Friday History Lesson
-
darkelvis;246709 wrote:
The people that put us there stated we would be welcomed with open arms and we "accomplished our mission" years ago, if the mission has been accomplished why have we spent approx 600 billion on a war that is pointless?And god knows the democrats are 100% at fault for the economy, it has nothing to do with wasting $600 billion, the rediciously high gas prices initially caused by the location of the war/war profiteering/price gouging by the oil companies that are in bed with the current govt, the increase in every other product due to gas prices, the unbelieveably low interest rates (as chuck mentioned).
Hey I've got an idea, why doesn't everyone keep argueing about it on the internet even though no one is going to change their mind or do anything about it.
Or the republicans could just quit their little crybaby whining and sit back and accept that this is how it's going to be for at least the next four years and there is nothing that they WILL do to change it other than talk big on the internet.
And the democrats will do what... talk big on making changes... but will said changes actually help us get out of debt and everything else they promised... not likely
-
darkelvis;246709 wrote:
The people that put us there stated we would be welcomed with open arms and we "accomplished our mission" years ago, if the mission has been accomplished why have we spent approx 600 billion on a war that is pointless?And god knows the democrats are 100% at fault for the economy, it has nothing to do with wasting $600 billion, the rediciously high gas prices initially caused by the location of the war/war profiteering/price gouging by the oil companies that are in bed with the current govt, the increase in every other product due to gas prices, the unbelieveably low interest rates (as chuck mentioned).
Hey I've got an idea, why doesn't everyone keep argueing about it on the internet even though no one is going to change their mind or do anything about it.
Or the republicans could just quit their little crybaby whining and sit back and accept that this is how it's going to be for at least the next four years and there is nothing that they WILL do to change it other than talk big on the internet.
Actually the next election is in 2 years
And if you'll look at gas prices and the timeframe as to when the Dems took (albeit a small one) control of congress, you'll notice that's when prices spike from ~$2/gal to $4/gal.
No it's not just 1 party's fault, but to say that the Democratic party's influence on the lending practices and refusal to investigate freddie and fannie is a small part is to prove yourself largely uninformed.
Sure, the republicans had their chance and blew it...hopefully the dems do something about it. I think they're more concerned with getting back at the republicans and passing worthless legislation about guns, wealth redistribution, and bankrupting the coal industry to actually do much to help though.
And like you said, none of us can really do anything about it but bitch...you included. Just think, you all bitched and moaned the last 4 years and couldn't do a thing about it either...I do find it funny now though that people who screamed DAMN BUSH over every little bad incident are now the ones saying "Oh but the president doesn't really have much power so why worry blah blah blah" when we bring up arguments about Obama. Pick a stance and stick with it...
-
-
StangerBanger96;246728 wrote:
Actually the next election is in 2 yearsTrue and I HOPE the Republicans take a majority of the house/senate seats.
And if you'll look at gas prices and the timeframe as to when the Dems took (albeit a small one) control of congress, you'll notice that's when prices spike from ~$2/gal to $4/gal.
Very true, but neither party is to blame (solely) for this...global demand spiked, our dollar got weaker, investors looked to commodities instead of stocks/bonds to secure their futures....IOW free market did it's thing.
No it's not just 1 party's fault, but to say that the Democratic party's influence on the lending practices and refusal to investigate freddie and fannie is a small part is to prove yourself largely uninformed.
They played a role, no doubt about it. However the foreclosure rate on loans owned by Fannie Mae is about 1.72 percent. By contrast, the foreclosure rate on adjustable-rate subprime loans is nearly 20 percent, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/11/business/mortgage.php
Sure, the republicans had their chance and blew it...hopefully the dems do something about it. I think they're more concerned with getting back at the republicans and passing worthless legislation about guns, wealth redistribution, and bankrupting the coal industry to actually do much to help though.
That's exactly what I saw from this side of the aisle as well...only it was Republicans getting back at Democrats. Both parties suck major ass when they don't work together.
Let me throw this HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION out there for you:
If NOTHING gets changed in tax laws, at all, in the next 4 (or
years and no new gov't programs are put on the books to redistribute the wealth to the poor...is this a socialist move on Obama's part? How about if he has the tax decreases on those below $250,000 like he proposed, but DOES NOT increase taxes on those about $250,000?And like you said, none of us can really do anything about it but bitch...you included. Just think, you all bitched and moaned the last 4 years and couldn't do a thing about it either...I do find it funny now though that people who screamed DAMN BUSH over every little bad incident are now the ones saying "Oh but the president doesn't really have much power so why worry blah blah blah" when we bring up arguments about Obama. Pick a stance and stick with it...
I didn't do much bitching. I have a few things I don't like about the current administration, but GWB is not one of them....it's most of the rest of the party that bugs the shit out of me.
-
thrash;246541 wrote:
Do you know who I am?Someone who is pissed that his guy lost the election and continues to try and smear the guy who won by comparing him to Adolf Hitler.
I was raised in one country but my father was born in another. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.
True statement.
I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer. Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.
Obama's mother died just before her 53rd birthday in 1995.
I grew up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because this was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.
Attended the best schools he could while in countries overseas. By most accounts of people who know him, he was mostly raised atheist/agnostic...but yes, he changed to Christianity...any reason as to why he did is purely speculation.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career, organizing people.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/cands08/obamatime.html
When did he do this again?
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
Also true...I'm sure any kid whose parent abandoned them would have similar difficulties.
I became active in local politics when I was in my 30s and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40s. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/cands08/obamatime.html
He had a little bit of work history there. Not all of it political, but plenty enough education to help offset it.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was critical of my country in war. But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
The view of the majority of the people in this country seem to think the same thing...right or wrong. If they didn't, the democratic party wouldn't be in control at the moment.
Mine was a peoples campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.
What is the traditional path of politics? And what difference does this make?
I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted minorities such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my nations leader. However, anyone could have easily learned what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. But they did not.
Now you are (at best) speculating. Especially since he hasn't even been sworn in yet. But please tell me what he "really" believes...and then lets see if they happen.
Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.
That's right folks, they found out he really is only 1/2 black.
Who am I?
Please scroll down for the answer...Adolf Hitler
Is that who you were thinking of as you read?
Yes, because as I've pointed out above, a lot of what you wrote simply does not apply to the man you are attempting to smear.
-
thrash;246762 wrote:
Why are you talking about Obama? The history lesson is about Adolf Hitler.I just assumed that you were trying to say that Obama=Hitler since you didn't think that this is who everyone would be thinking of. I just wanted to point out how silly your comparison was. That is all.
-
MisterCMK;246763 wrote:
Chuck has a tendency to be a little touchy about the election results. You'll have to be patient with him.Truth..I hate it when my guy wins.
-
tjamz;246776 wrote:
I just assumed that you were trying to say that Obama=Hitler since you didn't think that this is who everyone would be thinking of. I just wanted to point out how silly your comparison was. That is all.They are similar...but not the same.
-
Just like Bush's "Patriot Act" is similar to the "Enabling Act" of Hitler's according to paranoid people on the left.... for example
History is repeating itself right before our very eyes. The current administration is following the blueprint conceived by Hitler only three-quarters of a century ago … and it’s working.
In the 1930s, the new Reichstag, or German Parliament, met in Berlin to consider passage of a deceitful act that would end democracy in that country and establish Adolf Hitler as dictator. It was given an innocuous title of, “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich” but became known as the “Enabling Act.” Today, we have the equivalent in America known as the “Patriot Act.” As the quote above reminds us, we can foresee the future by learning from the past. But we must be willing to not only be vigilant about our freedoms, but to take action to defend them. Is America willing to stand up to the tyranny of its own government? So far, even our spineless Congress has withered under the lies, propaganda, intimidation, and fear of the Bush Administration. It very well may be too late.
Let’s compare Hitler’s “Enabling Act” and Bush’s “Patriot Act” and see what similarities exist between the two and peek into the road in which America is traveling under this “good ole boy, just one of us” leader.
ENABLING ACT: March 23, 1933, Germany’s new Parliament met to consider the harmless sounding Enabling Act. Governments with covert agendas always give deceiving bills titles that make the people think it is in their best interest.
PATRIOT ACT: Only five days after 9-11, a draft of the flag-waving bill known as the Patriot Act was rammed through Congress and passed within weeks, supposedly in the “best interest” of American citizens.
ENABLING ACT: Nazi storm troopers surrounded the building in which the vote was to take place and even lined the aisles of the voting chamber, staring menacingly at anyone who disagreed with Hitler’s wishes.
PATRIOT ACT: Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee that if they weren’t “with us, you’re against us,” and declared anyone who disputed Bush’s wishes as “unpatriotic,” which intimidated Congress into passing the ill-named act.
ENABLING ACT: Hitler made a speech before the vote assuring the Reichstag that he would use “restraint.” History, of course, proves otherwise.
PATRIOT ACT: Bush promised America the expanded powers would be used only to fight terrorists and not include innocent citizens. That promise immediately went by the wayside.
ENABLING ACT: The Nazis secretly created a crisis to make the new law seem necessary in order to restore stability by burning the seat of German government themselves, which caused mass panic. They then blamed the event on the Communists and claimed they needed the new law to fight this evil.
PATRIOT ACT: The events of 9-11 created the crisis needed to pass the freedom eliminating Patriot Act. Emerging evidence points to the fact the Bush Administration may have known, or even been part of drafting, the tragedy so that the Patriot Act could be justified and enacted, giving the president and his secretive cabinet vastly expanded power. It is certainly suspicious that a bill the size of the Patriot Act, which would require massive time and research to prepare, was ready in five short days after the event. Some speculate the bill was already drafted prior to 9-11 and presented to Congress as necessary to “fight terrorism.” As we have since seen, the expanded powers have been enormously abused by including innocent American citizens and vast circumventing of the U.S. Constitution.
Both the Enabling Act and the Patriot Act have legally torn down the democratic process and paved the way for takeover of each respective country. Out of cowardice and fear, the Reichstag became a cheerleader for Hitler, much as Congress has become for Bush.
Can you spell d-i-c-t-a-t-o-r boys and girls???
See, it's just as silly when I put things up like this comparing Bush's policy to that of Hitlers.
-
Oh, this is just a forward I got. I thought it was interesting enough to share. It is surprising that many people seem to figure this is somehow related to Obama.
Clearly, Hitler and Obama aren't the same. For one, Obama never got put in jail for all of his subversive activity.
-
The comparison of the enabling act to the patriot act assumes a government culpability in 9/11. It is immediately thrown the fuck out on account of stupidity.
I hate being put in a position of defending Bush or the patriot act since both suck, but don't be dumber than both of them.
-
tjamz;246785 wrote:
Just like Bush's "Patriot Act" is similar to the "Enabling Act" of Hitler's according to paranoid people on the left.... for exampleSee, it's just as silly when I put things up like this comparing Bush's policy to that of Hitlers.
Similar...but not the same.
-
thrash;246786 wrote:
The comparison of the enabling act to the patriot act assumes a government culpability in 9/11. It is immediately thrown the fuck out on account of stupidity.I hate being put in a position of defending Bush or the patriot act since both suck, but don't be dumber than both of them.
No shit? Isn't that what I said about it looking silly about posting it up?
I at least prefaced mine by saying it was silly/ridiculous, you on the other hand seem hell bent on convincing the world (or at least fargostreet) that Obama is the anti-christ who is out to enslave/kill anyone who is in his way.
Maybe you are right...or maybe you are the antichrist...you are likable, very educated and extremely critical of the current direction of government. You have the ability sway others opinions into following lock-step with you. None of us know anything about you or your past. You have gained popularity on this website through non-tradional means. Instead of proposing unity, you encourage rebellion of the current government, going so far as saying you would move to Alaska should they successfully secede from the Union.
See how easy it is to make assumptions about people with whom you don't agree?
This ad paid for by "Fuck the anti-christ", Chuck Schwan CEO.
tjamz does not believe that thrash is the anti-christ or is in any way affiliated with a an organization intending to overthrow the US Gov't. This post is merely a parody put forth to illicit smiles, giggles, and LAWLZ from the interweb community
-
-
thrash;246796 wrote:
I never said I'd move to Canada. They are much worse than here. Hate-speech "courts" scare the weewee out of me.If you know of a ND-secession group that's looking to create something like Galt's Gulch here in ND, I'm interested in joining though
im down, can northern MN come with too?
-
thrash;246796 wrote:
I never said I'd move to Canada.Sorry...meant to say Alaska...don't know why I typed Canada.
-
As far as secession goes...I don't think we'd lose the second go-round. And before the idiots have a field day with that comment, study up on the American Civil War and discover the truth as to why The South lost.
integra_gsr98;246584 wrote:
I lost all my guns in a boating accident.I left all mine in a sugarbeet field in Grand Forks.
-Peter
1991 240SX
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login