaricating poltroon, but, once again – you have previously characterized Hitler as a socialist and leftist, which is not the case (according to information sources you have posted).

The PoliticalCompass uses two axes. The economic factors move left to right and freedom issues as authoritarian (up or North) and down. Which would be what Village Idiot? Still don`t know? Down,yes down,as in South.
Wow, you're still trying to backpedal, but, once again – you have previously characterized Hitler as a socialist and leftist, which is not the case (according to information sources you have posted).

Wow, whether it's determining who the final authority is when it comes to interpreting constitutionality, explaining McCain-Feingold’s relationship to the 1st Amendment, or Hitler’s Nazi Germany, you can’t seem to get anything right.

Well done, you walking cautionary tale for high-school dropouts :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

P.S. Nice bolt and carrier, Rambo. Show us the supposed AR15, not the part.

White_Male_Canada

12-13-2006, 06:15 AM

You must suffer from an inner ear infection. In the example I used from PoliticalCompass, GET IT,COMPASS, Hitler would then be due North not EAST(right).

Authortarianism and Communism fall into the extreme degrees of political control. The American Federalist Journal chart I`ve always favored places totalitarians together.

Once again, according to the website whose link you posted, Hitler’s Nazi Germany was neither socialist nor leftist. Nice job, White_Male_Reading_Comprehension.

You`ve conviently omitted Hitler`s own words staing he was indeed a socialist and your memory fails when you stated he was to the right. You also omit the fact I adhere to the totalitarian anarchy spectrum. :boring

You`re only hope is to ignore the obvious facts. Facts are you argued in favor of Judicial Supremacy/Oligarchy without even realizing it.

... but the fact remains: your assertion that Congress is the ultimate authority in interpreting constitutionality was smashed – by both the Supreme Court and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

The USSC gave itself Supremacy(Cooper),of course it won`t contradict itself by saying anything otherwise. Senate Judiciary? LOL. You`re failure to rebutt Article III and silence speaks volumes. You`re failure to expound on Hamilton`s Federalist papers from 78 to 83 exposed you yet again as shallow. Cut and paste Googlers always fear the minutia. :boring

That chart I favor would place Hitler and Stalin where? Totalitarians at one end of the spectrum,which would include Hitler,Mao,Stalin,Lenin,Castro and any other control freak one can think of. The other end, Anarchy,little to no government.

That’s some fine backpedaling, but, once again – you have previously characterized Hitler as a socialist and leftist,

I have not. Hitler himself did and that places him in the totalitarian end of the spectrum. :smh

You are now deflecting from the germane issue of political spectrums by rehashing your ignorance of judicial review versus supremacy and Article III.

You`ve lost your hegemony which has made you lose your mind in the process.

Quinn

12-13-2006, 08:30 AM

You`ve conviently omitted Hitler`s own words staing he was indeed a socialist and your memory fails when you stated he was to the right. You also omit the fact I adhere to the totalitarian anarchy spectrum.
Whether you adhere to the “totalitarian anarchy spectrum” is irrelevant because it doesn’t address your historically unsubstantiated efforts to paint Hitler as a leftist.

As for my own words, I have asserted that the Hitler and the Nazi Party paid lip service to socialism as an effort to gain adherents among the working class. I have also made clear that the source of the Nazi Party’s power came from it’s relation to industrialists and that, while in power, it enacted policies were anti-socialist and right wing – something understood by the overwhelming majority of historians, political scientists, and politicians.

Since you’re wholly lacking in so much as a rudimentary education, I’ll do the math for you:

1. Hitler’s Nazi Germany was a socialist state in the same way that the former German Democratic Republic (GDR, communist East Germany) and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) would be regarded as democratic – rather than as two of history’s most thoroughly totalitarian dictatorships.

2. Hitler and the Nazi Party (NDSP, National Socialist German Workers' Party) never interpreted socialism in classical economic terms to begin with:

A. “Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
-Adolf Hitler

B. “The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood.”
-Adolf Hitler

C. Despite the use of the term "socialist" in the Nazi Party's official name, it is not generally considered a socialist party in the common understanding of the term, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of internationalism, egalitarianism, and common ownership of the means of production, as well as the concept of class struggle, which are some of the primary tenets of socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP

3. While Hitler and the Nazi Party did pay lipservice to certain socialist principles – in an effort to boost its appeal among the working class during the worst of the Weimer Republic’s economically chaotic years – the Nazi Party’s powerbase and enacted policies were anything but socialist.

A. When the Nazi Party faced bankruptcy in 1932, it was Germany’s leading industrialists and financiers (Krupp, Siemens, Thyssen, etc.) who stepped in and assumed the debt to save the Party – not Germany’s socialist elements – who have always gravitated toward the German Social Democrats (SDP), Germany’s true socialist party.

B. It was this same group of industrialists and financiers who petitioned Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor, which he did on January 30, 1933.

C. As previously stated, the Policies enacted by Hitler by and the Nazi Party while in power were decidedly anti-socialist: abolishing trade unions, collective bargaining, the right to strike, and depressing worker wages. Furthermore, in place of unions, the Nazi Party established the “Labor Front,” a pro-Nazi and decidedly pro-business apparatus.

D. The Nazi Party and conservative business elements were integrally linked, in a traditional, Prussian manner:

Throughout the 1930s, German businesses were encouraged to form cartels, monopolies and oligopolies, whose interests were then protected by the state. In his book, Big Business in the Third Reich, Arthur Schweitzer notes that:

“Monopolistic price fixing became the rule in most industries, and cartels were no longer confined to the heavy or large-scale industries. [...] Cartels and quasi-cartels (whether of big business or small) set prices, engaged in limiting production, and agreed to divide markets and classify consumers in order to realize a monopoly profit.

As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government's political and military goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

E. Hitler, in his 1927 Pamphlet to Germany’s business leaders (titled The Road to Resurgence), explained his support for this traditional, right wing position:

It (the movement) feels that an independent national economy is a necessity, but does not consider it a primary force or the molder of a strong state, but, rather, the reverse: only a strong nationalistic state can safeguard such an economy and give if the opportunity to survive and devleop freely.
-Hitler The Road to Resurgence.

4. Germany’s true socialist party – the German Social Democrats – were vehemently opposed to the Nazi Party’s implemented policies (tax cuts, etc.), viewing them as pro-business measures that favored the traditional establishment. Consequently, the NDSP banned the German Social Democrats and threw most of its leaders into concentration camps.

5. Your own source stated that Hitler and the Nazi’s were right wing.

You`re only hope is to ignore the obvious facts. Facts are you argued in favor of Judicial Supremacy/Oligarchy without even realizing it.

Awwwww, still can’t deal with your defeat. That’s ok, I’ll help you experience it, yet again. Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress agree with you or your asinine assertion that Congress has the ultimate say with reference to interpreting constitutionality.

While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.

In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land, whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.

. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.

According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.'' Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of [b]this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).

You`ve lost your hegemony which has made you lose your mind in the process.

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the definition of hegemony:

The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

This is a word whose proper usage is known to anyone with a thorough knowledge of politics/history (Spartan hegemony, etc.) – which explains why you don’t understand how to use it. As one might guess, the fact that I’m not a “state, region, or group” means your latest demonstration of illiteracy has no bearing. By the way, you do realize that you’re a complete loser for even seeing a tranny forum in hegemonic terms, right? LOL…..You really should go back to school and get your GED or something.

Quinn

12-13-2006, 04:54 PM

Since you've unwisely worked to bring our other debate - which you handily lost - into this debate, I though I would oblige including just a few of your intellectually bereft blatherings:

The pantywaist blurted out that the “Supreme Court – the ultimate authority on such matters – upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s key provisions.” failed to offer any insight pertaining to Marbury v. Madison,Scott,Plessy v. Ferguson,,Hamden Rumsfeld Which one does foppish agree with and why? You`re ignorance is now on parade. The USSC is NOT the ultimate authority on such matters,Congress is..
Such a shame for your imbecilic ass that the Supreme Court and Congress don't agree:

While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.

In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land, whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.

. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.

According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.'' Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of [b]this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).

It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

McCain . . . shredded the 1st with his McCain-Feingold bill.
Awwwwwww, too bad for you that the President, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court don’t agree:

a. The House voted 240-189 for the McCain- on 14 February 2002;
b. The Senate voted for the House's version of the bill by 60-40, on 20 March;
c. President Bush signs McCain-Feingold on March 27, 2002;
d. The Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold’s key provisions on September 8, 2003;
e. McCain-Feingold is the law of the land.

Don't worry, your status as this forum's paramount fool isn't likely go change anytime soon.

-Quinn

White_Male_Canada

12-13-2006, 08:16 PM

Still replaying your ignominious exposure of your ignorance I see. And still referancing Wikipedia. A site that anyone can edit on the fly at any time. :roll:

This is a word whose proper usage is known to anyone with a thorough knowledge of politics/history (Spartan hegemony, etc.) – which explains why you don’t understand how to use it. As one might guess, the fact that I’m not a “state, region, or group” means your latest demonstration of illiteracy has no bearing. By the way, you do realize that you’re a complete loser for even seeing a tranny forum in hegemonic terms, right?

This is yet another "Fiesta Resistance" ! ! !

Merriam-Webster:

Hegemony: Greek hEgemonia, from hEgemOn leader, from hEgeisthai to lead

1 : preponderant influence or authority over others : DOMINATION

2 : Marxist theory: to denote the predominance of one social class over others, the ability of the dominant class to project its own way of seeing the world so that those who are subordinated by it accept it as 'common sense' and 'natural'.

A-hem,someone mention lack of erudition? :smh The social class here in the forums, leftist. It`s self-anointed leader(hEgemOn), the Village Idiot. Try to keep pace.
You are either obtuse of ignore reality.

You postulate that the USSC has ultimate authority. You did so by citing Cooper,Baker,Powell. It is common knowledge and commonly accepted that in these cases (Marbury the possible exception), the Justices,specifically in Cooper, conferred unto themselves, judicial supremacy,”supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution,".(Meriam-Webster: Supreme; : highest in rank or authority.) . The doctrine of Judicial Supremacy is commonly known to exist now and is far from controversial. By accepting the doctrine of Judicial Supremacy you had either to have :

(A.) Had/have no idea what the Marbury, Cooper,et al, court said and are therefore an ignoramious,stumbling into the doctrine without any self-realization you had just done so.

Or

(B.) You in fact, DO argue Judicial Supremacy and therefore find the Court infallible. If the Court is infallible then you must agree with , Dred Scott , which imposed slavery in free territories; Plessy ,which imposed segregation on a private railroad company; Korematsu,which imposed concentration camps for Japanese-Americans,naturalized Japanese,etc.Making you a dogmatist amongst other things I `ve previously elucidated.

And you must deny Article III , as written. When presented with Article III you blanched, went numb , stumbled and failed to present any cogent rational response.

Which is it, A or B ?

Rehashing the abridgement/shredding of the 1st also?

Of course being the Judicial Supremacist you are, you also are enamoured with Korematsu or the Dred Scott decisions.
The elite pols love that law, the entire political spectrum outside the beltway disagree with elitists such as yourself:

"The American Civil Liberties Union today criticized the Supreme Court's decision upholding major provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law as an unprecedented restriction on core political speech that is inconsistent with basic First Amendment values”

“ Bradley Smith warned that bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines…”

Bradley Smith, one of six commissioners at the F.E.C.

And of course, Hitler and Mussolini both spoke of and wrote of their socialist ideology,thereby re-enforcing my orignal thoughts on the subject matter of political spectrums.

You are shallow,and finished. Exposed as a simplistic Google/Cut/Paste Poseur. The fact is you pranced about here in the Forums with the delusional notion of being the end all and be all. It`s understandable your emotional hysteria at being exposed as the Google cut and paster you really are,thereby relegating your status to the bottom. There`s more respect for the likes of TBergeron,chefmike and the others than there is for a pseudo intellectual such as yourself.

Sorry, just the new facts of life. Get over it.

Your hyperbole is only surpassed by your histrionics. Your screeching hysterics are like fingers on a chalkboard. Your shrill objections remind us all of that well worn quote, The lady doth protest too much, methinks. And protest hysterically like an emotional woman you do, unwittingly admitting guilt and defeat. It also served to expose your infantile nature when painted into a corner. You are dismissed.

Quinn

12-14-2006, 09:45 PM

Here are some more terms:

While you were out boating I was repelling from 100 cliffs(sans harness,repell seat) and static target practicing with my trusty AR15HHBARGvt model.What I do or how I train in my spare time is none of your concern nor does it matter.

1. How does one “repell” down a cliff again? How does one practice with a weapon whose model they can't even get right? That’s ok, you can waste more time telling us how you meant to do it. LOL… You didn’t even come close to getting the model right until other posters called you on it.

2. Now, to Hegemony.

You forgot to include the entire definition of Hegemony from Merriam Webster site:

1 : preponderant influence or authority over others : DOMINATION <battled for hegemony in Asia>
2 : the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group <extend their own hegemony over American culture as a whole -- Mary K. Cayton>

See, stupid, even your source uses said word in a geopolitical sense, not in reference to a single individual. Still, here are more sources to help you figure it out.

A. dominance, originally of one Greek city-state over others, the term has been extended to refer to the dominance of one nation over others, and, following Gramsci, of one class over others.
-The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.

B. The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.
-Answers.com

C. Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with or without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favor the dominant group.
-Wikipedia

C. Authority or control, especially of one state over another within a confederation.
-Allwords.com

I could cite dozens more sources, but your idiocy has been sufficiently established. It's a geopolitical and cultural term that is not appropriate for use in regard to a single individual. Furthermore, the that you would worry about who holds a hegemonic position over a transsexual forum makes you a complete loser in the most literal sense possible.

3. You may dissemble, lie, backpedal, or attempt to obfuscate matters all you wish, but the fact is that your assertion that Congress is the ultimate authority with respect to interpreting constitutionality is obviously wrong – according to both Congress’s most authoritative body on the issues and the US Supreme Court. They obviously don’t share your interpretation of Article III. Deal with it, White_Male_Lackwit. Here it is again:

While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.

In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land, whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.

. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.

According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.'' Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).

It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

4. To McCain-Feingold – you may, once again, dissemble, like, backpedal, or attempt to obfuscate matters all you wish – but neither the Prsident, the Senate, the House of Representatives, nor the Supreme Court agree with your imbecilic, fringe argument that it “shredded the 1st.” Deal with it, Stupid. Here it is agian:

a. The House voted 240-189 for the McCain- on 14 February 2002;
b. The Senate voted for the House's version of the bill by 60-40, on 20 March;
c. President Bush signs McCain-Feingold on March 27, 2002;
d. The Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold’s key provisions on September 8, 2003;
e. McCain-Feingold is the law of the land.

And of course, Hitler and Mussolini both spoke of and wrote of their socialist ideology,thereby re-enforcing my orignal thoughts on the subject matter of political spectrums.
5. Oh, dear, it appears that has engaged in his usual brand of factually selective revisionism. The source you, yourself, cited refuted your own argument, you complete idiot – but if you don’t want to accept your own source’s statement, let’s look at the following:

1. Hitler’s Nazi Germany was a socialist state in the same way that the former German Democratic Republic (GDR, communist East Germany) and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) would be regarded as democratic – rather than as two of history’s most thoroughly totalitarian dictatorships.

2. Hitler and the Nazi Party (NDSP, National Socialist German Workers' Party) never interpreted socialism in classical economic terms to begin with:

A. “Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. [b]Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
-Adolf Hitler

B. “The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood.”
-Adolf Hitler

C. Despite the use of the term "socialist" in the Nazi Party's official name, it is not generally considered a socialist party in the common understanding of the term, in the sense that Nazism rejected the policies of internationalism, egalitarianism, and common ownership of the means of production, as well as the concept of class struggle, which are some of the primary tenets of socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP

3. While Hitler and the Nazi Party did pay lipservice to certain socialist principles – in an effort to boost its appeal among the working class during the worst of the Weimer Republic’s economically chaotic years – the Nazi Party’s powerbase and enacted policies were anything but socialist.

A. When the Nazi Party faced bankruptcy in 1932, it was Germany’s leading industrialists and financiers (Krupp, Siemens, Thyssen, etc.) who stepped in and assumed the debt to save the Party – not Germany’s socialist elements – who have always gravitated toward the German Social Democrats (SDP), Germany’s true socialist party.

B. It was this same group of industrialists and financiers who petitioned Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor, which he did on January 30, 1933.

C. As previously stated, the Policies enacted by Hitler by and the Nazi Party while in power were decidedly anti-socialist: abolishing trade unions, collective bargaining, the right to strike, and depressing worker wages. Furthermore, in place of unions, the Nazi Party established the “Labor Front,” a pro-Nazi and decidedly pro-business apparatus.

D. The Nazi Party and conservative business elements were integrally linked, in a traditional, Prussian manner:

Throughout the 1930s, German businesses were encouraged to form cartels, monopolies and oligopolies, whose interests were then protected by the state. In his book, Big Business in the Third Reich, Arthur Schweitzer notes that:

“Monopolistic price fixing became the rule in most industries, and cartels were no longer confined to the heavy or large-scale industries. [...] Cartels and quasi-cartels (whether of big business or small) set prices, engaged in limiting production, and agreed to divide markets and classify consumers in order to realize a monopoly profit.

As big business became increasingly organized, it developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi government. The government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies, and, in exchange, business leaders supported the government's political and military goals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

E. Hitler, in his 1927 Pamphlet to Germany’s business leaders (titled The Road to Resurgence), explained his support for this traditional, right wing position:

It (the movement) feels that an independent national economy is a necessity, but does not consider it a primary force or the molder of a strong state, but, rather, the reverse: only a strong nationalistic state can safeguard such an economy and give if the opportunity to survive and devleop freely.
-Hitler The Road to Resurgence.

4. Germany’s true socialist party – the German Social Democrats – were vehemently opposed to the Nazi Party’s implemented policies (tax cuts, etc.), viewing them as pro-business measures that favored the traditional establishment. Consequently, the NDSP banned the German Social Democrats and threw most of its leaders into concentration camps.

6. You can use the the Nolan Chart or any of it’s derivatives/variations all you want, but the fact is that it is viewed as little more than a source of amusement in mainstream academic and political circles.

Critics of this diagram (and this kind of chart in general) claim that it represents at best a pseudoscientific illustration of a political point of view. The essential premise of the diagram is for many an oversimplified generalization

A similar criticism of the chart is that the terms "authoritarianism" and "liberalism", as used to describe opposing stances on the y-axis of "personal freedom", do not easily apply to some prominent contemporary social issues (although these terms were not originally used by Nolan, they have become popular with followers of his chart system).

http://www.answers.com/topic/nolan-chart-1

Don’t worry, you’ll eventually get something right; however, it won’t be today, and it won't happen on HA, you illiterate dullard.

White_Male_Canada

12-15-2006, 02:45 AM

And of course, Hitler and Mussolini both spoke of and wrote of their socialist ideology,thereby re-enforcing my orignal thoughts on the subject matter of political spectrums.

Oh, dear, it appears that has engaged in his usual brand of factually selective revisionism...

Wikipedia,the site that can edited by anyone at anytime. Pfft~

"Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want to promote socialist justice in a new Germany...

We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens...

The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive...

We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice...socialism must be fought for...

It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers' state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state...

Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeoisie(capitalism) and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state." -Joseph Goebbels

"We are living through a National Socialist revolution. We emphasize the term “socialist” because many speak only of a “national” revolution. Dubious, but also wrong. It was not only nationalism that led to the breakthrough. We are proud that German socialism also triumphed.

Marxist socialism was degraded to a concern only with pay or the stomach. The bourgeoisie degraded nationalism into barren hyper-patriotism. Our movement seized the concept of socialism from the cowardly Marxists, and tore the concept of nationalism from the cowardly bourgeois parties, throwing both into the melting pot of our worldview, and producing a clear synthesis: German national Socialism. That provided the foundation for the rebuilding of our people. Thus this revolution was National Socialist."

HERMANN GOERING -Reden und Aufsätze (Munich: Zentralverlag, 1941)

Get it now simpleton? The diference between Marxism and Hitler`s Socialism was merely a fraternal squabble between two leftist extremes.

Hitler`s and Mussolini`s own words, Goebells, Goering all prove you`re revisionist nonsense FALSE and exposes you as unread, illbred,unmannered and a gullable sock puppet who regurgites the pablum fed to you.

"Much was made by Marxist commentators, during the 1930's and for nearly half a century afterward, about the alleged capitalist domination of the German economy under National Socialism, when the truth of the matter was more nearly the opposite."

A History of Fascism 1914-1945

"In the European century that began in the 1840s, from Engels' article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist and no conservative, liberal, anarchist or independent did anything of the kind." (The term "genocide" in Watson's usage is not confined to the extermination only of races or of ethnic groups, but embraces also the liquidation of such other complete human categories as "enemies of the people" and "the Kulaks as a class."

The Lost Literature of Socialism

" 'Fascism' was, in fact, a Marxist coinage. Marxists borrowed the name of Mussolini's Italian party, the Fascisti, and applied it to Hitler's Nazis, adroitly papering over the fact that the Nazis, like Marxism's standard-bearers, the Soviet Communists, were revolutionary socialists. In fact, "Nazi" was (most annoyingly) shorthand for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. European Marxists successfully put over the idea that Nazism was the brutal, decadent last gasp of 'capitalism.' "

Tom Wolfe

" Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy(socialism). The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property."

The Ominous Parallels

Stick to Wiki you unread simpleton.

You can use the the Nolan Chart or any of it’s derivatives/variations all you want, but the fact is that it is viewed as little more than a source of amusement in mainstream academic and political circles. Critics of this diagram (and this kind of chart in general) claim that it represents at best a pseudoscientific illustration of a political point of view. The essential premise of the diagram is for many an oversimplified generalization http://www.answers.com/topic/nolan-chart-1

Answers.com is a mirror of Wiki.

So "mainstream academic,political circles and critics" disagree? Did Answer name these vaunted academics and critics? did Answer name the academics and critics who also critiqued the American Federalist Journal political spectrum chart? Did you forget to name these academics yourself who pooh-pooh everything except your simplistic straight line political spectrum chart from the 1970`s and do they still wear bell-bottom jeans.

From Answer itself it seems it is the Libertarians who are the most vociferous critics. The single line chart from the 1970s that you adhere to merely relfects your shallow intellect.And if Nolan is " ... for many an oversimplified generalization" then what would that make of your decrepit chart from the 70`s. My original contention remains accurate and true.

2. Now, to Hegemony.

You forgot to include the entire definition of Hegemony from Merriam Webster site:

1 : preponderant influence or authority over others : DOMINATION <battled for hegemony in Asia>
2 : the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group <extend their own hegemony over American culture as a whole -- Mary K. Cayton>

Are you for real !?

So shallow as to run off to Google to read the first page,cut, come running back just to paste your picayune trifles that merely exposes your illiteracy. You`re uncertainty is always your downfall.

So inane you could not even deduce the analogy of the gramsci strategy posited in microcosm.

So lacking in erudtion you`re blind to the analogy of a social cultural group of leftists here in HA attempting to exert their influence over all others. A free ride until I arrived and exposed your Supremacist nonsense, et al.

So lacking in thought you could not expound on Hamilton and originalist judicial review except for your usual simplistic cut and paste routine.

So bereft of critical thought you could not rebut Article III which explicity gives Congress control of the USSC.

And the rest of your sophistries, trivial child`s play.

Your attempts at trying to set the parameters of the debate so as to ignore and deny facts that are inconvenient have failed over and over. An american ignorant of it`s own Constitution.Not even a clue as to what Article III ever meant. A clueless american, who cuts and pastes, not knowing it argues for Judicial Supremacy/Oligarchy.

You are excused.

White_Male_Canada

12-15-2006, 03:58 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------

Trogdor

02-10-2007, 09:33 PM

Don't mind me, folks. :popcorn

Would have been cool to see Dubya get popped in the jaw still though :mrgreen: