More Texas Justice To Delight Rightards

[Bret Cahill]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=6

[Harold Burton]

In article
<8f57928a-ef50-44ae...@vi6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=
> 6



Whatever turns you on.


snicker

[Bret Cahill]

> >http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?cur...
> > 6

. . .

> snicker

Yup. A real sicko.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=6

[Nickname unavailable]

> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?cur...

we must give the sociopath(conservative)credit for being so
transparent.




http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html


Profile of the Sociopath
This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of
the behavior of sociopaths.
•
• Glibness and Superficial Charm
• Manipulative and Conning 
They never recognize the rights of others
and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be
charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their
victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and
humiliate their victims.
• Grandiose Sense of Self 
Feels entitled to certain things as "their
right."
• Pathological Lying 
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it
is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis.
Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own
powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie
detector tests.
• Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt 
A deep seated rage, which is split
off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them
as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends,
they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end
always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
• Shallow Emotions 
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love
and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an
ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining
unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are
not genuine, neither are their promises.
• Incapacity for Love
• Need for Stimulation 
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and
physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
• Callousness/Lack of Empathy 
Unable to empathize with the pain of
their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress
and readily taking advantage of them.
• Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature 
Rage and abuse,
alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an
addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating
hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-
knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no
concern for their impact on others.
• Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency 
Usually has a history
of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning
others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors
such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
• Irresponsibility/Unreliability 
Not concerned about wrecking
others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation
they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even
for acts they obviously committed.
• Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity 
Promiscuity, child sexual
abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
• Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle 
Tends to move
around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor
work ethic but exploits others effectively.
• Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility 
Changes their image as
needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Other Related Qualities:
1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations
where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or
admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs
their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H.
Cleckley and R. Hare.)



NOTE: In the 1830's this disorder was called "moral insanity." By 1900
it was changed to "psychopathic personality." More recently it has
been termed "antisocial personality disorder" in the DSM-III and DSM-
IV. Some critics have complained that, in the attempt to rely only on
'objective' criteria, the DSM has broadened the concept to include too
many individuals. The APD category includes people who commit illegal,
immoral or self-serving acts for a variety of reasons and are not
necessarily psychopaths.



DSM-IV Definition

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard
for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a
marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules.
Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or
sociopaths.

Diagnostic Criteria (DSM-IV)

1. Since the age of fifteen there has been a disregard for and
violation of the right's of others, those right's considered normal by
the local culture, as indicated by at least three of the following:
A. Repeated acts that could lead to arrest.
B. Conning for pleasure or profit, repeated lying, or the use of
aliases.
C. Failure to plan ahead or being impulsive.
D. Repeated assaults on others.
E. Reckless when it comes to their or others safety.
F. Poor work behavior or failure to honor financial obligations.
G. Rationalizing the pain they inflict on others.

2. At least eighteen years in age.

3. Evidence of a Conduct Disorder, with its onset before the age of
fifteen.

4. Symptoms not due to another mental disorder.



Antisocial Personality Disorder Overview (Written by Derek Wood, RN,
BSN, PhD Candidate)

Antisocial Personality Disorder results in what is commonly known as a
Sociopath. The criteria for this disorder require an ongoing disregard
for the rights of others, since the age of 15 years. Some examples of
this disregard are reckless disregard for the safety of themselves or
others, failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful
behaviors, deceitfulness such as repeated lying or deceit for personal
profit or pleasure, and lack of remorse for actions that hurt other
people in any way. Additionally, they must have evidenced a Conduct
Disorder before the age of 15 years, and must be at least 18 years old
to receive this diagnosis.

People with this disorder appear to be charming at times, and make
relationships, but to them, these are relationships in name only. They
are ended whenever necessary or when it suits them, and the
relationships are without depth or meaning, including marriages. They
seem to have an innate ability to find the weakness in people, and are
ready to use these weaknesses to their own ends through deceit,
manipulation, or intimidation, and gain pleasure from doing so.

They appear to be incapable of any true emotions, from love to shame
to guilt. They are quick to anger, but just as quick to let it go,
without holding grudges. No matter what emotion they state they have,
it has no bearing on their future actions or attitudes.

They rarely are able to have jobs that last for any length of time, as
they become easily bored, instead needing constant change. They live
for the moment, forgetting the past, and not planning the future, not
thinking ahead what consequences their actions will have. They want
immediate rewards and gratification. There currently is no form of
psychotherapy that works with those with antisocial personality
disorder, as those with this disorder have no desire to change
themselves, which is a prerequisite. No medication is available
either. The only treatment is the prevention of the disorder in the
early stages, when a child first begins to show the symptoms of
conduct disorder.



THE PSYCHOPATH NEXT DOOR (Source: http://chericola57.tripod.com/infinite.html)

Psychopath. We hear the word and images of Bernardo, Manson and Dahmer
pop into our heads; no doubt Ted Bundy too. But they're the bottom of
the barrel -- most of the two million psychopaths in North America
aren't murderers. They're our friends, lovers and co-workers. They're
outgoing and persuasive, dazzling you with charm and flattery. Often
you aren't even aware they've taken you for a ride -- until it's too
late.

Psychopaths exhibit a Jekyll and Hyde personality. "They play a part
so they can get what they want," says Dr. Sheila Willson, a Toronto
psychologist who has helped victims of psychopaths. The guy who
showers a woman with excessive attention is much more capable of
getting her to lend him money, and to put up with him when he strays.
The new employee who gains her co-workers' trust has more access to
their chequebooks. And so on. Psychopaths have no conscience and their
only goal is self-gratification. Many of us have been their victims --
at work, through friendships or relationships -- and not one of us can
say, "a psychopath could never fool me."

Think you can spot one? Think again. In general, psychopaths aren't
the product of broken homes or the casualties of a materialistic
society. Rather they come from all walks of life and there is little
evidence that their upbringing affects them. Elements of a
psychopath's personality first become evident at a very early age, due
to biological or genetic factors. Explains Michael Seto, a
psychologist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental health in Toronto,
by the time that a person hits their late teens, the disorder is
almost certainly permanent. Although many clinicians use the terms
psychopath and sociopath interchangeably, writes psychopath expert
Robert Hare on his book 'Without Conscience', a sociopath's criminal
behavior is shaped by social forces and is the result of a
dysfunctional environment.

Psychopaths have only a shallow range of emotions and lack guilt, says
Hare. They often see themselves as victims, and lack remorse or the
ability to empathize with others. "Psychopaths play on the fact that
most of us are trusting and forgiving people," adds Seto. The warning
signs are always there; it's just difficult to see them because once
we trust someone, the friendship becomes a blinder.

Even lovers get taken for a ride by psychopaths. For a psychopath, a
romantic relationship is just another opportunity to find a trusting
partner who will buy into the lies. It's primarily why a psychopath
rarely stays in a relationship for the long term, and often is
involved with three or four partners at once, says Willson. To a
psychopath, everything about a relationship is a game. Willson refers
to the movie 'Sliding Doors' to illustrate her point. In the film, the
main character comes home early after just having been fired from her
job. Only moments ago, her boyfriend has let another woman out the
front door. But in a matter of minutes he is the attentive and
concerned boyfriend, taking her out to dinner and devoting the entire
night to comforting her. All the while he's planning to leave the next
day on a trip with the other woman.

The boyfriend displays typical psychopathic characteristics because he
falsely displays deep emotion toward the relationship, says Willson.
In reality, he's less concerned with his girlfriend's depression than
with making sure she's clueless about the other woman's existence. In
the romance department, psychopaths have an ability to gain your
affection quickly, disarming you with words, intriguing you with
grandiose plans. If they cheat you'll forgive them, and one day when
they've gone too far, they'll leave you with a broken heart (and an
empty wallet). By then they'll have a new player for their game.

The problem with their game is that we don't often play by their
rules. Where we might occasionally tell a white lie, a psychopath's
lying is compulsive. Most of us experience some degree of guilt about
lying, preventing us from exhibiting such behavior on a regular basis.
"Psychopaths don't discriminate who it is they lie to or cheat," says
Seto. "There's no distinction between friend, family and sucker."

No one wants to be the sucker, so how do we prevent ourselves from
becoming close friends or getting into a relationship with a
psychopath? It's really almost impossible, say Seto and Willson.
Unfortunately, laments Seto, one way is to become more suspicious and
less trusting of others. Our tendency is to forgive when we catch a
loved one in a lie. "Psychopaths play on this fact," he says.
"However, I'm certainly not advocating a world where if someone lies
once or twice, you never speak to them again." What you can do is look
at how often someone lies and how they react when caught. Psychopaths
will lie over and over again, and where other people would sincerely
apologize, a psychopath may apologize but won't stop.

Psychopaths also tend to switch jobs as frequently as they switch
partners, mainly because they don't have the qualities to maintain a
job for the long haul. Their performance is generally erratic, with
chronic absences, misuse of company resources and failed commitments.
Often they aren't even qualified for the job and use fake credentials
to get it. Seto talks of a patient who would get marketing jobs based
on his image; he was a presentable and charming man who layered his
conversations with educational and occupational references. But it
became evident that the man hadn't a clue what he was talking about,
and was unable to hold down a job.

How do you make sure you don't get fooled when you're hiring someone
to baby-sit your child or for any other job? Hire based on reputation
and not image, says Willson. Check references thoroughly. Psychopaths
tend to give vague and inconsistent replies. Of course the best way to
solve this problem would be to cure psychopaths of their 'illness.'
But there's no recipe for treating them, say psychiatrists. Today's
traditional methods of psychotherapy (psychoanalysis, group and one-on-
one therapy) and drug treatments have failed. Therapy is more likely
to work when an individual admits there's a problem and wants to
change. The common problem with psychopaths, says Sets, "Is they don't
see a problem with their behavior."

Psychopaths don't seek therapy willingly, says Seto. Rather, they're
pushed into it by a desperate relative or by a court order. To a
psychopath, a therapist is just one more person who must be conned,
and the psychopath plays the part right until the therapist is
convinced of his or her 'rehabilitation.'

Even though we can't treat psychopaths effectively with therapy, it
doesn't mean we can't protect ourselves, writes Hare. Willson agrees,
citing the most important factor in keeping psychopaths at bay is to
know your vulnerabilities. We need to "realize our own potential and
maximize our strengths" so that our insecurities don't overcome us.
Because, she says, a psychopath is a chameleon who becomes "an image
of what you haven't done for yourself." Over time, she says, "their
appearance of perfection will begin to crack," but by that time you
will have been emotionally and perhaps financially scathed. There
comes a time when you realize there's no point in searching for
answers; the only thing is to move on.

Taken in part from MW -- By Caroline Konrad -- September 1999

THE MALIGNANT PERSONALITY:

These people are mentally ill and extremely dangerous! The following
precautions will help to protect you from the destructive acts of
which they are capable.

First, to recognize them, keep the following guidelines in mind.

(1) They are habitual liars. They seem incapable of either knowing or
telling the truth about anything.

(2) They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really
believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special
grace.

(3) They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or
willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever
the problem, it is always someone else's fault.

(4) They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed.

(5) Genuine religious, moral, or other values play no part in their
lives. They have no empathy for others and are capable of violence.
Under older psychological terminology, they fall into the category of
psychopath or sociopath, but unlike the typical psychopath, their
behavior is masked by a superficial social facade.

If you have come into conflict with such a person or persons, do the
following immediately!

(1) Notify your friends and relatives of what has happened.

Do not be vague. Name names, and specify dates and circumstances.
Identify witnesses if possible and provide supporting documentation if
any is available.

(2) Inform the police. The police will do nothing with this
information except to keep it on file, since they are powerless to act
until a crime has been committed. Unfortunately, that often is usually
too late for the victim. Nevertheless, place the information in their
hands.

Obviously, if you are assaulted or threatened before witnesses, you
can get a restraining order, but those are palliative at best.

(3) Local law enforcement agencies are usually under pressure if
wealthy or politically powerful individuals are involved, so include
state and federal agencies as well and tell the locals that you have.
In my own experience, one agency that can help in a pinch is the
Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service or (in
Canada) Victims Services at your local police unit. It is not easy to
think of the IRS as a potential friend, but a Swedish study showed
that malignant types (the Swedes called them bullies) usually commit
some felony or other by the age of twenty. If the family is wealthy,
the fact may never come to light, but many felonies involve tax
evasion, and in such cases, the IRS is interested indeed. If large
amounts of money are involved, the IRS may solve all your problems for
you. For obvious reasons the Drug Enforcement Agency may also be an
appropriate agency to approach. The FBI is an important agency to
contact, because although the FBI does not have jurisdiction over
murder or assault, if informed, they do have an active interest in any
other law enforcement agencies that do not follow through with an
honest investigation and prosecution should a murder occur. Civil
rights are involved at that point. No local crooked lawyer, judge, or
corrupt police official wants to be within a country mile if that
comes to light! It is in such cases that wealthy psychopaths discover
just how firm the "friends" they count on to cover up for them really
are! Even some of the drug cartel biggies will scuttle for cover if
someone picks up the brick their thugs hide under. Exposure is bad for
business.

(4) Make sure that several of your friends have the information in the
event something happens to you. That way, an appropriate investigation
will follow if you are harmed. Don't tell other people who has the
information, because then something bad could happen to them as well.
Instruct friends to take such an incident to the newspapers and other
media.

If you are dealing with someone who has considerable money, you must
realize that they probably won't try to harm you themselves, they will
contract with someone to make the hit. The malignant type is a coward
and will not expose himself or herself to personal danger if he or she
can avoid it.

Update: A thorough article. You may also find more at http://sociopathworld.com/.
I, the creator of this site, am not a psychologist and no special
expertise in the subject. I created the site as a public service,
because no similar site existed in 2003. I occasionally get sad calls
and emails. I urge you to consult either a clinical psychologist or
the police depending on the problem you face, and wish you good luck.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.americainwwii.com/articles/2009/getting-inside.html

GETTING INSIDE HITLER’S HEAD
When America’s spymaster hired a psychiatrist to figure out the
Führer, the result was disturbing—and, as history showed, accurate.
by Brian John Murphy
Americans laughed when they saw Adolf Hitler for the first time. For
most of them, it happened in a movie theater, watching a March of Time
newsreel before a feature film. They laughed out loud at his Charlie
Chaplin mustache, his unruly forelock, and his frenzied speechmaking.
As they saw and heard him more and more over the following years,
however, they stopped laughing and started worrying.
“Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of
humanity,” Hitler crowed. “I am freeing man from the restraints of an
intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-
mortification of a false vision called ‘conscience and morality,’ and
from the demands of a freedom and independence which only a very few
can bear…. The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. ’Conscience’
is a Jewish invention, a blemish like circumcision.”
Americans were soon viewing newsreels of Nazis persecuting Jews on the
streets of Germany. They watched ominously massive armies on the
march. When Hitler began to unleash the horrors of World War II, they
were wracked with questions: How did a man like this gain control of a
cultured nation such as Germany? After the slaughter of World War I,
why did he want another, bigger war? What would a man like this do
when cornered?
US Colonel William “Wild Bill” Donovan wanted answers to these and
other questions. He had met Hitler in his travels in the 1930s, and
came away from the encounter convinced a second world war was all but
certain. By 1941, that war was well under way and US entry into it
looked increasingly inevitable. So, President Franklin Roosevelt
turned to Donovan, a Medal of Honor winner and commander of the
Fighting 69th (the 69th New York Volunteer Regiment) in World War I,
to head what would become America’s first national intelligence
agency, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Donovan immediately
set out to understand his enemy. He wanted to know what made him tick.
He wanted to see what was going on inside Hitler’s head.
 Hitler’s Psychoanalyst
Psychoanalysis was what Donovan was after. “What kind of a person is
he?” Donovan asked. “What are his ambitions? How does he appear to the
German people? What is he like with his associates? What is his
background? …In addition, we ought to know what he might do if things
begin to go against him.” Donovan chose Dr. Walter C. Langer, a
Harvard psychoanalyst, to do the job. A student of Anna Freud for
eight years in Vienna, Austria, and a friend of her father, Sigmund,
Langer was a strong choice to head the project. He had a solid
reputation among the elite psychiatrists of his day.
Hitler was not about to lie on Langer’s couch. Forced to render an
assessment of his subject in absentia, Langer relied on writings and
speeches. He had to read between the lines to grasp the real meaning
of Hitler’s words. He consulted witnesses and information from
published materials. The data piled up. What Langer called his “Hitler
source book” grew to about 11,000 pages. From this he created the
equivalent of what would today be called a criminal profile.
The Analysis
It would have been easy simply to pronounce Hitler insane, but that
would not have offered the OSS any help in dealing with him Langer
first determined that Hitler was most likely “a neurotic psychopath.”
He proceeded with his study from there. “With this diagnosis as our
starting point of orientation,” he wrote, “we were able to evaluate
the data in terms of probability.”
Some of the witnesses Langer consulted had fled Germany in fear for
their lives. They included men like Ernst “Putzi” Hanfstaengel, a
close friend of Hitler in the 1920s, and Otto Strasser, whose brother
Gregor was a high-ranking Nazi party official until he was murdered on
Hitler’s orders in 1933. Witnesses like these had legitimate grudges
against Hitler and may have fabricated or exaggerated lurid details
about his private life. Nevertheless, the predictions of Hitler’s
future behavior that Langer made based on these testimonies ultimately
proved accurate. Langer’s conclusions seem as valid as those of a
present-day FBI criminal profile.
Origins of a Sociopath
Langer began his in-depth analysis with Hitler’s childhood conflicts
and traumas. In Mein Kampf, Hitler claimed his family was typical for
its time: “Father, a faithful civil servant, the mother devoting
herself to the cares of the household and looking after her children
with eternally the same loving care.” This struck Langer as oddly
terse. What was Hitler hiding?
The answer, Langer believed, lay elsewhere in Mein Kampf, where Hitler
discussed a family he considered typical. Langer concluded it was
Hitler’s own family. “Among the five children there is a boy, let us
say, of three...,” Hitler wrote. “When the parents fight almost daily,
their brutality leaves nothing to the imagination…, brutal attacks on
the part of the father towards the mother…, assaults due to
drunkenness. The poor little boy at the age of six, senses things
which would make even a grown-up person shudder…. When [the father]
finally comes home..., drunk and brutal…, then God have mercy on the
scenes which follow. I witnessed all of this personally in hundreds of
scenes…with both disgust and indignation….” Langer reasoned that “when
we remember the few friends that Hitler has made in the course of his
life, and not a single intimate friend, one wonders where he had the
opportunity of observing these scenes personally, hundreds of times,
if it was not in his own home.”
Hitler’s father, Alois, an Austrian customs official, was known to
have spent a lot of his time in taverns. His wife and some combination
of his five children often had to help take him home. He was a tyrant
at home, often severely beating his wife and son.
Besides these more obvious family problems, Langer deduced, the young
Hitler saw his parents having intercourse. He came away from the
experience feeling angry and jealous toward his father, rage at his
mother’s seeming betrayal, and indignation at his own inability to
rescue her.
Manipulating Mom and the Masses
Hitler’s mother, Klara, was Alois’s third wife and his cousin. Twenty-
two years younger than Alois, she moved into his house while he was
still married to his second wife. Klara lost as many as three babies
before Adolf was born, and she compensated by spoiling him rotten. He
learned to manipulate his mother to get his way, throwing temper
tantrums that always ended with her caving in. As an adult politician,
Hitler used a similar tactic for imposing his will on others and in
dealing with opposition and frustration. “His behavior is…extremely
violent and shows an utter lack of emotional control,” Langer wrote.
“In the worst rages he undoubtedly acts like a spoiled child who
cannot have his own way and bangs his fists on the tables and walls.
He scolds and shouts and stammers and on some occasions foaming saliva
gathers in the corners of his mouth….”
As Fuhrer, Hitler threw one of his infamous tantrums after a random
scrap of information was tossed out at a meeting with generals Alfred
Jodl and Franz Halder in 1942. Halder reported that the Soviet Union
was manufacturing 1,200 tanks a month. Hitler exploded, advancing with
balled fists on Halder. Shaking with anger, his face literally purple
with fury, he screamed, “Don’t ever utter such idiotic nonsense again!
I forbid it!” Jodl later said “Never in my life did I experience such
an outburst of rage from any human being.”
The equivalent of screaming tantrums can be found in Hitler’s
speeches. His violent addresses, filled with vivid emotion and
theatrical gestures, were quite a departure from typical German
political oratory. It was all manipulation, as with his mother. Langer
believed that Hitler’s success as a speaker taught him to equate the
crowd with the feminine character of his mother. “Someone who does not
understand the…feminine character of the masses will never be an
effective speaker,” Langer quoted Hitler as saying. “Ask yourself:
‘What does a woman expect from a man?’ Clearness, decision, power and
action! …The crowd is not only like a woman, but women constitute the
most important element in an audience. The women usually lead…. The
people, in an overwhelming majority, are so feminine in their nature
and attitude that their activities and thoughts are motivated less by
sober consideration than by feeling and sentiment.”
From Troubled Boyhood to the Gutter
Hitler was 12 years old in 1903 when his father died. Though the loss
may have seemed more a relief than a tragedy, the young Hitler, a
formerly promising student, began to fall behind in school. His
troubles continued, and in his teens he was accused of sexual
misconduct with a much younger schoolgirl. He would retain this taste
for very young, pretty, well-built, and stupid girls well into his
40s. He avoided expulsion for the misconduct, but later dropped out of
school, spending much of the family’s meager income on clothing and
watercolors and adopting the pose of the tragic artist. He moved to
Vienna in 1905 and lived a bohemian lifestyle on his orphan’s pension
and support from his mother.
Hitler then suffered two personal catastrophes. First, he applied for
study at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, but was rejected because he
was poor at drawing people. Then his mother died on December 21, 1907,
after a bout with cancer. He now directed the affection he could no
longer give to her toward his country. “Germany became a symbol of his
ideal mother,” Langer wrote.
On the other hand, Hitler directed the hate he felt for his late
father toward Austria. He spewed venom at multi-ethnic Vienna with
twisted vehemence. “The racial conglomeration which ruled the Imperial
capital was repugnant to me,” he wrote. “Equally repugnant was the
whole national hodgepodge of Czechs, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Serbs,
Croats, etc.—and in the midst of it all, that eternal split fungus of
humanity, Jews and again Jews!” A down-and-out bum in Vienna, wearing
clothes donated by a kindly Jew, Hitler read the vile anti-Jewish
propaganda that was rife in the capital and ate it up. Increasingly,
Langer says, Hitler blamed the Jews for every evil in the world and in
his own life.
Hitler’s transfers of affection to Germany and hatred to Austria had
massive consequences. “Unconsciously,” Langer wrote, “he is not
dealing with nations composed of millions of individuals but is trying
to solve his personal conflicts and rectify the injustices of his
childhood…. He projects his personal problems on great nations and
then tries to solve them on this unrealistic level…. We can now
understand why Hitler fell on his knees and thanked God when the
[First World] War broke out. To him it [was] an opportunity of
fighting for his symbolic mother—of proving his manhood and of being
accepted by her.”
 The War-Lover
In 1914 Hitler joined Bavaria’s List Regiment and soon found himself
on the Western Front. Langer said the regiment was Hitler’s first real
home. He was a brave soldier and won the Iron Cross, second and first
class, an almost unheard-of honor for an enlisted man. He yielded
completely to authority and enthused about battle in a way combat
soldiers never do. His taste for war led his captain to exclaim, “I’ll
never make that hysterical fellow an officer!”
Hitler turned out to be the regiment’s odd man out. “His failure in
personal intercourse misled him more and more into contempt for his
fellow-men,” Munich journalist Konrad Heiden testified about the man
who called humankind “laughable cosmic bacterium.” Hitler turned to
spying on his fellow soldiers after the war ended, denouncing those
who were sympathetic to the socialist movement in Bavaria known as the
Munich Soviet. Some of Hitler’s wartime comrades were even hanged
thanks to his spying. “There will be no peace in the land until a body
is hanging from every lamp-post,” he said.
Langer said Hitler avoided contact with women through his army years.
His sexual life was twisted by an unhealthy love for his mother, and
he grew up sexually dysfunctional. By the end of the war, he was
morbidly afraid of syphilis and associated sex with excrement and
degradation. When he did develop a sex life, as he became a confident
and powerful politician, he indulged in practices that are impossible
to describe delicately.
Between his sick tastes and the callous way he treated his lovers, it
is not surprising that six of his former lady friends attempted
suicide. Two of them succeeded. One was his own niece, Geli Raubal,
who had lived with him since age 17. Longtime mistress Eva Braun, who
met Hitler at age 17, twice tried to kill herself.
Langer said Hitler’s sex life alienated him from people in general and
figured into his anti-Semitism. “From a psychological point of view it
is not too far-fetched to suppose that as the perversion developed and
became more disgusting to Hitler’s ego, its demands were disowned and
projected upon the Jew,” Langer wrote. “By this process the Jew became
a symbol of everything that Hitler hated in himself.”
Hitler’s sexual preferences held promise as a negative propaganda
tool. Langer went to some length dissecting Hitler’s appearance, his
walk, and his manner of expressing himself, to suggest he may have
been bisexual. Although being gay is no longer a negative for many
Westerners, in the 1940s homosexuality was a devastating accusation.
Today Langer’s would-be evidence looks like homophobic stereotyping
and is not taken very seriously.
 Taking Political Power
Hitler was an unlikely-looking candidate to lead what Germans thought
of as the Aryan race. Rather than the professed ideal—tall, well
proportioned, blond, blue-eyed, and handsome—Hitler was short, dark-
haired, longnosed, and hollow-chested. It was said at the time—quietly
— that if he were not the Führer, he would fail to meet the enlistment
standards for his own bodyguard regiment.
Langer observed that Hitler’s mysterious but very real charisma as a
public speaker overcame his looks in his rise to power. “Hitler
responds to the vibration of the human heart with the delicacy of a
seismograph…, enabling him…to act as a loudspeaker proclaiming the
most secret desires, the least permissible instincts, the sufferings
and revolts of a whole nation,” Otto Strasser wrote. Langer concluded
that “it was this Hitler that the German people knew at first hand.
Hitler, the fiery orator, who tirelessly rushed from one meeting to
another, working himself to the point of exhaustion in their behalf;
Hitler, whose heart and soul were in the Cause and who struggled
endlessly against overwhelming odds and obstacles to open their eyes
to the true state of affairs…who could arouse their emotions and
channelize them…whose words burned into the most secret recesses of
their minds….”
Losing physical power
We know now that many emotional and mental disorders can have medical
causes and are treatable medically. Since Langer’s study, we have
learned that Hitler’s behavioral traits may have been made worse by
the medical care he received. He was treated for war wounds, a polyp
on his vocal chords, and tinnitis (persistent ringing in the ears). He
self-medicated for stomach distress with a so-called remedy marketed
as Dr. Koester’s Anti-Gas Pills. His eventual personal physician,
Theodor Morell, was a quack. Morell gave Hitler daily injections of
methamphetamine, plus extra doses as requested. He certainly looked
like a prematurely old meth addict in his last years, and his health
was further sapped by other quack cures that Morell provided,
including an oral bacteria supplement cultured from the feces of “a
hearty Bulgarian peasant.”
Morell may well have been largely responsible for Hitler’s rapid aging
from 1940 to 1945. Witnesses describe the 56-year-old Hitler in 1945
as a shuffling old man wearing a uniform spotted with food and
grasping for a handhold every few steps. His left hand trembled
violently. Cake crumbs clung to the corners of his mouth. The bags
under his eyes were swollen and dark. He drooled. His untreated high
blood pressure had developed into coronary artery disease. By April
1945 he had little left physically or mentally.
Predictions Fulfilled
Langer finished his profile of Hitler in 1943. The document circulated
among the top military brass in Washington, and Roosevelt himself
probably read it. But it had little or no effect on political or
military policy.
The Hitler Langer profiled was a man with a boundlessly grandiose
concept of himself. Langer said Hitler believed fate set him apart as
a superman, a chosen one, the messiah of a future German empire, who
was infallible except for when he had engaged in what he called “the
Jewish Christ-creed with its effeminate pity-ethics.” When crossed,
Hitler wanted retribution that was godlike in its devastation.
Langer accurately predicted Hitler’s intentions toward the Jews. They
symbolized for him everything Hitler detested in himself, and he
wished to wreak unlimited vengeance on them. The factory system of
extermination he and his henchmen developed took the lives of more
than six million European Jews and millions more Slavs, gypsies,
homosexuals, intellectuals, and clergy.
Langer also predicted that Hitler’s personality was incapable of
dealing with military defeat, and that losing the war might drive the
Führer insane. “Hitler has many characteristics which border on the
schizophrenic,” Langer wrote. “It is possible that when faced with
defeat his psychological structure may collapse and leave him at the
mercy of his unconscious forces.” By the time the Russians reached the
gates of Berlin, Hitler had become fully delusional, ordering
divisions and corps that had long since ceased to exist into battle,
begging his associates to tell him there was some hope the war could
be turned around, and finally sinking into a deep, apathetic
depression as his ability to manage events evaporated. “As Germany
suffers successive defeats Hitler…will feel himself more and more
vulnerable to attack…, and his rages will increase in frequency,”
Langer prophesied. “He will probably try to compensate for his
vulnerability…by continually stressing his brutality and ruthlessness.
“His public appearances will become less and less for…he is unable to
face a critical audience…. His nightmares will probably increase in
frequency…and drive him closer to a nervous collapse. It is not wholly
improbable that in the end he might lock himself into [a] symbolic
womb and defy the world to get him….
“In any case, his mental condition will continue to deteriorate. He
will fight as long as he can with any weapon or technique that can be
conjured up to meet the emergency. The course he will follow will
almost certainly…drag the world down in flames.” Langer was right. In
1945, with the war lost, Hitler ordered his army and the SS to destroy
Germany— its factories and shops, its canals and bridges, its
railroads and autobahns, its farms and granaries. The German people,
he declared, were unworthy of his genius and had proven themselves
cowards. He wanted to avenge his fate on those he had pretended to
love.
Finally, Langer predicted Hitler’s suicide. “This is the most
plausible outcome,” he wrote. “Not only has he frequently threatened
to commit suicide, but from what we know of his psychology it is the
most likely possibility. It is probably true that he has an inordinate
fear of death, but being an hysteric he could undoubtedly screw
himself up into the super-man character and perform the deed.”
Suicide was always on Hitler’s mind. When the Soviets retook
Stalingrad from the Germans in 1943, Hitler was outraged that his
180,000 surrendering troops did not kill themselves as a gesture of
loyalty to him. Two years later, in a bunker, Hitler handed out
cyanide capsules like party favors to his closest friends. On April
30, 1945, he and his wife of one day, Eva Braun, shut themselves in a
small sitting room in the bunker. Braun curled up at one end of the
couch. Hitler sat at the other. Both held a cyanide capsule between
their teeth. Hitler held a small pistol. He raised the gun to his head
and bit down as he pulled the trigger.
Brian John Murphy is a contributing editor of America in WWII. He
lives in Fairfield, Connecticut. This article originally appeared in
the August 2009 issue of the magazine. Order a copy of this issue now.

[Harold Burton]

In article
<3b07ba65-e0a0-465e...@r4g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>,
Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> whined:

> Yup. A real sicko.


don't be so hard on yourself.


snicker

[Bret Cahill]

> > > >http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?cur...
> > > > 6
>
> > . . .
>
> > > snicker
>
> > Yup.  A real sicko.
>
> >http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?cur...
>
>  we must give the sociopath(conservative)credit for being so
> transparent.
>
> http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
>
> Profile of the Sociopath
> This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of
> the behavior of sociopaths.
>         •
>         •     Glibness and Superficial Charm

The rightard who snickers at the executions of innocents is so
charming he'll drive the independent vote over to Obama.

>         •     Manipulative and Conning

That's what they like to imagine. And then they get online and get
their fannies handed to them.

> They never recognize the rights of others

Unless they think it'll get them a biscuit.

> and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be
> charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their
> victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and
> humiliate their victims.

Nietzsche described the proto nazis as "good natured and vicious."

It's a fascism problem, not an individual problem.

> Update: A thorough article. You may also find more athttp://sociopathworld.com/.

[Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E]

On May 15, 4:41 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?cur...

I've axked this of many anti-capital punishment liberals and NEVER get
an answer so I'll axk you. Your mother goes out for an afternoon of
shopping and as she goes to get in her car for the trip home two thug
Obama lookalikes grab her,throw her in their Buick,tie her up and take
her to a secluded area. They,along with 14 other Obama lookalikes,
take turns beating,sodomizing,raping and torturing her. After they
finally get bored with her they slit her belly open and let her slowly
bleed to death. The perps are caught,they confess and DNA evidence
ties them to the crime. Do you think these animals deserve life
without parole or the death penalty?

[Bret Cahill]

> >http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?cur...
>
> I've axked

Just don't admit to axked murdering.

> this of many anti-capital punishment

Is "anti-capital punishment" another name for "austerity?"

This may be the source of the problem. The entire austerity thingy
was due to a misspelling.

> liberals and NEVER get
> an answer

I keep asking looneytarians 3 questions and NEVER get ANY answers.

1. Do looneytarians cheer state power to execute any innocent or just
the innocent who belong to a minority ethnic group?

2. Does free speech precede each and every free trade?

3. What's the difference between rent and taxes?

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 15, 10:26 pm, "Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey

what if they were white? try asking it that way. otherwise we might
think you are a racist(conservative).

[Gordon Burditt]

> 2. Does free speech precede each and every free trade?

No.

Speech, free or not, does not precede every trade, free or not.

[Bret Cahill]

> > 2.  Does free speech precede each and every free trade?
>
> No.
>
> Speech, free or not, does not precede every trade, free or not.

Can you get one single GOP "market" economist to back you up on that
absurdity?


Bret Cahill

[Gordon Burditt]

Have you ever purchased anything from a vending machine?

[Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E]

What IF they were white? the question remains the same. Btw,I'm not a
racist. I hate everybody,espescially limp wristed,panty wearing
metrosexual progressives like you. Can't answer the question?

[deadrat]

Just remember that the "phobia" in homophobia just means that you're
scared that you're gay.

> Can't answer the question?

The answer is easy for most people. They'd like to see the criminals
die. This is not universal. There are a few (very few) examples of
people who say that because they're Christians, they must forgive the
killers and cannot allow themselves to be party to taking a life, as
that kind of judgment is the province of their god. But for most, it's
different.

But that's why we have the rule of law -- to take judgment and
punishment out of the hands of those emotionally connected to the
victims of crime. And no matter how much I want to strangle those
who've harmed people I love, it's still a bad idea to give the state the
power to kill its citizens.

[Bret Cahill]

> >>>>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?cur...
>
> >>> I've axked this of many anti-capital punishment liberals and NEVER get
> >>> an answer so I'll axk you. Your mother goes out for an afternoon of
> >>> shopping and as she goes to get in her car for the trip home two thug
> >>> Obama lookalikes grab her,throw her in their Buick,tie her up and take
> >>> her to a secluded area. They,along with 14 other Obama lookalikes,
> >>> take turns beating,sodomizing,raping and torturing her. After they
> >>> finally get bored with her they slit her belly open and let her slowly
> >>> bleed to death. The perps are caught,they confess and DNA evidence
> >>> ties them  to the crime. Do you think these animals deserve life
> >>> without parole or the death penalty?
>
> >>   what if they were white? try asking it that way. otherwise we might
> >> think you are a racist(conservative).
>
> > What IF they were white? the question remains the same. Btw,I'm not a
> > racist. I hate everybody,espescially limp wristed,panty wearing
> > metrosexual progressives like you.
>
> Just remember that the "phobia" in homophobia just means that you're
> scared that you're gay.
>
> > Can't answer the question?
>
> The answer is easy for most people.  They'd like to see the criminals
> die.

Or anyone for that matter.

As the teabagger levity concerning the Texas miscarriages reveal, the
ones getting killed don't even need to be criminals.

> This is not universal.  There are a few (very few) examples of
> people who say that because they're Christians, they must forgive the
> killers and cannot allow themselves to be party to taking a life, as
> that kind of judgment is the province of their god.  But for most, it's
> different.
>
> But that's why we have the rule of law -- to take judgment and
> punishment out of the hands of those emotionally connected to the
> victims of crime.  And no matter how much I want to strangle those
> who've harmed people I love, it's still a bad idea to give the state the
> power to kill its citizens.

Don't go to the 2012 GOP Nat'l convention but if you must go, wear
Kevlar and sit next to the door.

And remember to exit or hit the floor when you hear a teabagger yell,
"just like Hitler!"


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

Without the owner using freedom of the press to post the price and
present labels of the products?

Without freedom of communication for the buyer to read the price and
labels?

Never and no one believes anyone else has either. This isn't
something you can get around.

Anyway you dodged the question:

Can you get one single GOP "market" economist to back you up on that
absurdity?

Bret Cahill

[Harold Burton]

In article
<ab581a8f-1d28-4d61...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com>,

If you didn't want to hear the answer you shouldn't have asked the
question.



snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article
<90d4c035-5a00-4dc5...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Well doh. Democrat FDR proved that in the 40s when he firebombed
thousands of innocent women and children in Dresden, Tokyo and numerous
other cities.



snicker

[Greegor]

dr > Just remember that the "phobia"
dr > in homophobia just means that
dr > you're scared that you're gay.

Propagandistic rhetoric. Most dictionaries disagree.

Deadrat and Bret, are you two running another
daisy chain to try to push socialism?

Why pick on "Rightards" or "teabaggers" when
your own views are so extreme that even
mainstream lefties reject them as "KOOK left"?

Isn't it just a bit DECEPTIVE when you
refuse to acknowledge your own political
orientation even after you spout Carl Marx?

[Bill Graham]

"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:90d4c035-5a00-4dc5...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Waanting to see the criminals die isn't the issue. What is the issue is
knowing whether the ones who die are the criminals or not. Our prisons are
full of innocent people who were put there by over zealous prosecuters who
were trying to get reelected. I watch many TV shows based on real cases
where people are put away for life, or put on death row with evidence that
leaves, at least in my mind, a huge, "reasonable doubt". KMost juries, like
Jay Leno's people on the street, are idiots. If they aren't idiots, they
will be passed over by either the judge, or one of the attourneys. And yeet,
if the verdict is, "guilty", then its as done deal, and everyone involved
accepts the guilt of the accused as a verified fact. The fact that our
prisons are full of innocent people don't make no never mind to them.......
Lets hand 'em first, and then be sorry later........

[Greegor]

On May 19, 9:06 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
[Obvious corrections made]
> Wanting to see the criminals die isn't the issue.

> What is the issue is knowing whether the ones
> who die are the criminals or not. Our prisons are
> full of innocent people who were put there by
> over zealous prosecuters who were trying to get
> reelected. I watch many TV shows based on real
> cases where people are put away for life, or
> put on death row with evidence that leaves, at
> least in my mind, a huge, "reasonable doubt".

> Most juries, like Jay Leno's people on the
> street, are idiots. If they aren't idiots, they
> will be passed over by either the judge, or one

> of the attorneys. And yet, if the verdict is,

> "guilty", then its as done deal, and everyone
> involved accepts the guilt of the accused as
> a verified fact. The fact that our prisons are
> full of innocent people don't make no never

> mind to them....... [ Mentality seems to be]
> Lets hang 'em first, and then be sorry later...

To STATEists like Bret and deadrat, that's just fine.

Marxism pretends to be "for the good of the people".
Our system is supposed to champion the INDIVIDUAL
over the state, but that has eroded more and more.

The old axiom that "it's better to let 10 guilty
people get away than to wrongly convict even one"
NEVER existed in Marxist regimes and is eroding
in ours as well.

[Bret Cahill]

> Isn't it just a bit DECEPTIVE when you
> refuse to acknowledge your own political
> orientation even after you spout Carl Marx?

Where did I ever quote Carl Marx?


Bret Cahill

[Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E]

And another limp wristed progressive waves the white flag.

[Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E]

> power to kill its citizens.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But I'll bet you are all in for aborting human fetuses at will. You
people will fight to the death to protect the life of a convicted
murderer but have absolutely no problem murdering the most innocent of
humans. Savage was right when he said liberalism is a mental disorder.

[Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E]

Daily. You and Marx share the same ideology. Nice dodge but no seegar.

[Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E]

On May 19, 9:06 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Bret Cahill" <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

> Lets hand 'em first, and then be sorry later........- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The prisons are filled to the brim with "innocent victims". Just axk
them.

[Bret Cahill]

And if some are telling the truth on the matter, who cares?

After all teabaggers want to kill everyone anyway.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=6


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

Whose will?

> You
> people will fight to the death to protect the life of a convicted
> murderer

But he wasn't a murderer. Read the article:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=6

> but have absolutely no problem murdering the most innocent of
> humans.

If fetuses are human, who aren't they counted in the census?

Why do tomb stones and bios only calculate the time _alive_ from
_birth_ date and not conception date?


Bret Cahill

[BeamMeUpScotty]

apparently it's NOT deceptive...


At least not when you are a Socialist and need to avoid that word and
all the connotations and facts known about those that follow it and
praise it.


Deceptive is such a "deceptive" word..... what does it really mean?
Why, he is proud to endorse Social-Democracy even if it is code for
Socialism. And his Fellow travelers are proud to associate with him
despite the fact they are all Socialists.


Socialists are more of a misleading kind of liar than a deceptive
kind.... They try to rename and hide their ideology and it's tenets
with new and colorful euphemisms so as to not let previous failure and
genocide taint their pure and honest intentions.












--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

[Harold Burton]

In article
<b979181a-2ca5-4bf6...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

^^^^



How long have you been illiterate?



hahahahahahahahhahahahaa

[Greegor]

G > Isn't it just a bit DECEPTIVE when you

G > refuse to acknowledge your own political
G > orientation even after you spout Carl Marx?

BC > Where did I ever quote Carl Marx?
HB >                        ^^^^
HB >
HB > How long have you been illiterate?
HB >
HB > hahahahahahahahhahahahaa

I made the mistake first but I'm not a Marx
worshipper. For the Marx groupie to make
the mistake also is hilarious.

Then again, spelling lames are kind of an
affectation of the very high Aspergers
population on usenet.

[Shrikeback]

"Does free speech precede each and every free market trade?
Even though the answer is a self-evident truth, free market shill
tankers will dodge this question each and every time."
-Karl Marx, in Newspeak for Fun and Profit-
a Practical Guide to Dekulakization

[Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E]

> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?cur...
>
> Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

If the perp confesses,is tied to the crime by DNA evidence,gets two
appeals and fails then he should be marched straight to the gallows
and a member of his victim's family given the opportunity to pull the
lever on the bastard.

[Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E]

> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?cur...

>
> > but have absolutely no problem murdering the most innocent of
> > humans.
>
> If fetuses are human, who aren't they counted in the census?
>

Try killing a pregnant woman and see if you don't get charged
with two murders.

> Why do tomb stones and bios only calculate the time _alive_ from
> _birth_ date and not conception date?
>

> Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>

Because the person carving the tombstone wasn't in the room the
moment the woman was impregnated? Just a guess.

> - Show quoted text -

Ohh,don't get me wrong. I'm all for abortions. Abortions have
destroyed the negro population. Millions of unborn Obama lookalikes
are murdered in the womb every year. A good investment if you axk me.

[Bret Cahill]

> G > Isn't it just a bit DECEPTIVE when you
> G > refuse to acknowledge your own political
> G > orientation even after you spout Carl Marx?
>
> BC > Where did I ever quote Carl Marx?
> HB >                        ^^^^
> HB >
> HB > How long have you been illiterate?
> HB >
> HB > hahahahahahahahhahahahaa
>
> I made the mistake first but I'm not a Marx
> worshipper.

Shouldn't Marx haters be just as careful getting the name right?

After all, right now some poor capitalist named "Carl Marx" may be
taking a slug to the chest because of your error.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

Here, try again:

If fetuses are human, who aren't they counted in the census?

This time no dodgin' 'n dodgin'.

> > Why do tomb stones and bios only calculate the time _alive_ from
> > _birth_ date and not conception date?

. . .

>    Because the person carving the tombstone wasn't in the room the
> moment the woman was impregnated?

Are you saying all biographers and tombstone cutters are liars when it
comes to a person's time on earth?


Bret Cahill

[Bill Graham]

Yes. People today seem to have forgotten that we don't live in a "Democracy
where the majority rules", but in a Constitutional republic, where the rule
of the majority is subject to the constraints of the Constitution.
Otherwise, the people could just vote to take Bill Gates' mponey away from
him and distribute it amongst themselves, and over 300 million citizens
would vote, "Yes", and only two, (Bill and his wife) would vote, "no", so it
would be a done deal. the constitution is what protects the minority from
the tyrrant of the majority, and, because of that, it is a very necessary
document.

[Bill Graham]

Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E wrote:

True, but 99 liars don't force the one truth teller to be wrong. Thank God
for DNA and our ability to read it effectively. It has turned hundreds of
innocent people back out on the streets. Unfortunately, there are still more
hundreds who, with noi DNA to speak for them, are serving many years in
prison for crimes they didn't commit, usually based on eyewitness
identifications.
There is a couple touring the US right now. He was accused by she of raping
her, and he spent about 20 years in prison before DNA proved her wrong, and
brought the real rapist to justice. She, (with incredible courage) went to
his house to apologize. He forgave her for the error, and today, they tour
the US, and give speeches to law enforcement groups about the unreliability
of eye wittnesses.

[Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E]

Or getting his asshole rimmed and his cock sucked by a radical
progressive like you because someone misspelled "Karl Marx".

[Bret Cahill]

>      If you paid attention to the attributions, Greg was claiming
> Deadrat was spouting Marx, not you.

Which Marx? Karlo?


Bret Cahill

[Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E]

> Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I think no matter how absurd your reasons for wanting to wantonly
murder babies in the womb most thinking people will disagree with you.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Have you read the census? They do ask you how many people live in your
home.... if you exclude your child in the uterus, you're lying on a
government document. They didn't ask if they were inside or outside a
uterus.

the reasons are unclear whether they are obtuse or it's because the
government as usual is inept and incompetent.... But most likely
because the person in the uterus needed no representation until they
were outside the uterus where they consume and use government tax dollars.

Today that is in dispute as government is spending their future earnings
and supplying them with prenatal care that are actual tax dollars to
people and the persons living in a uterus need to be counted.

They should.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Groucho and Harpo Marx are also very upset when you get their name wrong.


Can we have a sound of silence for the all the Marx


Karl wasn't as funny as some but we all laugh at him anyways.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 19, 2:15 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/12 7:29 AM, Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 11:17 pm, Nickname unavailable<Vide...@tcq.net>  wrote:
> >> On May 15, 10:26 pm, "Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey
>
> >> rd.,Wilmington,D.E"<burtonu...@gmail.com>  wrote:

> >>> On May 15, 4:41 pm, Bret Cahill<BretCah...@peoplepc.com>  wrote:

well said.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 20, 1:15 pm, "Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E"

all conservatives are racists.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 20, 2:37 pm, "Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E"

homophobia. ever notice how fixated the conservatives are on the male
body:)

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 19, 11:13 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 9:06 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:

> [Obvious corrections made]
>
>
>
> > Wanting to see the criminals die isn't the issue.

> > What is the issue is knowing whether the ones
> > who die are the criminals or not. Our prisons are
> > full of innocent people who were put there by
> > over zealous prosecuters who were trying to get
> > reelected. I watch many TV shows based on real
> > cases where people are put away for life, or
> > put on death row with evidence that leaves, at
> > least in my mind, a huge, "reasonable doubt".

> > Most juries, like Jay Leno's people on the
> > street, are idiots. If they aren't idiots, they
> > will be passed over by either the judge, or one

> > of the attorneys. And yet, if the verdict is,

> > "guilty", then its as done deal, and everyone
> > involved accepts the guilt of the accused as
> > a verified fact. The fact that our prisons are
> > full of innocent people don't make no never

> > mind to them.......  [ Mentality seems to be]
> > Lets hang 'em first, and then be sorry later...
>
> To STATEists like Bret and deadrat, that's just fine.
>
> Marxism pretends to be "for the good of the people".
> Our system is supposed to champion the INDIVIDUAL
> over the state, but that has eroded more and more.
>
> The old axiom that "it's better to let 10 guilty
> people get away than to wrongly convict even one"
> NEVER existed in Marxist regimes and is eroding
> in ours as well.

marxism and libertarianism has much in common. in the end though, in
either system, almost all wealth and power ends up in the hands of a
few.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 19, 7:29 am, "Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E"

<burtonu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 11:17 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
>
>

> > On May 15, 10:26 pm, "Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey
>
> > rd.,Wilmington,D.E" <burtonu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 15, 4:41 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?cur...
>
> > > I've axked this of many anti-capital punishment liberals and NEVER get
> > > an answer so I'll axk you. Your mother goes out for an afternoon of
> > > shopping and as she goes to get in her car for the trip home two thug
> > > Obama lookalikes grab her,throw her in their Buick,tie her up and take
> > > her to a secluded area. They,along with 14 other Obama lookalikes,
> > > take turns beating,sodomizing,raping and torturing her. After they
> > > finally get bored with her they slit her belly open and let her slowly
> > > bleed to death. The perps are caught,they confess and DNA evidence
> > > ties them  to the crime. Do you think these animals deserve life
> > > without parole or the death penalty?
>
> >  what if they were white? try asking it that way. otherwise we might
> > think you are a racist(conservative).
>
> What IF they were white? the question remains the same. Btw,I'm not a
> racist. I hate everybody,espescially limp wristed,panty wearing

> metrosexual progressives like you. Can't answer the question?

homophobic also i see. your example is that if a simpleton.

[Bill Gates]

"Nickname unavailable" <Vid...@tcq.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:0b1ff30d-33fb-4ae2...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...

[Gordon Burditt]

>> >> > 2.  Does free speech precede each and every free trade?
>>
>> >> No.
>>
>> >> Speech, free or not, does not precede every trade, free or not.
>>
>> > Can you get one single GOP "market" economist to back you up on that
>> > absurdity?

I don't know any economists and I doubt I'd have enough money to
pay them to consider such a silly question. And if they are already
hired by the GOP, they shouldn't be moonlighting answering silly
questions for me.

>> Have you ever purchased anything from a vending machine?
>
> Without the owner using freedom of the press to post the price and
> present labels of the products?

It isn't necessary to use the press to sell stuff in a vending machine.

> Without freedom of communication for the buyer to read the price and
> labels?

Some vending machines have no prices and no labels. I don't
understand why anyone would stick their credit card into one, but
I've seen people doing it. And some people would likely do it even
if it were illegal to advertise a price (on the machine or elsewhere)
for some product (prostitution comes to mind, although you can't
get that from a vending machine (yet)).

> Never and no one believes anyone else has either. This isn't
> something you can get around.
>
> Anyway you dodged the question:
>
> Can you get one single GOP "market" economist to back you up on that
> absurdity?

No, because I don't have enough money to get one to even listen to
the question, much less answer it.

I don't understand why you want an economist to answer that question.
Things like barter have been going on long before:
- the invention of language.
- the invention of speech
- the invention of governments
- the invention of non-free speech
- the invention of currency
- the invention of anything remotely resembling a modern economy
- the invention of human beings

[Bill Graham]

Bill Gates wrote:
> marxism and libertarianism has much in common.

Not in my experience they don't. In fact, they are at the opposite ends of
the political spectrum. Marxism is close to totalitarianism, where power
lies in the hands of only a very few at the top of a centralized government,
wheras libertarianism is close to anarchy, where there are no laws at all,
and no centralized government that would enforce those laws. I don't see how
you can compare the two.

[Naughtius]

On May 19, 7:14 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <90d4c035-5a00-4dc5-b0c5-3b981dc6d...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

>  Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >>>>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?cur...
>
> > > >>> I've axked this of many anti-capital punishment liberals and NEVER get
> > > >>> an answer so I'll axk you. Your mother goes out for an afternoon of
> > > >>> shopping and as she goes to get in her car for the trip home two thug
> > > >>> Obama lookalikes grab her,throw her in their Buick,tie her up and take
> > > >>> her to a secluded area. They,along with 14 other Obama lookalikes,
> > > >>> take turns beating,sodomizing,raping and torturing her. After they
> > > >>> finally get bored with her they slit her belly open and let her slowly
> > > >>> bleed to death. The perps are caught,they confess and DNA evidence
> > > >>> ties them  to the crime. Do you think these animals deserve life
> > > >>> without parole or the death penalty?
>
> > > >>   what if they were white? try asking it that way. otherwise we might
> > > >> think you are a racist(conservative).
>
> > > > What IF they were white? the question remains the same. Btw,I'm not a
> > > > racist. I hate everybody,espescially limp wristed,panty wearing
> > > > metrosexual progressives like you.
>

> > > Just remember that the "phobia" in homophobia just means that you're
> > > scared that you're gay.
>

> > > > Can't answer the question?
>

> > > The answer is easy for most people.  They'd like to see the criminals
> > > die.
>

> > Or anyone for that matter.
>
> > As the teabagger levity concerning the Texas miscarriages reveal, the
> > ones getting killed don't even need to be criminals.
>

> Well doh.  Democrat FDR proved that in the 40s when he firebombed
> thousands of innocent women and children in Dresden, Tokyo and numerous
> other cities.

While It's ALWAYS DISconcerting To Encounter a HOPELESS IGNORAMUS,
it is Conversely, a GREAT PLEASURE To Illustrate - And Hopefully
DISSIPATE - The HARM of The DEPENDABLY, Self-Serving, Fact-
INTOLERANT, Delusional And INTRACTABLE IGNORANCE of such Notable
RighTARDS as "Harold Burton"...

THUS: The Rationale For AND Decision To Bomb [FIRST With High-
Explosives, THEN With Incendiaries] Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
Targets] Was a - Waaaaait Forrr Iiiiiit - *British* Undertaking...
FDR's Involvement being Limited To his Administration's LONG-Standing
Acquiescence To Placing [American] Eighth Air Force assets At The
Disposal Of British Air Marshalls... As Would Be Expected Of a GOOD
War-Time Ally...

ERGO: *The British* Bombed Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value Targets]
employing Combined Military Assets of British and American Forces...
The *British* FIRST Low-Level Attacking at *Night*, Per British
Strategy; American Forces [Under *British* Command] High-Level
Attacking by Next Daylight...

ERGO - The Sequel: CONTRARY To Harold The RighTARD's HOPELESSLY
IGNORANT And Self-Serving, Ignoramus-Speak Blather, FDR had LITTLE OR
NOTHING To Do With The Bombing Of Dresden and Most Likely, Wasn't Even
Aware that The British High Command had Determined To Bomb Several
East German Cities, In Aid Of The Burgeoning Russian Advance...

[snicker]

>
> snicker

Naughtius "MUUUST... VANNNQUISH... IGNORAMUS[ES]..." Maximus

[Greegor]

Bill Gates wrote:
> marxism and libertarianism has much in common.

Bill Graham wrote:
> Not in my experience they don't. In fact, they
> are at the opposite ends of the political
> spectrum. Marxism is close to totalitarianism,
> where power lies in the hands of only a very
> few at the top of a centralized government,
> wheras libertarianism is close to anarchy,
> where there are no laws at all, and no
> centralized government that would enforce
> those laws. I don't see how you can compare the two.

While Libertarianism is closer to the
anarchy end of the spectrum it's really
about MINIMAL government, which is what
the FOUNDING FATHERS favored strongly.

Government in the USA has evolved to try
to be all things to all people, trending
toward STATEism.

Even most so-called conservative politicians
over the last 50 years have been part of that.

This goes much deeper than the RINO
( Republican In Name Only ) problem.

It's an insidious problem, "developing
so gradually as to be well established
before becoming apparent".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/insidious

What welfare recipient is going to vote for
the party that wants to cut their welfare?

When most people WORKED, this wasn't a problem.

By making decisions designed to put MILLIONS
of people out of work, perhaps our current
politicians are hoping to create a situation
where so many are unemployed that creeping
socialism wins the vote?

Andrew Jackson actually went to WAR against
the Federal Reserve bank, and for good reason.

That's just about the ONLY thing that
should be nationalized.

[Harold Burton]

In article
<7a672d90-4b7e-4574...@r4g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>,

Your post ensured that I would.

> it is Conversely, a GREAT PLEASURE To Illustrate - And Hopefully
> DISSIPATE - The HARM of The DEPENDABLY, Self-Serving, Fact-
> INTOLERANT, Delusional And INTRACTABLE IGNORANCE of such Notable
> RighTARDS as "Harold Burton"...
>
> THUS: The Rationale For AND Decision To Bomb [FIRST With High-
> Explosives, THEN With Incendiaries] Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value
> Targets] Was a - Waaaaait Forrr Iiiiiit - *British* Undertaking...
> FDR's Involvement being Limited To his Administration's LONG-Standing
> Acquiescence To Placing [American] Eighth Air Force assets At The
> Disposal Of British Air Marshalls...

Cite!?

> ERGO: *The British* Bombed Dresden [Among OTHER High-Value Targets]
> employing Combined Military Assets of British and American Forces...
> The *British* FIRST Low-Level Attacking at *Night*, Per British
> Strategy; American Forces [Under *British* Command] High-Level
> Attacking by Next Daylight...
>
> ERGO - The Sequel: CONTRARY To Harold The RighTARD's HOPELESSLY
> IGNORANT And Self-Serving, Ignoramus-Speak Blather, FDR had LITTLE OR

> NOTHING To Do With The Bombing Of Dresden . . . .


Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Now THAT's funny, as I said above your post
ensured I would encounter a hopeless ignoramus.

The CiC takes ultimate responsibility for what our armed services do.
The buck stopped at FDR's desk.



> . . . .and Most Likely, Wasn't Even

> Aware that The British High Command had Determined To Bomb Several
> East German Cities, In Aid Of The Burgeoning Russian Advance...

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Now THAT's even funnier.



I also notice you did your best to ignore the firebombing of Tokyo . . .
and Osaka . . . and Kobe . . . and Fukuoka . . . and, oh hell just
check out http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html. How are you going to
blame that on the Brits?


snicker

[Nickname unavailable]

all one needs to look at is somalia, no government, lots of warlords.
no different than fascist europe.

[Nickname unavailable]

and he owes WWII vets a apology.

[Harold Burton]

In article
<1d9b9239-ce85-4069...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Just as you owe sentient beings an apology



Hahahahahahahahahahah

[Harold Burton]

In article
<b5126c57-f0b9-472d...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,
Nickname unavailable <Vid...@tcq.net> whined:


> all one needs to look at is Somalia, no government, lots of warlords.
> no different than socialist Europe.


snicker

[Bill Graham]

Europe is slightly behind us in breeding welfare puppies. but they are
learning fast, and it won't be long before their socialism catches up with
them.... I think its beginning to happen right now. I hope I am still alive
to see the final result of the complete collapse of socialism... It will be
kind of nice to die knowing that I was right....:^)

[deadrat]

There are two good bets here: The first is you will die having been
wrong about nearly every political judgment you ever made. The second
is that you will die thinking your were right.

Here's hoping these sure things are a long way off.

[Greegor]

Where has socialism succeeded, deadrat?

[R.H.]

na gresch ?!

Greegor schrieb:

> Where has socialism succeeded, deadrat?

deadrat? ?? what is?
There are two mortal enemies of man: Communism and woman.
--
www.apokalypse.de/X/Xy/gesichert/programmiert/manipuliert/schockiert.htm#alien

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Socialism always fails... it seeks mediocrity and that is "the" recipe
for failure.


The only reason to live to see that is KNOWN AS "THE gawkers syndrome".
As in when you drive by a car accident you don't want to see the
carnage but you can't look away.


Personally I can die today and know that Socialism will fail, but I want
to see the carnage that Socialism brings, because I'm a curious person
and seeing who survives the Socialism will be entertaining.


I try to point out the folly of Socialism NOT because it needs to be
stopped since it will fail anyways.... but because of that carnage (all
the human suffering) that we will see while gawking at it's progression
to it's destiny of failure.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 21, 3:50 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <7a672d90-4b7e-4574-8bf0-7f8ca4035...@r4g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>,

> check outhttp://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html.  How are you going to

> blame that on the Brits?
>
> snicker

you owe WWII vets a apology for calling them war criminals.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 21, 11:20 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Harold Burton wrote:
> > In article

> > <b5126c57-f0b9-472d-b26c-953e77a59...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,
> > Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> whined:

>
> >>  all one needs to look at is Somalia, no government, lots of
> >> warlords. no different than socialist Europe.
>
> > snicker
>
> Europe is slightly behind us in breeding welfare puppies. but they are
> learning fast, and it won't be long before their socialism catches up with
> them.... I think its beginning to happen right now. I hope I am still alive
> to see the final result of the complete collapse of socialism... It will be
> kind of nice to die knowing that I was right....:^)

actually most european countries had low debt to gdp ratios. but they
bailed out the banks as bush did, and now own the debt.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 22, 1:38 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where has socialism succeeded, deadrat?

the u.s.a.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 21, 3:03 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Gates wrote:
> > marxism and libertarianism has much in common.
> Bill Graham wrote:
> > Not in my experience they don't. In fact, they
> > are at the opposite ends of the political
> > spectrum. Marxism is close to totalitarianism,
> > where power lies in the hands of only a very
> > few at the top of a centralized government,
> > wheras libertarianism is close to anarchy,
> > where there are no laws at all, and no
> > centralized government that would enforce
> > those laws. I don't see how you can compare the two.
>
> While Libertarianism is closer to the
> anarchy end of the spectrum it's really
> about MINIMAL government, which is what
> the FOUNDING FATHERS favored strongly.
>

the constitution was crafted by liberals, who despised conservatism.
it is a liberal
document, that gives broad powers to the federal government to
legislate, regulate, tax, mandate, negate state laws, and to promote
and provide for the general welfare.
the majority of the founders despised conservatism, and they blamed
conservatives for almost losing the war.

Founding Fathers Would Approve of National Healthcare Policy:George
Washington was also apparently fine with government mandates:he
signed
into law the 1792 Militia Act which required young men to outfit
themselves with a musket/knapsack/in some cases a serviceable horse
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-supreme-court-overturn-o...
Founding Fathers Would Approve of National Healthcare Policy 
The
Constitution gives the federal government the power to enact 
national
solutions to national problems 
By Elizabeth B. Wydra 
 Chief Counsel
for the Constitutional Accountability Center
Elizabeth Wydra is chief counsel for the Constitutional
Accountability 
Center, a think tank, law firm, and action center
dedicated to 
fulfilling the Constitution's… 
Read more 
Our
Constitution's text and history demonstrate that the national
healthcare crisis—in which tens of millions of Americans lack access
to quality, affordable care—is the sort of national problem that the
framers of our founding charter wanted the federal government to have
the power to solve. 
Our Constitution was drafted in 1787 "in Order to
form a more perfect 
Union"—both more perfect than the British tyranny
against which the 
Founding generation had revolted and more perfect
than the flawed 
Articles of Confederation under which Americans had
lived for a decade 
since declaring independence. George Washington
and the other 
delegates to the Constitutional Convention shared a
conviction that 
the Constitution must establish a national government
of substantial 
power, in contrast to the extremely weak central
government of the 
Articles, which was so dysfunctional that
Washington thought it nearly 
cost us victory in the Revolutionary
War. (George Washington was also 
apparently fine with government
mandates—he signed into law the 1792 
Militia Act, which required
young men to outfit themselves with a 
musket, knapsack, and, in some
cases, a serviceable horse.)
Under our enduring Constitution, Congress has the express
constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce—the
healthcare industry comprises nearly 20 percent of our nation's
economy 
—and tax and spend for the general welfare, as well as the
broad power 
to pass laws that help execute these specific grants of
authority. 
Given the Constitution's grant of significant authority to
the federal 
government to act in the interests of the country as a
whole, it is no 
surprise that a majority of the lower court judges
who have ruled on 
the healthcare law have upheld it, including
prominent conservative 
judges. Reagan-appointee Judge Laurence
Silberman on the D.C. federal 
appeals court explained that the
attacks on the law have no support 
"in either the text of the
Constitution or Supreme Court precedent." 
Another conservative
appeals court judge, Jeffrey S. Sutton—who 
clerked for Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia—explained that 
whether you think the law is
good policy or not, it clearly passes 
constitutional muster. 
If the
Supreme Court Justices are faithful to the Constitution's text 
and
history, principles of federalism, and precedent—including 
decisions
authored or joined by some of the current conservative 
Justices—the
Court should conclude the healthcare law is 
constitutional.
SNICKER:)))))))))))))))))))
 here is another SNICKER moment:)))))
the Constitution created a robust central authority:stating in the
preamble the explicit responsibility of the government to promote the
general Welfare:The document also granted the federal government
broad 
domestic powers including authority to regulate interstate
commerce, 
the so-called Commerce Clause
http://truth-out.org/news/item/8080-did-the-founders-hate-government?
Did the Founders Hate Government? 
Saturday, 24 March 2012 13:14 By
Robert Parry, Consortium News | News 
Analysis
Orwell’s insight - that who controls the present controls the past,
and who controls the past controls the future - could apply to the
American political debate in which the Right has built a false
narrative that enlists the Framers of the Constitution as enemies of
a 
strong central government, writes Robert Parry. 
In the coming
months – with a new fight over the federal budget, the 
Supreme
Court’s review of health-care reform and the November 
elections – the
battle in the United States will pit not just 
political parties and
economic ideologies against one another – but 
competing national
narratives of how and why the United States was 
founded. 
Indeed, it
is that conflict over the American narrative that may well 
determine
the outcome of the presidential election and the future 
direction of
the United States. Yet, this dispute over the Founders’ 
vision is
rarely debated in the mainstream news media. 
The argument does,
however, inspire right-wing groups which obsess 
over “strict
construction” of the Constitution and the “originalist” 
intent of the
Founders. Such references also have become standard fare 
on the
Republican campaign trail with the four remaining major 
candidates
claiming to be in this fight to defend American “liberty.” 
On
Saturday, for instance, ex-Sen. Rick Santorum declared that 
President
Barack Obama’s health-care reform is “a threat to the very 
essence of
who America is.” As the New York Times noted, “numbers like 
1776 and
1860 increasingly pepper his speeches as he stresses the 
historical
urgency of his candidacy.” 
The Right’s historical narrative holds
that the Founders designed the 
United States to have a weak central
government barred from 
confronting most domestic problems (though
with broad powers for 
defense). Under this “free-market” system,
wealthy business interests 
had the “liberty” to set their own rules
and the average citizen had 
the “freedom” to make his way the best he
could. 
There is, of course, a counter-narrative, but Democrats and
progressives rarely make it, preferring to cede the history to the
Right and to argue that the Founders couldn’t possibly have
anticipated the complex problems of the modern age. 
Still, the
counter-narrative to the GOP mythology is grounded in solid 
history.
Indeed, the evidence is that most constitutional framers were
pragmatic men interested in building a strong nation. They also were
fed up with the weak central government under the Articles of
Confederation. They surely weren’t anti-government ideologues. 
In the
Constitution, they created a robust central authority, stating 
in the
preamble the explicit responsibility of the government “to 
promote
the general Welfare.” The document also granted the federal
government broad domestic powers, including authority to regulate
interstate commerce, the so-called Commerce Clause. 
Framing the
Commerce Clause 
Plus, the Commerce Clause was not some afterthought
at the 
Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was presented as one of
the new 
federal powers in James Madison’s Virginia plan on the first
day of 
substantive debate. It also was considered one of the least
controversial features of the new governing framework. 
Indeed,
constitutional architect Madison had been maneuvering to give 
this
power to the federal government for years, seeking such a change 
in
the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States 
from
1777 to 1787. 
Madison “sponsored a resolution instructing Virginia
congressmen to 
vote to give the federal government the authority to
regulate commerce 
for twenty-five years,” noted Chris DeRose in
Founding Rivals, a 
resolution that won the support of Gen. George
Washington, one of the 
fiercest critics of the weak central
government in the Articles of 
Confederation. 
Because the Articles’
structure of 13 “independent” and “sovereign” 
states had left
Washington’s soldiers starving and desperate – when 
the states
reneged on promised funding – Washington advocated a much 
stronger
central government. 
Regarding Madison’s commerce idea, Washington
wrote that “the 
proposition in my opinion is so self evident that I
confess I am at a 
loss to discover wherein lies the weight of the
objection to the 
measure. We are either a united people, or we are
not. If the former, 
let us, in all matters of a general concern act
as a nation, which 
have national objects to promote, and a national
character to support. 
If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by
pretending it to be.” 
When the Virginia legislature slashed Madison’s
proposal for federal 
control of commerce from 25 years to 13 years,
he voted against it as 
insufficient. His thoughts then turned to a
more drastic scheme for 
consolidating power in the hands of the
federal government, a 
constitutional convention, albeit under the
guise of simply proposing 
some changes to the Articles. 
A Dramatic
Change 
In spring 1787 – with a convention called in Philadelphia to
amend the 
Articles of Confederation – Madison unveiled his radical
alternative, 
not simply some modifications to the Articles but an
entirely new 
system that wiped away the Articles’ language about the
“independence” 
and “sovereignty” of the states. 
On May 29, 1787, the
first day of substantive debate at the 
Constitutional Convention, a
fellow Virginian, Edmund Randolph, 
presented Madison’s framework.
Madison’s Commerce Clause was there 
from the start, except that
instead of a 25-year grant of federal 
authority, the central
government’s control of interstate commerce 
would be made permanent.
Madison’s convention notes on Randolph’s presentation recount him
saying that “there were many advantages, which the U. S. might
acquire, which were not attainable under the confederation – such as
a 
productive impost [or tax] – counteraction of the commercial
regulations of other nations – pushing of commerce ad libitum – &c
&c.” 
In other words, the Founders – at their most “originalist”
moment – 
understood the value of the federal government taking action
to negate 
the commercial advantages of other countries and to take
steps for 
“pushing of [American] commerce.” The “ad libitum – &c &c”
notation 
suggests that Randolph provided other examples off the top
of his 
head. 
Historian Bill Chapman has summarized Randolph’s point
as saying “we 
needed a government that could co-ordinate commerce in
order to 
compete effectively with other nations.” 
So, from the very
start of the debate on a new Constitution, Madison 
and other key
framers recognized that a legitimate role of the U.S. 
Congress was to
ensure that the nation could match up against other 
countries
economically and could address problems impeding the 
nation’s
economic success and the public welfare. 
The constitutional framers
understood what they were doing. As 
historian Richard Labunski wrote
in James Madison and the Struggle for 
the Bill of Rights, “no one
knew better than the delegates that the 
proposed Constitution would
drastically alter the structure of 
government. Much of the power of
the states would be taken from them.” 
The point also was not missed
by the advocates of states’ rights. 
After the Constitutional
Convention, these Anti-Federalists, led by 
Madison’s chief rival
Patrick Henry, mounted a fierce campaign to 
defeat Madison’s scheme
because they recognized that it concentrated 
power in the central
government. 
For instance, dissidents from Pennsylvania’s convention
delegation 
wrote: “We dissent … because the powers vested in Congress
by this 
constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the
legislative, 
executive, and judicial powers of the several states,
and produce from 
their ruins one consolidated government.” [See David
Wootton, The 
Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.] 
As
resistance to Madison’s plan spread – and as states elected 
delegates
to ratifying conventions – Madison feared that his 
constitutional
masterwork would go down to defeat or be subjected to a 
second
convention that might remove important federal powers like the
Commerce Clause. 
Finessing the Opposition 
So, Madison – along with
Alexander Hamilton and John Jay – began a 
series of essays, called
the Federalist Papers, designed to counter 
the fierce (though
generally accurate) attacks by the Anti-Federalists 
against the broad
assertion of federal power in the Constitution. 
Madison’s strategy
was essentially to insist that the drastic changes 
contained in the
Constitution were not all that drastic, an approach 
he took both as a
delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention and in 
the Federalist
Papers. 
Today’s Right has sought to transform Madison from his role
as the 
chief advocate for a strong central government into the
opposite – a 
modern-day Tea Partier before his time – by citing
Federalist Paper 
No. 45, entitled “The Alleged Danger From the Powers
of the Union to 
the State Governments Considered,” in which Madison
used the pseudonym 
Publius. 
Trying to finesse the opposition to his
plan for enhanced federal
powers, Madison wrote: “If the new Constitution be examined with

accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists
much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the
invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.”
But even that was an admission from Madison that the Constitution
added teeth to what had been toothless authorities theoretically
granted to the central government under the Articles. Making powers
meaningful, rather than ineffectual, is not an insignificant change.
Madison also noted: “The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new
power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from
which no apprehensions are entertained.”
Yet, to claim Madison as an opponent of an activist federal
government, the Right must ignore both his advocacy for beefing up
what had been weak authorities and adding the crucial new one over
commerce. The Right also must ignore Federalist Paper No. 14 in which
Madison envisioned major construction projects under the powers
granted by the Commerce Clause.
“[T]he union will be daily facilitated by new improvements,” Madison
wrote. “Roads will everywhere be shortened, and kept in better order;
accommodations for travelers will be multiplied and meliorated; an
interior navigation on our eastern side will be opened throughout, or
nearly throughout the whole extent of the Thirteen States.
“The communication between the western and Atlantic districts, and
between different parts of each, will be rendered more and more easy
by those numerous canals with which the beneficence of nature has
intersected our country, and which art finds it so little difficult
to
connect and complete.”
The building of canals, as an argument in support of the Commerce
Clause and the Constitution, further reflects the pragmatic – and
commercial – attitudes of key founders. In 1785, two years before the
Constitutional Convention, George Washington founded the Potowmack
Company, which began the work of digging canals to extend navigable
waterways westward where he and other Founders had invested in Ohio
and other undeveloped lands.
Thus, the idea of involving the central government in major economic
projects – a government-business partnership to create jobs and
profits – was there from the beginning. Madison, Washington and other
early American leaders saw the Constitution as creating a dynamic
system so the young country could grow and overcome the daunting
challenges of its vast territory.
The Founders did debate the proper limits of federal and state
powers,
but again Madison and Washington came down on the side of making
federal statutes and treaties the supreme law of the land. (Madison
had even favored giving Congress veto power over each state law, but
settled for granting the federal courts the authority to overturn
state laws that violated federal statutes.)
After Ratification
The narrow ratification of the Constitution in 1788 did not end the
confrontations over states’ rights, especially when the South began
to
fear that its agriculture-based economy and its lucrative industry of
slavery might be threatened as the industrialized North expanded and
the anti-slavery movement grew.
In the early 1830s, President Andrew Jackson faced down South
Carolina
over its claimed right to “nullify” federal law. And three decades
later, President Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War to settle the
issue of states having the right to secede from the Union.
Still, as late as the 1950s and 1960s, Southern white supremacists
were still citing the principle of states’ right in defending
segregation. Though the segregationists lost those fights in federal
courts and in the battle for public opinion, they never surrendered.
They simply regrouped.
In the mid-1970s, as the Vietnam War ended, the American Left began
shutting down or selling off much its media, which had proved
effective in reaching out to the public to build opposition to the
war. At the same time, the Right began investing heavily in its own
media infrastructure.
Wealthy right-wing foundations and industrialists, like the Koch
Brothers, also poured money into think tanks, which hired clever
individuals who began reframing the national narrative. Part of that
effort was to support “scholarship” that transformed Madison and
other
key framers from advocates of a strong central government into
proponents for states’ rights.
A few of Madison’s quotes – from 1788 as he tried to downplay how
radical his new constitutional system actually was – were plucked out
of context, while other parts of his biography as an advocate for a
strong central government were simply erased.
By Ronald Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, Americans were being told
that “government is the problem” and that the nation had deviated
from
the Founders’ original vision of an Ayn Rand-style “free-market”
society in which everyone was on their own and the government only
worried about fighting wars.
Increasingly, the Right pitched itself as the defender of the
nation’s
founding ideals. Any time the central government sought to address
vexing national problems – from the need to regulate Wall Street to
extending health coverage to the tens of millions of uninsured
Americans – these proposals were labeled “unconstitutional.”
Some right-wing jurists, most notably Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia, advocated “originalism,” insisting that constitutional powers
should apply only to what the Founders had in mind at the time. The
Right ignored the clear record that the Founders intended their
governing structure to meet both their immediate needs and the
distant
interests of their “posterity.”
Indeed, if there was any true “originalism,” it was that the
Constitution should be sufficiently dynamic to cope with any number
of
anticipated and unanticipated challenges that might confront the
nation. As the discussion about canal building shows, Madison,
Washington and other key framers were pragmatists.
One-Sided Debate
Yet, while the Right was bending the founding narrative to its
purposes, the Left largely dismissed the importance of this debate,
perhaps in part because the Left tends to disdain many Founders as
slave-owning aristocrats who hypocritically denied their precious
“unalienable rights” to women, blacks, Indians, the poor and many
others.
While that surely was true, the nation’s founding narrative retains a
strong mythic appeal to many Americans – and the Right’s twisting of
the history has proved a powerful tactic to rally many middle- and
working-class Americans, particularly white men, to the Tea Party
cause and to the Republican Party.
Believing they’re channeling the true spirit of the Founders, many of
these average Americans end up siding with ultra-rich plutocrats who
see an effective and democratized federal government as the last
obstacle to their total domination of the United States.
Thus, the Tea Partiers and their allies fight: to let Wall Street
banks operate as recklessly as they wish; to let health insurance
companies deny coverage to sick people; to let rich investors pay
lower tax rates than their secretaries; to let billionaires buy up
the
political process through Super-PACs; to let companies outsource
jobs;
to let industry despoil the environment; and to slash life-saving
federal programs like Medicare, food stamps and Social Security.
The “logic” behind this “populist” support for the interests of the
rich is that many average folk think they are engaged in a principled
stand for “liberty” – with the federal government their oppressor,
standing in for the British Crown in 1776. That’s why the Tea
Partiers
wave “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and dress up in Revolutionary War
costumes.
Simply put, these Tea Partiers have been fooled by a well-funded
propaganda campaign tricking them by substituting a false narrative
about the nation’s founding and thus enlisting their help in
dismantling the Great American Middle Class.
Building the Middle Class
Many of these Americans have forgotten a basic truth: that the Great
American Middle Class was largely a creation of the federal
government
and its policies dating back to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. For
many Tea Partiers, it is more satisfying to think that they or their
parents climbed the social ladder on their own, that they “didn’t
need
no guv-mint help.”
But the truth is that it was government policies arising out of the
Great Depression and carried forward through the post-World War II
years by both Republican and Democratic presidents that created the
opportunities for tens of millions of Americans to achieve relative
comfort and economic security.
Those policies ranged from Social Security and labor rights in the
1930s to the GI Bill after World War II to Medicare in the 1960s and
to government investments in infrastructure and technological
research
over many decades. Even in recent years, despite right-wing efforts
to
choke off money to government research, federal programs – such as
the
Internet – have brought greater efficiency to markets, as well as
wealth to many entrepreneurs.
So, the Right’s success in dismantling the New Deal, piece by piece,
and shoving more and more Americans down the social ladder has hinged
on the demonization of “guv-mint.” This message – often wrapped in
patriotic hoopla and coded appeals to bigotry – were delivered most
effectively by the personable Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
Yet, while rallying many working-class “Reagan Democrats” to his
banner, Reagan’s most important policy was slashing taxes on the
rich.
Under Reagan’s “supply-side economics,” the top marginal tax rate –
what the richest Americans pay on their highest tranche of income –
was more than halved, from 70 percent to 28 percent.
Still, the promised surge in “supply-side” growth never really
materialized and a key result was the dramatic rise in the national
debt. Another less obvious change was the incentivizing of greed,
which had been discouraged by the much higher marginal tax rates of
the post-World War II years, from Dwight Eisenhower (when the top
marginal tax rate was 90 percent) through Jimmy Carter (with a 70
percent top rate).
After all, if 70 to 90 percent of your highest tranche of income went
to the government to help pay for building the nation, you had little
personal incentive to press for that extra $1 million or $2 million
in
compensation.
So corporate CEOs – while well-paid – were happy earning about 25
times as much as their average worker in the 1960s. A few decades
later, that ratio on CEO pay was about 200 times what the average
worker was making.
The consequences of several decades of Reaganism and its related
ideas
(such as the “free-market” shipping of many middle-class jobs
overseas
where workers are paid much less) are now apparent. Wealth has been
concentrated at the top with billionaires living extravagant lives
while the middle class struggles. One everyman after another gets
shoved down the ladder.
The data is now clear that the last three decades have witnessed a
divergence between the haves and the have-nots unprecedented in the
United States, at least since the lead-up to the Great Depression
when
a similar era of income inequality set the stage for financial
disaster.
For instance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office – in an
analysis of data from 1979 to 2005 – found that the inflation-
adjusted
income of middle-class Americans rose about 21 percent (only about
one-
fifth the increase enjoyed by the middle class during the post-World
War II era).
Meanwhile, the income for the ultra-rich (the top 100th of one
percent) jumped 480 percent from 1979 to 2005, rising from an average
of $4.2 million to $24.3 million. And CBO’s analysis ends in 2005,
thus missing the decimation of the middle class from the Wall Street
bust of 2008.
Struggling Americans
Behind the numbers, the real-life consequences are painful. Millions
of Americans forego needed medical care because they can’t afford
health insurance; young people, burdened by college loans, crowd back
in with their parents; trained workers settle for low-paying jobs or
are unemployed; families skip vacations and other simple pleasures of
life.
Beyond the unfairness, there is the macro-economic problem which
comes
from massive income disparity. A strong economy is one in which the
vast majority people can buy products, which can then be manufactured
more cheaply, creating a positive cycle of profits and prosperity.
Plus, the problems facing the nation grow even more severe with
looming shortages of vital resources and the impending catastrophe of
global warming. Only an energetic federal government can focus the
national will to tackle these challenges.
The pragmatic Founders would understand this need for unified action.
Yet, Republicans running for President and GOP members of Congress
continue to call for further cuts in taxes for the rich and more cuts
in government spending, rending the social safety net and slashing
investments in infrastructure, education, research and the
environment.
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled a plan Tuesday to reduce the
highest marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent – even lower
than it was under Reagan – while domestic spending would be slashed
and Medicare would be turned into a voucher system with the elderly
paying a much higher share of their health costs.
As in the past, this approach is accompanied by assurances of faster
economic growth, but the record for those promises should now be
clear. The GOP plans are also wrapped in rhetoric about “liberty” and
the “spirit of the Founders” – though in truth that spirit was
infused
with a pragmatic notion of the country pulling together to meet its
challenges
So, what’s at stake in 2012 is not just who wins and how that will
affect the immediate welfare of the American people – but whether a
false narrative about America’s past will lead it into a darkening
future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1790, a Congress including 20 Founders passed a law requiring that
ship
owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. Washington signed it
into
law.
In 1792, another law signed by Washington required that all able-
bodied men
buy a firearm. (So much for the argument that Congress can't force us
to
participate in commerce.)
And in 1798, a Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that
all
seamen buy hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this
legislation.
Full article here (and below):
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2012/...
http://tinyurl.com/7m6b7yg
Originalist Sin
A brilliant article shows that the Founding Fathers not only
supported 
mandates, they passed laws imposing them. Take that,
Scalia!
By Eliot Spitzer 
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012, at 10:36 AM ET
 Would this man have supported the health care mandate?
National Archives/Getty Images
The five conservative justices on the Supreme Court-Thomas, Alito,
Scalia, 
Roberts and Kennedy-cloak themselves in the myth that they
are somehow 
channeling the wisdom and understanding of the Founding
Fathers, the 
original intent that guided the drafting of the
Constitution.  I believe the 
premise of their argument is itself
suspect: It is not clear to me how much 
weight should be given  to
non-textually based intent that is practically 
impossible to discern
more than 200 years later. Most of the issues over 
which there is
constitutional dispute today could not even have been 
envisioned when
the document was drafted.
Even so, it would be an even better response to the conservative
wing's 
claim of perceived understanding of original intent to be able
to refute 
their claims by showing them to be historically and
indisputably wrong.  So 
once again let's venture into the world of
the health care debate.   The 
consensus view is that existing
Commerce Clause doctrine clearly authorizes 
the type of mandate
passed in the act-see in particular the affirmance of 
the statute by
ultraconservative Judge Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court.
Nonetheless, those opposing the bill insist that an individual mandate
has 
never been done and the framers would simply not permit such an
encroachment 
on liberty and freedom.
Some spectacular historical reporting by Professor Einer Elhauge of
Harvard 
Law School in the New Republic thoroughly rebut the argument.
He has found 
three mandate equivalents passed into law by the early
Congresses-in which a 
significant number of founders served-and
reports that these bills were 
signed into law by none other than
Presidents George Washington and John 
Adams. As Founders go, one
might consider them pretty senior in the 
hierarchy.  Their acts can
probably be relied upon to give us a reasonable 
idea what the
Founders intended to be the scope of congressional and 
governmental
power.
Amazingly, the examples of individual mandates passed by the founders
are so 
directly applicable that the claim that original intent
precludes affirming 
the heath care act should become almost
laughable:
In 1790, a Congress including 20 Founders passed a law requiring that
ship 
owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. Washington signed
it into 
law. 
In 1792, another law signed by Washington required that
all able-bodied men 
buy a firearm. (So much for the argument that
Congress can't force us to 
participate in commerce.) 
And in 1798, a
Congress with five framers passed a law requiring that all 
seamen buy
hospital insurance for themselves. Adams signed this legislation. 
In
aggregate, these laws show that the Founders and the Congress of the
time 
were willing to force all of us to participate in a particular
act of 
commence and were comfortable requiring both the owner of a
business and the 
individual employee to buy insurance in order to
assure that health costs 
would be covered at a societal level.  That
is a pretty complete rebuttal to 
all the claims being made by the
originalists as they relate to the health 
care act.
But what is so powerful about these historical finds is not just that
they 
rebut the specific argument about original intent as applied to
the health 
care act. This history lays bare the ahistorical nature of
the justices' 
claims at another and deeper level. For the types of
bill passed in 1790, 
1792, and 1798 show the Founders to have been
doing exactly what congress 
did especially well in the era of FDR---
experimenting with solutions and 
approaches to resolving social
issues in ways that made government part of 
creative problem
solving.
These examples show the fallacy and the false rigidity that the
originalists 
seek to impose on our government. In their effort to
cabin and restrain the 
government-their ideology of the moment-they
seek to have the benefit of the 
claim that the founders shared such a
limited approach to governing.  In 
fact, the approach to governing
that these acts demonstrate is more nuanced 
and thoughtful.  As with
so many of the claims of the originalists, a slight 
understanding of
the true history shows that the originalists' view is mere 
ideology
being imposed on a false understanding of history.

> Government in the USA has evolved to try
> to be all things to all people, trending
> toward STATEism.
>

nope, its been hijacked by conservative extremism.

> Even most so-called conservative politicians
> over the last 50 years have been part of that.
>

yes, the sole part.

> This goes much deeper than the RINO
> ( Republican In Name Only ) problem.
>

lincoln and t. roosevelt were republicans. today's republicans are
more like fascists, the paul family comes to mind:)

> It's an insidious problem, "developing
> so gradually as to be well established
> before becoming apparent".
>

even the tenth states that the federal government has the power to
legislate all needed laws.

> http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/insidious
>
> What welfare recipient is going to vote for
> the party that wants to cut their welfare?
>

that is why the 1% is pouring money into the pockets of the
conservative cranks in government.

> When most people WORKED, this wasn't a problem.
>

most people did work, it was the private sector blowout in 2006-2008,
that created such a huge unemployment problem.

> By making decisions designed to put MILLIONS
> of people out of work, perhaps our current
> politicians are hoping to create a situation
> where so many are unemployed that creeping
> socialism wins the vote?
>

when will americans realize that proper regulation and progressive
taxation of the wealthy as our founding fathers wished for, will
return us to the age of 1933-1981, in that era we had no serious
recessions, nor one depression. before the new deal, we had serious
recessions, or depressions every ten years or so. one depression
lasted almost 3 decades. after the new deal had been slowly repealed,
every recession has grown deeper, unemployment creeping ever higher,
standards of living in a downward spiral, and today we face
depression.
so yes, lets return to the new deal, its what the founders crafted
into the constitution:))))))))))))))))

> Andrew Jackson actually went to WAR against
> the Federal Reserve bank, and for good reason.
>

it was not the same one we have today.

> That's just about the ONLY thing that
> should be nationalized.

the founders were all for nationalization.

[deadrat]

On 5/22/12 1:38 AM, Greegor wrote:
> Where has socialism succeeded, deadrat?

Before wasting my time, tell me what you think "socialism' is.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It's a failed Political and economic system that has now changed to a
utopian religion because you only need faith for a religion and the
facts all show that Socialism will never get you to that utopia.







--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Then success to a Socialist is to destroy the NATIONAL ECONOMY because
that is where Socialism has taken the U.S.A.

[deadrat]

On 5/22/12 12:13 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 1:49 AM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 5/21/12 11:20 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>> Harold Burton wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <b5126c57-f0b9-472d...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Nickname unavailable<Vid...@tcq.net> whined:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> all one needs to look at is Somalia, no government, lots of
>>>>> warlords. no different than socialist Europe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> snicker
>>>
>>> Europe is slightly behind us in breeding welfare puppies. but they are
>>> learning fast, and it won't be long before their socialism catches up
>>> with them.... I think its beginning to happen right now. I hope I am
>>> still alive to see the final result of the complete collapse of
>>> socialism... It will be kind of nice to die knowing that I was
>>> right....:^)
>>
>> There are two good bets here: The first is you will die having been
>> wrong about nearly every political judgment you ever made. The second
>> is that you will die thinking your were right.
>>
>> Here's hoping these sure things are a long way off.
>
>
>
>
>
> Socialism always fails... it seeks mediocrity and that is "the" recipe
> for failure.

So you've been told and so you parrot. You don't know what socialism
is, just that you've been told that it's bad.
<snip/>

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/22/2012 4:53 AM, R.H. wrote:
> na gresch ?!
>
> Greegor schrieb:
>
>> Where has socialism succeeded, deadrat?
>
> deadrat? ?? what is?




> There are two mortal enemies of man: Communism and woman.

That makes a female Communist a real pain in the ass.


Or do they just count as a single threat since STUPID^2 is still just
stupid?

[deadrat]

On 5/22/12 2:29 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 4:53 AM, R.H. wrote:
>> na gresch ?!
>>
>> Greegor schrieb:
>>
>>> Where has socialism succeeded, deadrat?
>>
>> deadrat? ?? what is?

He's babbling at me; that's just my nym.

[Michael Gordge]

On May 20, 10:30 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > Isn't it just a bit DECEPTIVE when you
> > refuse to acknowledge your own political
> > orientation even after you spout Carl Marx?
>
> Where did I ever quote Carl Marx?
>
> Bret Cahill

Since when do ewe have to quote Marx to sound like Marx, to write like
Marx, to be inspired by Marx, ewe Marxist idiot.

MG

[Harold Burton]

In article
<5db4cef3-e24f-41a4...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,

From "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara"

[regarding his and Colonel Curtis LeMay's involvement in the bombing of
Japan during World War II]

Robert McNamara: LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all
been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He... and I'd
say I... were behaving as war criminals.

Robert McNamara: LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be
thought immoral if his side has lost.




Or from
<http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers/2009/07/06/what-makes-it-i
mmoral-if-you-lose-and-not-immoral-if-you-win/>

³We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo ‹ men, women
and children,² Mr. McNamara recalled; some 900,000 Japanese civilians
died in all. ³LeMay said, ŒIf we¹d lost the war, we¹d all have been
prosecuted as war criminals.¹ And I think he¹s right. He ‹ and I¹d say I
‹ were behaving as war criminals.²


snicker

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Did you tell me that Socialism always fails?



I was sure I learned it from the history of all the Socialist government
and private communes and cooperatives and Social programs that failed.



Which actually makes Socialism a small cog in the giant wheel of
Capitalism. It is just another style or belief that fails when tried as
do many ideas and businesses and endeavors fail while Capitalism
continues on after the failure of any of the businesses or industries
within the actual innate capitalist human behavior that's as NATURAL as
breathing.


Socialism is becoming extinct in the evolution of economics. Much like
the buggy-whip factories are NOT surviving so too will Socialism be lost
from the gene pool of economics as the evolutionary process of failure
after failure of every Socialist plan.



Which is by the way, why Socialists try to rename and redefine Socialism
and resell the same old worn out ideas under new and fresh slogans and
packages.

[deadrat]

Not me. I'm trying to find out what your definition of "socialism" is.

<snipped: fact-free rant/>

[Bill Graham]

Socialism rewards mediocrity and punishes individualism and individual
innovation. As a result, it has to ultimately fail. It breeds a gray,
plodding existence, devoid of enjoyment in life. Why anyone would want it is
beyond me. It takes away one's responsibility for one's own life by putting
all your important decisions in the hands of the government. But the price
you have to pay for this is terrible. It forces on everyone a life of
virtual slavery, where everything you do from childhood to death is dictated
by the government. I am very lucky. I lived my whole life without it. So I
got to choose my own life. I chose my education, my place to live, my place
to work, what I wore, what I ate, my hobbies and amusements. IOW, I got to
live free. This can't happen under socialism. Deviation from the norm is
discouraged. Under socialism, you are encouraged to live like an ant in an
ant colony. If you deviate from the path your government chooses for you,
then you will be killed, either physically, or economically.

[deadrat]

On 5/22/12 2:17 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 2:08 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 5/22/12 1:38 AM, Greegor wrote:
>>> Where has socialism succeeded, deadrat?
>>
>> Before wasting my time, tell me what you think "socialism' is.
>
>
> It's a failed Political and economic system that has now changed to a
> utopian religion because you only need faith for a religion and the
> facts all show that Socialism will never get you to that utopia.

Your inability (or at least refusal) to define the term is noted.
Without your definition, I can't answer your question. If you define
socialism as utopian communitarianism, then no, such social experiments
didn't last long. But they weren't ever tried on a national scale.

[deadrat]

On 5/22/12 2:18 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 1:39 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On May 22, 1:38 am, Greegor<greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Where has socialism succeeded, deadrat?
>>
>> the u.s.a.
>
> Then success to a Socialist is to destroy the NATIONAL ECONOMY because
> that is where Socialism has taken the U.S.A.

So socialism is doubleplusungood. Noted is tour inability to define the
term as anything other than a synonym for "something I've been told is
bad and I believe it."

[deadrat]

<snipped: fact free rant mixed with touching personal reminisces />

Please define socialism in a way that I can actually determine which
national governments use it and which don't. Otherwise, it's just a
term that means "something I don't like."

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Actually you and other Socialists tell me it's "good", all the time I
see this on TV and in the news..... "Socialism is GOOD"

So I researched and look for the good and I only find bad.

That is how I learned about Socialism.

Look UP "THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD"

And remember that Obama has chosen "FORWARD" as his campaign slogan.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

AGAIN I REFER YOU TO "THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD"



I'll keep using that example because everyone should know what happened
during that time and recall it from memory, because it should be burned
into your mind.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

You are the Socialist so define yourself... every Socialist claims they
are NOT what we say, that's part of the changing definitions. It allows
you to always hide from the label of Socialist and repackage yourself to
sell socialism as a new product.

What is it that you Socialists want..... that is what Socialism is.

This way your morphing Socialism is constant, it's the utopian ideals
that you have.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 5/22/2012 3:56 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On May 20, 10:30 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>>> Isn't it just a bit DECEPTIVE when you
>>> refuse to acknowledge your own political
>>> orientation even after you spout Carl Marx?
>>
>> Where did I ever quote Carl Marx?
>>
>> Bret Cahill
>
> Since when do ewe have to quote Marx to sound like Marx

If I wanted to sound like Marx I'd just quote Bret Cahill.

[deadrat]

On 5/22/12 5:19 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 6:12 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 5/22/12 2:18 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2012 1:39 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>> On May 22, 1:38 am, Greegor<greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Where has socialism succeeded, deadrat?
>>>>
>>>> the u.s.a.
>>>
>>> Then success to a Socialist is to destroy the NATIONAL ECONOMY because
>>> that is where Socialism has taken the U.S.A.
>>
>> So socialism is doubleplusungood. Noted is tour inability to define the
>> term as anything other than a synonym for "something I've been told is
>> bad and I believe it."
>>
>
>
> Actually you and other Socialists tell me it's "good", all the time I
> see this on TV and in the news..... "Socialism is GOOD"

You can't find a single post of mine telling you that socialism is
"good," but nice dodge. Now tell me what you think socialism is.

> So I researched and look for the good and I only find bad.

I don't believe you did any research, but perhaps I've misjudged you.
If you researched the topic, then you should be able to define
socialism. Can you?

>
> That is how I learned about Socialism.

I don't believe you've learned anything in years, about socialism or
anything else, but perhaps I've misjudged you. If you've learned about
socialism, it should be easy to define it for me.

> Look UP "THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD"
>
> And remember that Obama has chosen "FORWARD" as his campaign slogan.

As opposed to your slogan "BACKWARD"? I understand that if Obama said
the sky was blue, you'd claim it was orange, but all I'm after is your
definition of socialism. I know you think it's bad; I know you think
it's somehow associated with Obama.

Now what is it?

[deadrat]

On 5/22/12 5:23 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 5/22/2012 6:11 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 5/22/12 2:17 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2012 2:08 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/12 1:38 AM, Greegor wrote:
>>>>> Where has socialism succeeded, deadrat?
>>>>
>>>> Before wasting my time, tell me what you think "socialism' is.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a failed Political and economic system that has now changed to a
>>> utopian religion because you only need faith for a religion and the
>>> facts all show that Socialism will never get you to that utopia.
>>
>> Your inability (or at least refusal) to define the term is noted.
>> Without your definition, I can't answer your question. If you define
>> socialism as utopian communitarianism, then no, such social experiments
>> didn't last long. But they weren't ever tried on a national scale.
>
>
> AGAIN I REFER YOU TO "THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD"

Again, I ask for a simple definition. I don't need a homework
assignment from you.

>
>
>
> I'll keep using that example because everyone should know what happened
> during that time and recall it from memory, because it should be burned
> into your mind.

That's a fine topic. Discuss it with someone who's interested. I just
want to know your definition of socialism.

[deadrat]

<snipped: contentless rant/>

So what is socialism? Hint: the definition has nothing to do with me.

> What is it that you Socialists want..... that is what Socialism is.

Your inability to identify socialism is noted.

> This way your morphing Socialism is constant, it's the utopian ideals
> that you have.

You may stop reading my mind at any time. Now, what do you think
socialism is?

A couple of sentences on social, economic, and political institutions
should do it. What's so hard about this?

[Harold Burton]

In article
<b979181a-2ca5-4bf6...@s9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Bret Cahill <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> > Isn't it just a bit DECEPTIVE when you
> > refuse to acknowledge your own political
> > orientation even after you spout Carl Marx?
>
> Where did I ever quote Carl Marx?

Where did you ever display a clue that you understood KARL Marx?


snicker

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 20, 2:12 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > On May 19, 9:06 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > [Obvious corrections made]
> >> Wanting to see the criminals die isn't the issue.
> >> What is the issue is knowing whether the ones
> >> who die are the criminals or not. Our prisons are
> >> full of innocent people who were put there by
> >> over zealous prosecuters who were trying to get
> >> reelected. I watch many TV shows based on real
> >> cases where people are put away for life, or
> >> put on death row with evidence that leaves, at
> >> least in my mind, a huge, "reasonable doubt".
> >> Most juries, like Jay Leno's people on the
> >> street, are idiots. If they aren't idiots, they
> >> will be passed over by either the judge, or one
> >> of the attorneys. And yet, if the verdict is,
> >> "guilty", then its as done deal, and everyone
> >> involved accepts the guilt of the accused as
> >> a verified fact. The fact that our prisons are
> >> full of innocent people don't make no never
> >> mind to them.......  [ Mentality seems to be]
> >> Lets hang 'em first, and then be sorry later...
>
> > To STATEists like Bret and deadrat, that's just fine.
>
> > Marxism pretends to be "for the good of the people".
> > Our system is supposed to champion the INDIVIDUAL
> > over the state, but that has eroded more and more.
>
> > The old axiom that "it's better to let 10 guilty
> > people get away than to wrongly convict even one"
> > NEVER existed in Marxist regimes and is eroding
> > in ours as well.
>
> Yes. People today seem to have forgotten that we don't live in a "Democracy
> where the majority rules", but in a Constitutional republic, where the rule
> of the majority is subject to the constraints of the Constitution.
> Otherwise, the people could just vote to take Bill Gates' mponey away from
> him and distribute it amongst themselves, and over 300 million citizens
> would vote, "Yes", and only two, (Bill and his wife) would vote, "no", so it
> would be a done deal. the constitution is what protects the minority from
> the tyrrant of the majority, and, because of that, it is a very necessary
> document.

have fun explaining away why the founders included the right to tax
in the constitution:))))

[Nickname unavailable]

marx was a libertarian:))))

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 22, 2:59 pm, Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article

> <5db4cef3-e24f-41a4-bcdc-6e1b82f43...@t2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,

> died in all. LeMay said, If we d lost the war, we d all have been

> prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he s right. He and I d say I
> were behaving as war criminals.
>
> snicker

but they were not war criminals. and those are just opinions. you
really do hate americans don't you. after what japan did to us, you
defend them, and call american vets war criminals.

[Nickname unavailable]

On May 22, 4:55 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> > On 5/22/2012 3:23 PM, deadrat wrote:
> >> On 5/22/12 12:13 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >>> On 5/22/2012 1:49 AM, deadrat wrote:
> >>>> On 5/21/12 11:20 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> >>>>> Harold Burton wrote:
> >>>>>> In article

> >>>>>> <b5126c57-f0b9-472d-b26c-953e77a59...@t2g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>> Nickname unavailable<Vide...@tcq.net>  whined:

have fun explaining away germany, norway, sweden, denamark, finland,
and the u.s.a. before reagan:))))

[Bill Graham]

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Europe is slightly behind us in breeding welfare puppies. but
>>>>>>>> they are learning fast, and it won't be long before their
>>>>>>>> socialism catches up with them.... I think its beginning to
>>>>>>>> happen right now. I hope I am still alive to see the final
>>>>>>>> result of the complete collapse of socialism... It will be
>>>>>>>> kind of nice to die knowing that I was right....:^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are two good bets here: The first is you will die having
>>>>>>> been wrong about nearly every political judgment you ever made.
>>>>>>> The second is that you will die thinking your were right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's hoping these sure things are a long way off.

An obvious question comes to mind. Why the hell would anyone in their right
mind want socialism to be a viable form of government, anyway? Why do you
want socialism to be successful? Do you like the idea of living like an ant
in an ant colony? Do you want your government to make all your choices for
you? Don't you admire those who strike out on their own and build something
different, or better, and become richer than the others? Don;t you aspire to
be one of these? Why are you content to live the life of a slave?

[deadrat]

You've defined socialism to be anti-democratic, but of course, that's
nonsense. But the people who pick your pocket every day just love you
for it.

How about you tell me what you think socialism is? It appears to be
that you think it's necessarily some form of government in which the
state makes all the decisions for you. But that's childishly silly.