Hitler was a socialist?
Gary Frazier
>ive...@utk.edu (Stan Ivester) wrote:
>>->Hitler was a socialist.
>>Right; that's why he considered
>That's why the Nazis were called Nazis, it stands for National
>Socialist.
>I've recently seen a very good and long list of Hitler quotes on
>socialism going around the newsgroups. You can bring it up with Deja
>News if you really have any *honest* doubts about the political
>philosophy of that two bit, murdering, totalitarian socialist.
Max, does this mean that the German Democratic Republic was really a
Democratic Republic?
He was unquestionably a murdering totalitarian. But just because the
word "socialist" was in the name doesn't mean that Hitler was a socialist.
Unless you're just too braindead to read the history and find out that
the word "socialist" in "National Socialist" was PR.
--
Gary
Lew Glendenning
Your intellectual history is lacking.
Socialism was ascendent in Europe from 1880 onward, and nowhere stronger
than Germany. Before WWI, there was serious talk that the socialist
workers of Europe would never fight each other.
Germany had more socialism in its gov than anywhere else: social
security retirement package, etc.
Hitler embraced this tradition, he didn't repudiate it. He perhaps
didn't really believe it, but it was very compatible with his goals,
namely total control of the country. He certainly used socialist
rhetoric, and consistently.
Lew
ppar...@swbell.net
Lew Glendenning wrote:
>
> Your intellectual history is lacking.
>
> Socialism was ascendent in Europe from 1880 onward, and nowhere stronger
> than Germany. Before WWI, there was serious talk that the socialist
> workers of Europe would never fight each other.
>
> Germany had more socialism in its gov than anywhere else: social
> security retirement package, etc.
>
> Hitler embraced this tradition, he didn't repudiate it. He perhaps
> didn't really believe it, but it was very compatible with his goals,
> namely total control of the country. He certainly used socialist
> rhetoric, and consistently.
>
> Lew
In spite of his rhetoric, he threw socialists and other leftists into
concentration camps. He destroyed labor unions, replacing them with
groups subject to the control of the businesses they worked for.
He was praised and encouraged by conservative politicians. He was
villified and opposed by leftists.
The "socialist" elements of German government were implemented largely
by the "Iron Chancellor" Otto van Bismark, who was the most conservative
politician of his day. He wasn't anxious to be a caring and sensitive
guy; he just wanted a healthy, well educated populace to do his bidding.
Hitler recognized the sense in that.
Pat Parson
Brian A. LaBounty
In case you all didn't know, folks, the attempt to place Hitler in the
"socialist" camp is merely a rhetorical ploy to discredit any philosophy
which might be remotely called socialist. It's a cheap gimmick, not
unlike
using the Contras to damn all of US foreign policy.
Which is why Godwin's Law should be observed here.
-----
Brian A. LaBounty
"It must be exciting to think that way,
but a drag to have to deal with the clinical diagnosis."
ppar...@swbell.net
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> "Brian A. LaBounty" <bla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >In case you all didn't know, folks, the attempt to place Hitler in the
> >"socialist" camp is merely a rhetorical ploy to discredit any philosophy
> >which might be remotely called socialist. It's a cheap gimmick, not
> >unlike using the Contras to damn all of US foreign policy.
>
>
> >Which is why Godwin's Law should be observed here.
>
> logic and cheese one's way around the necessity of thinking in
> principles. It is a playground rule invoked in order to facilitate
> the next round of bongs in the frat-house party room.
>
> Billy
>
> Anthology
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.htmlBefore you start sucking your bong, you might explain why conservatives
praised Hitler, and the leftists hated him. The conspiracy buffs say
there's a good explanation for this, but they never get around to telling
us what it is. Care to take a run at it?
Pat Parson
Mike.Schneider
In article <32EF62...@swbell.net>, "ppar...@swbell.net"
<ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
> > Hitler embraced this tradition, he didn't repudiate it. He perhaps
> > didn't really believe it, but it was very compatible with his goals,
> > namely total control of the country. He certainly used socialist
> > rhetoric, and consistently.
> >
> > Lew
>
> In spite of his rhetoric, he threw socialists and other leftists into
> concentration camps. He destroyed labor unions, replacing them with
> groups subject to the control of the businesses they worked for.
There is no honor among thieves.
+--+--+
Pyromania: http://www.tncnet.com/~rsears/oak/explode.html
America's soap opera: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater
Iconoclast Greg Swann Writes: http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/
Waco Holocaust Museum: http://www.mnsinc.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
National Organization for Non-Enumeration: http://www.ime.net/none/
W. Beck's Anthology: http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Yahoo! Maps: http://maps.yahoo.com/yt.hm?FAM=yahoo&CMD=GEO&SEC=geo
Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
Internet Infidels "The Secular Web": http://www.infidels.org/
Download'n Fool: http://www.shareware.com/SW/Search/Index/
Lew Glendenning
ppar...@swbell.net wrote:
>
> Lew Glendenning wrote:
> >
> > Your intellectual history is lacking.
> >
> > Socialism was ascendent in Europe from 1880 onward, and nowhere stronger
> > than Germany. Before WWI, there was serious talk that the socialist
> > workers of Europe would never fight each other.
> >
> > Germany had more socialism in its gov than anywhere else: social
> > security retirement package, etc.
> >
> > didn't really believe it, but it was very compatible with his goals,
> > namely total control of the country. He certainly used socialist
> > rhetoric, and consistently.
> >
> > Lew
>
> In spite of his rhetoric, he threw socialists and other leftists into
> concentration camps. He destroyed labor unions, replacing them with
> groups subject to the control of the businesses they worked for.
>
ruthlessly. Independent labor unions did not exist. They were run by
the parties.
Stalin killed a lot of "not quite communists", and a hell of a lot of
communists too.
> He was praised and encouraged by conservative politicians. He was
> villified and opposed by leftists.
>
Lenin and Stalin didn't escape without criticism from the left. Some of
their inner circle escaped, e.g. Trotsky, whose name became a bad word
in Russia. Not many tho, and not for long (e.g. Trotsky), since
Stalin's KGB was pretty efficient in those days.
> The "socialist" elements of German government were implemented largely
> by the "Iron Chancellor" Otto van Bismark, who was the most conservative
> politician of his day. He wasn't anxious to be a caring and sensitive
> guy; he just wanted a healthy, well educated populace to do his bidding.
Socialism was a philosophy on the ascendency from about 1880, all over
Europe. It was further along in Germany than most countries. Bismark
was avoiding problems.
Hitler was exposed to socialist thought from an early age. Many, even
most, of the leading socialist philosophers were German. Remember Karl
Marx?
> Hitler recognized the sense in that.
>
Socialism has not worked out very well, containing internal
contradictions, e.g. you can't have both socialism and a healty economy.
Lew
HENRY E. KILPATRICK JR.
s,talk.politics.guns,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole
Followup-To: alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole
References: <5cmh6a$f...@garcia.efn.org> <32EF02...@alink.net> <32EF62...@swbell.net> <32EF94...@ix.netcom.com>
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Distribution:
Brian A. LaBounty (bla...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: ppar...@swbell.net wrote:
: >
: > Lew Glendenning wrote:
: > >
: > > Your intellectual history is lacking.
: > >
: > > Socialism was ascendent in Europe from 1880 onward, and nowhere stronger
: > > than Germany. Before WWI, there was serious talk that the socialist
: > > workers of Europe would never fight each other.
: > >
: > > Germany had more socialism in its gov than anywhere else: social
: > > security retirement package, etc.
: > >
: > > Hitler embraced this tradition, he didn't repudiate it. He perhaps
: > > didn't really believe it, but it was very compatible with his goals,
: > > namely total control of the country. He certainly used socialist
: > > rhetoric, and consistently.
: > >
: > > Lew
: >
: > In spite of his rhetoric, he threw socialists and other leftists into
: > concentration camps. He destroyed labor unions, replacing them with
: > groups subject to the control of the businesses they worked for.
: >
: > He was praised and encouraged by conservative politicians. He was
: > villified and opposed by leftists.
: >
: > The "socialist" elements of German government were implemented largely
: > by the "Iron Chancellor" Otto van Bismark, who was the most conservative
: > politician of his day. He wasn't anxious to be a caring and sensitive
: > guy; he just wanted a healthy, well educated populace to do his bidding.
: > Hitler recognized the sense in that.
: >
: > Pat Parson
: In case you all didn't know, folks, the attempt to place Hitler in the
: "socialist" camp is merely a rhetorical ploy to discredit any philosophy
: which might be remotely called socialist. It's a cheap gimmick, not
: unlike
: using the Contras to damn all of US foreign policy.
:
: Which is why Godwin's Law should be observed here.
:
: -----
: Brian A. LaBounty
: "It must be exciting to think that way,
: but a drag to have to deal with the clinical diagnosis."
In fact, the next step is to attempt to tie Hitler, socialism and good ol' American
liberalism together.
Some are even stupid enough to believe it.
--
Buddy K
Billy Beck
"Brian A. LaBounty" <bla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In case you all didn't know, folks, the attempt to place Hitler in the
>"socialist" camp is merely a rhetorical ploy to discredit any philosophy
>which might be remotely called socialist. It's a cheap gimmick, not
>unlike using the Contras to damn all of US foreign policy.
Rot.
>Which is why Godwin's Law should be observed here.
"Godwin's Law" is a comedic attempt to blow past rules of
william c anderson
Billy Beck (ain't...@tno.e-mail) wrote:
:
:
: >In case you all didn't know, folks, the attempt to place Hitler in the
: >"socialist" camp is merely a rhetorical ploy to discredit any philosophy
: >which might be remotely called socialist. It's a cheap gimmick, not
: >unlike using the Contras to damn all of US foreign policy.
:
: Rot.
Yeah? Why? What's the relationship, for instance, between European
Democratic Socialists and Hitler. How about the social anarchists
of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? The original
poster is right; the Hitler=socialism ploy is nothing more nor less
than a cheap attempt to short-circuit real debate.
: >Which is why Godwin's Law should be observed here.
:
: "Godwin's Law" is a comedic attempt to blow past rules of
: logic and cheese one's way around the necessity of thinking in
: principles. It is a playground rule invoked in order to facilitate
: the next round of bongs in the frat-house party room.
Rather, it's an attempt to keep debate on the net focused on issues,
rather than on silly rhetorical equivalences.
A vain attempt.
Bill
Billy Beck
"ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Before you start sucking your bong, you might explain why conservatives
>praised Hitler, and the leftists hated him. The conspiracy buffs say
>there's a good explanation for this, but they never get around to telling
>us what it is. Care to take a run at it?
Go ask a "conservative", "leftist", or a "conspiracy buff".
This really is so fucking boring.
Pay attention, Parson, and drag in that ancephaloid Kangas and
the dipshit Anderson for the pop quiz:
Which one of you can identify the regime which is the subject
of the following? Seven proper nouns and one date have been excised
in order to not give it away. Ready? Here we go:
"The party's agricultural leader, .... , was well placed to
give practical expression to these ideas. Under his leadership, the
... had already secured a firm foothold in the agrarian interest
associations (such as the .... .... ....) and the chambers of
agriculture, even before 19... When .... resigned all his economic
ministries, .... made .... minister for agriculture and the fourth
... member of the ..... He was thus able to combine control of the
party's Agrarian Policy Apparatus (AA) with that of the self-governing
agricultural organizations and the appropriate ministry. Largely as a
result of this, he was able to initiate a program aimed at the
stabilization of land ownership, total control of markets and prices,
and a land settlement scheme."
Step right up, children. Or shut the fuck up and sit down.
Billy
Brian August LaBounty
In article <5cp362$e...@lendl.cc.emory.edu>,
lib...@curly.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson) wrote:
>Billy Beck (ain't...@tno.e-mail) wrote:
>:
>: "Brian A. LaBounty" <bla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>:
>: >In case you all didn't know, folks, the attempt to place Hitler in the
>: >"socialist" camp is merely a rhetorical ploy to discredit any philosophy
>: >which might be remotely called socialist. It's a cheap gimmick, not
>: >unlike using the Contras to damn all of US foreign policy.
>:
>: Rot.
>
>Yeah? Why? What's the relationship, for instance, between European
>Democratic Socialists and Hitler. How about the social anarchists
>of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? The original
>poster is right; the Hitler=socialism ploy is nothing more nor less
>than a cheap attempt to short-circuit real debate.
Allow me to add a question to Mr. Anderson's well-spoken commentary, Mr. Beck:
You say "Rot". Well, then I ask you. Are you or are you not trying to discredit
liberal, leftist, or socialist political philosophy by asserting that it is the
philosophy of one of the three most contemptible mass murderers in the history
of the world? If not, then what is the point of your assertion?
>: >Which is why Godwin's Law should be observed here.
>:
>: "Godwin's Law" is a comedic attempt to blow past rules of
>: logic and cheese one's way around the necessity of thinking in
>: principles. It is a playground rule invoked in order to facilitate
>: the next round of bongs in the frat-house party room.
>
>Rather, it's an attempt to keep debate on the net focused on issues,
>rather than on silly rhetorical equivalences.
If I may expand on that, Mr. Anderson, Godwin's law acknowledges that invoking
Hitler or the Nazis, which on Usenet is almost exclusively to associate them
with one's opposition, is a type of fallacious argumentem ad hominem. Because
Hitler's philosophy supported A and B, and because my opponent also supports
A and B, my opponent's philosophy is Nazi-like. Which is a ridiculous assertion.
If A is C, and B is C, then is A the same as B? No, substituting real words for
A B and C. If cats are furry, and dogs are furry, then are cats the same as dogs?
To further extend the principle, Nazi Germany outlawed abortion and homosexuality.
Two very un-liberal principles. Is, therefore, any pro-life,
anti-gay philosophy tainted by association with the Nazis? Of course not.
>A vain attempt.
This, sadly, appears to be true. There are too many people here who are more
interested in "winning" a debate via ignoratio elenchi such as argumentem ad
hominem than to discuss the merits of a particular philosophy in and of
themselves. But this reflects on the lack of willingness to think on the
part of the individual who uses the tactics, not on the merits of his
opponent's reasoning.
Second only to the "Nazi" or "Hitler" spiels is the accusation of
being "Politically Correct". Hence LaBounty's Corollary to Godwin's Law --
the same principle applies to the mentioning of political correctness.
----
K. Knopp
In article <E4uCK...@iglou.com>, bath...@iglou1.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
> The conservatives of Congress share a lot in common with Hitler. They
> censor. They suppress dissent. Yes, they even have concentration camps.
> (Ever heard of "involuntary commitment"?)
> Watch Phil Gramm give a speech, and you'll notice stylistic
> similarities as well.
The liberals in the White House share a lot in common with Hitler. They
censor. They suppress dissent. Yes, they even have concentration camps.
(Ever heard of "involuntary commitment"?)
Watch Bill Clinton give a speech, and you'll notice stylistic
similarities as well.
You see how easy it is to meaninglessly rant and rave? We could all learn
by your example!
scot...@maine.maine.edu
Hitler was definitely not a leftist or socialist.
And he was not a conservative. Conservatives supported him, because he
convinced them he was with them, but then he stabbed them in the back as
well. Nazism is anti-socialist, anti-conservative, anti-liberal and very
different from the ideology of most American political leaders.
cheers, scott
Tim Brown
The conservatives of Congress share a lot in common with Hitler. They
censor. They suppress dissent. Yes, they even have concentration camps.
(Ever heard of "involuntary commitment"?)
Watch Phil Gramm give a speech, and you'll notice stylistic
similarities as well.
--
bath...@iglou.com http://members.iglou.com/bathroom The Last Word
THE U.S. IS A RIGHT-WING DICTATORSHIP -- REVOLT!
Annoy a fascist -- Say no to public school uniforms!
Billy Beck
Brian August LaBounty <bla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Billy Beck (ain't...@tno.e-mail) wrote:
>>:
>>: "Brian A. LaBounty" <bla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>:
>>: >In case you all didn't know, folks, the attempt to place Hitler in the
>>: >"socialist" camp is merely a rhetorical ploy to discredit any philosophy
>>: >which might be remotely called socialist. It's a cheap gimmick, not
>>: >unlike using the Contras to damn all of US foreign policy.
>>:
>>: Rot.
>Allow me to add a question to Mr. Anderson's well-spoken commentary, Mr. Beck:
>You say "Rot". Well, then I ask you. Are you or are you not trying to discredit
>liberal, leftist, or socialist political philosophy by asserting that it is the
>philosophy of one of the three most contemptible mass murderers in the history
>of the world? If not, then what is the point of your assertion?
To which "assertion" do you refer? The three letters above?
It is impossible for me to "discredit" socialism any more than
the immutable record of history. And, I would point out that it is
the *fundamental philosophy* (as distinct from mere economic
organization) of *two* of the "most contemptible mass murderers..."
>If I may expand on that, Mr. Anderson, Godwin's law acknowledges that invoking
>Hitler or the Nazis, which on Usenet is almost exclusively to associate them
>with one's opposition, is a type of fallacious argumentem ad hominem.
Not *necessarily*, and that is my objection to this sophomoric
pretense of a "Law". Your use of the words "almost exclusively"
highlights the point.
It is certainly true that ideologues of *every* stripe make
fallacious references to Hitler. That does not mean that every
reference to Hitler is fallacious, and that is precisely what this
stoopid "Law" asserts. In essence, it is the flip side of the coin:
even a valid reference is arbitrarily waved off as invalid by invoking
this "Law" like a rule in Chutes & Ladders.
"Godwin" ought to have his ass kicked up around his neck.
Billy
william c anderson
Billy, I haven't trimmed the followup line this time, because you
seem to be of the opinion the these messages NEED to be directed to
t.p.g. three times. May I ask why?
Billy Beck (ain't...@tno.e-mail) wrote:
: It is impossible for me to "discredit" socialism any more than
: the immutable record of history. And, I would point out that it is
: the *fundamental philosophy* (as distinct from mere economic
: organization) of *two* of the "most contemptible mass murderers..."
I won't even try the old "there's never been a real socialist
government" ploy, although I think there's some merit in it.
I'd like to know, though, how you think Mao and Stalin serve to
discredit Kropotkin and Goldman.
: Not *necessarily*, and that is my objection to this sophomoric
: pretense of a "Law". Your use of the words "almost exclusively"
: highlights the point.
:
: It is certainly true that ideologues of *every* stripe make
: fallacious references to Hitler. That does not mean that every
: reference to Hitler is fallacious, and that is precisely what this
: stoopid "Law" asserts. In essence, it is the flip side of the coin:
: even a valid reference is arbitrarily waved off as invalid by invoking
: this "Law" like a rule in Chutes & Ladders.
:
: "Godwin" ought to have his ass kicked up around his neck.
You have a point. Socialism=Hitler, though, still seems to me a
valid violation. Can you tell me why it isn't?
Bill
Zepp
Lew Glendenning <rlgl...@alink.net> caused us all to grin by saying:
>So did Stalin. There were strikes in Soviet Russia, which were put down
>ruthlessly. Independent labor unions did not exist. They were run by
>the parties.
Really? Tell us of these strikes in Soviet Russia. And why should a union
owned by the party strike against the government, which controlled the means
of production, and was also an adjunct of the party.
>Socialism was a philosophy on the ascendency from about 1880, all over
>Europe. It was further along in Germany than most countries. Bismark
>was avoiding problems.
>
>Hitler was exposed to socialist thought from an early age. Many, even
>most, of the leading socialist philosophers were German. Remember Karl
>Marx?
Wittgenstein, Neitszche, and Wagner were all German, too. Hitler, on the
other hand, was not. Your point being...?
>> Hitler recognized the sense in that.
>>
>
>Socialism has not worked out very well, containing internal
>contradictions, e.g. you can't have both socialism and a healty economy.
Sure you can. But it scares the piss out the fat cats, so they scream that
it's impossible at every opportunity.
=====================================================================
``Somehow, if you're on the left you can co-mingle everything
and no one seems to notice. If you are a conservative and you
hire a lawyer and you make a mistake you had better prepare to
be pilloried,''
Gingrich, R-Ga., said today, showing that he can whine like the
best of them.
Don't you just hate it when someone as powerful and arrogant as
him starts whining like that? Doesn't he make you sick?
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
Tim Brown
scot...@maine.maine.edu writes:
>And he was not a conservative. Conservatives supported him, because he
>convinced them he was with them, but then he stabbed them in the back as
>well. Nazism is anti-socialist, anti-conservative, anti-liberal and very
>different from the ideology of most American political leaders.
Except the ideology of Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, William Bennett, and Pete
Wilson.
Billy Beck
bath...@iglou1.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>(Ever heard of "involuntary commitment"?)
Yeah.
Every April 15th.
Billy
million $
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 07:34:20 GMT, bath...@iglou1.iglou.com (Tim
Brown) let loose with:
>scot...@maine.maine.edu writes:
>
>>And he was not a conservative. Conservatives supported him, because he
>>convinced them he was with them, but then he stabbed them in the back as
>>well. Nazism is anti-socialist, anti-conservative, anti-liberal and very
>>different from the ideology of most American political leaders.
>
>Except the ideology of Phil Gramm, Dick Armey, William Bennett, and Pete
>Wilson.
Hey don't forget its religious "leaders" Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed,
Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham.
Steve Kangas
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> Brian August LaBounty <bla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> It is impossible for me to "discredit" socialism any more than
> the immutable record of history. And, I would point out that it is
> the *fundamental philosophy* (as distinct from mere economic
> organization) of *two* of the "most contemptible mass murderers..."
True socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world.
What has passed for "socialism" in every nation that borrowed the name is
actually economic totalitarianism, which no socialist accepts. True socialism
is always democratic, not dictatorial. The examples of Nazi Germany and
Soviet Russia belong to the trash heap of authoritarianism.
> >If I may expand on that, Mr. Anderson, Godwin's law acknowledges that invoking
> >Hitler or the Nazis, which on Usenet is almost exclusively to associate them
> >with one's opposition, is a type of fallacious argumentem ad hominem.
>
> Not *necessarily*, and that is my objection to this sophomoric
> pretense of a "Law". Your use of the words "almost exclusively"
> highlights the point.
Although I disagree with Beck on the political issue of socialism, I
join forces with him in condemning this utterly silly rule. Are we to
avoid discussing American Nazis, under the assumption that such discussion
is fallacious? These sort of "laws" are actually speech codes that have
no place on the Internet. As a studying political scientist, I can confirm
that there are countless valid and highly relevant lessons to be learned
from Nazi Germany that can be applied even to our contemporary issues.
>
> "Godwin" ought to have his ass kicked up around his neck.
Yes. Godwin deserves a big fat Censor-of-the-Year Award for attempting to impose
speech codes. If someone is evoking Hitler incorrectly, then scholars or
other historians will correct them. A case in point is the following essay:
http://wwws.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
> Billy
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Steven R. Fordyce
"ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Before you start sucking your bong, you might explain why conservatives
>praised Hitler, and the leftists hated him. The conspiracy buffs say
>there's a good explanation for this, but they never get around to telling
>us what it is. Care to take a run at it?
Sure: it isn't true that conservatives praised him and leftists hated him.
Hitler never had many admirers in this country, but those he had were
from disparate groups from both sides of the political spectrum,
especially before Hitler attacked the USSR. Naziism grew out of the
left, but borrowed from right (or what was the right in Germany at the
time), so this is not surprising.
Hitler was liked by some racists (left, right, and center), and by
Stalinists before he attacked the USSR.
--
ste...@hevanet.com
"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance, and even our very existence depends on it.
Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to our lives."
-- Albert Einstein
To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I
say thee, "Nay!"
Thomas Steegmann
On 31 Jan 1997 17:27:09 GMT, t...@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter) wrote:
>
>???????????
>
>Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
Come on tom, you're being rediculous. I'll make a similar
comparison for you: Didn't Jeffrey Dalhmer work for himself? What
about Charles Manson? Hey for that matter, those two and hitler all
drank milk too!!!!!!!! See??????????????????? Don't be stupid.
Tom Steegmann
steegman @ tomcindy rotterdam ny us
www.netheaven.com/~steegman
Don't bother sending me junk mail. That goes for spammers,
MLM's, gun nutz, and all of you in the Blak Helikopter Krowd
If you need to get in touch with me in a hurry, contact Blak
Helikopter # UN1096459823E1209695883861094, and ask for unit
489TS1092469. I'll be manning the mind kontrol machine.
Go Bills!
Tim Brown
kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) writes:
>In article <E4uCK...@iglou.com>, bath...@iglou1.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>> The conservatives of Congress share a lot in common with Hitler. They
>> censor. They suppress dissent. Yes, they even have concentration camps.
>> (Ever heard of "involuntary commitment"?)
>> Watch Phil Gramm give a speech, and you'll notice stylistic
>> similarities as well.
>The liberals in the White House share a lot in common with Hitler.
There are no liberals in the White House!
--
Tom Potter
???????????
Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
Lew Glendenning
Zepp wrote:
>
> Lew Glendenning <rlgl...@alink.net> caused us all to grin by saying:
>
> >So did Stalin. There were strikes in Soviet Russia, which were put down
> >ruthlessly. Independent labor unions did not exist. They were run by
> >the parties.
> Really? Tell us of these strikes in Soviet Russia. And why should a union
> owned by the party strike against the government, which controlled the means
> of production, and was also an adjunct of the party.
>
Zepp:
This is a very good question. You should go research it yourself,
because when you understand it you will stop all this nonsense of
supporting socialism, and will get off the left-right one-dimensional
thinking.
> >Socialism was a philosophy on the ascendency from about 1880, all over
> >Europe. It was further along in Germany than most countries. Bismark
> >was avoiding problems.
> >
> >Hitler was exposed to socialist thought from an early age. Many, even
> >most, of the leading socialist philosophers were German. Remember Karl
> >Marx?
>
> Wittgenstein, Neitszche, and Wagner were all German, too. Hitler, on the
> other hand, was not. Your point being...?
>
Hitler didn't need to get translations, for one.
> >> Hitler recognized the sense in that.
> >>
> >
> >Socialism has not worked out very well, containing internal
> >contradictions, e.g. you can't have both socialism and a healty economy.
>
> Sure you can. But it scares the piss out the fat cats, so they scream that
> it's impossible at every opportunity.
This is mere assertion. What example are you leftists using this year?
Lew
James Doemer
Tim Brown wrote:
>
> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) writes:
>
> >In article <E4uCK...@iglou.com>, bath...@iglou1.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>
> >> The conservatives of Congress share a lot in common with Hitler. They
> >> censor. They suppress dissent. Yes, they even have concentration camps.
> >> (Ever heard of "involuntary commitment"?)
> >> Watch Phil Gramm give a speech, and you'll notice stylistic
> >> similarities as well.
>
> >The liberals in the White House share a lot in common with Hitler.
>
> There are no liberals in the White House!
You kidding?? White House is chocked full of liberals.... Some of them just
act conservative to please their audience...
Max Kennedy
bath...@iglou1.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) writes:
>>The liberals in the White House share a lot in common with Hitler.
>There are no liberals in the White House!
Yep, and there is the proof. First the Left deny Hitler was a
leftist, now they deny Clinton is a leftist.
Max Kennedy
Billy Beck
Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>True socialism is always democratic, not dictatorial.
Look, Kangas: every classical liberal on the net has been over
this with you, and I've watched the whole bloody circus for two years
now. What makes you think a "democra[cy]" is "not dictatorial" to the
minority?
Go *wank* with someone else. I know a basket-case when I see
one.
Billy
Billy Beck
lib...@larry.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson) wrote:
>Billy, I haven't trimmed the followup line this time, because you
>seem to be of the opinion the these messages NEED to be directed to
>t.p.g. three times. May I ask why?
Sure. Answer: I have no bloody idea. I never touch newsgroup
headers anymore. It's been months since I did that. You'll have to
ask someone further up-thread.
>: It is impossible for me to "discredit" socialism any more than
>: the immutable record of history. And, I would point out that it is
>: the *fundamental philosophy* (as distinct from mere economic
>: organization) of *two* of the "most contemptible mass murderers..."
>
>I won't even try the old "there's never been a real socialist
>government" ploy, although I think there's some merit in it.
>I'd like to know, though, how you think Mao and Stalin serve to
>discredit Kropotkin and Goldman.
All four of them deny the right of private property. The
former pair actually had their chance to practice the doctrine.
The results were crystal clear.
>: "Godwin" ought to have his ass kicked up around his neck.
>
>You have a point. Socialism=Hitler, though, still seems to me a
>valid violation. Can you tell me why it isn't?
Yes.
Billy
Tom Potter
In <32f236f1...@news.netheaven.com> t...@uFaa.com (Thomas
Steegmann) writes:
>
>On 31 Jan 1997 17:27:09 GMT, t...@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter) wrote:
>
>>
>>???????????
>>
>>Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
>
> Come on tom, you're being rediculous. I'll make a similar
>comparison for you: Didn't Jeffrey Dalhmer work for himself? What
>about Charles Manson? Hey for that matter, those two and hitler all
>drank milk too!!!!!!!! See??????????????????? Don't be stupid.
Are you suggesting that neurotic, brutal people
in the private sector are as great a threat to
the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
as the same person in government?
Would you like to see a Jeffrey Dalhmer workinf
for the police department, FBI, CIA or the BATF?
And if they were, how would you ever know it?
And if it got out some how that someone like this
was in the government, how would you fire them or
get them prosecuted?
Have you every heard of "the brotherhood"?
Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <E4wF7...@iglou.com>, mken...@iglou.com says...
>
>Yep, and there is the proof. First the Left deny Hitler was a
>leftist,
Denying Hitler was a leftist is like denying that the sun rises. It's
obvious to anyone with any knowledge of fascism and political ideologies that
Hitler was not on the left! People have posted exerpts from many sources
here, while the so-called "right" bleats out "Hitler was a Socialist." The
only alleged proof: The name of the party (National Socialist Workers
Party). Why proof fails: proven that the name was chosen for propaganda
purposes and the (unanswered) question of whether these people on the right
then consider the "German Democratic Republic" to be Democratic!
With this kind of Orwellian newspeak coming from the right, I hate to see
what's next...
Rich Travsky
???????????
RT
stokes19
James Doemer wrote:
> >
> > >> The conservatives of Congress share a lot in common with Hitler. They
> > >> censor. They suppress dissent. Yes, they even have concentration camps.
> > >> (Ever heard of "involuntary commitment"?)
> > >> Watch Phil Gramm give a speech, and you'll notice stylistic
> > >> similarities as well.
> >
> >
> > There are no liberals in the White House!
>
> act conservative to please their audience...
Hitler was neither, just a guy wanting absolute power and anything
it took to to it. He just only had to fool the people long
enough with emotional ideas while he was busy stripping the
remaining freedoms. He and Clinton are pure genius at it. It's
a shame the press has no sense of danger in their current conduct.
I can hear it now from them, "we were out there all along telling
the people about this. The American people just didn't care."
The problem they got is that they have, for 5 years, spread
butter over Clinton and told nobody practically nothing. You know
those favorite words," the Clintons are not accused of any wrongdoing",
while keeping that little innocent look on their faces. The
passion they relish reporting Newts problems betray any sort
of intellectual honesty they try to perceive as having.
Once again in history, we are dealing with lies on a grand scale
to hide the truth and fool the people for the purpose of somebody
trying to acquire more power that should not be in any one man's
hand. That person is Clinton. Let us try not to find out
if he could be another Hitler. Please support the enemy, and the
enemy is the truth.
Malkav
> >>:
> >>:
> >>: >In case you all didn't know, folks, the attempt to place Hitler in the
> >>: >"socialist" camp is merely a rhetorical ploy to discredit any philosophy
> >>: >which might be remotely called socialist. It's a cheap gimmick, not
> >>: >unlike using the Contras to damn all of US foreign policy.
> >>:
> >>: Rot.
>
> >Allow me to add a question to Mr. Anderson's well-spoken commentary, Mr. Beck:
> >You say "Rot". Well, then I ask you. Are you or are you not trying to discredit
> >liberal, leftist, or socialist political philosophy by asserting that it is the
> >philosophy of one of the three most contemptible mass murderers in the history
> >of the world? If not, then what is the point of your assertion?
>
> To which "assertion" do you refer? The three letters above?
>
> the immutable record of history. And, I would point out that it is
> the *fundamental philosophy* (as distinct from mere economic
> organization) of *two* of the "most contemptible mass murderers..."
Stalin and Mao both espoused socialist doctrine, yes. Whether or not
they
actually practiced it is a matter of some debate, of course. But you
didn't
answer my question.
> >If I may expand on that, Mr. Anderson, Godwin's law acknowledges that invoking
> >Hitler or the Nazis, which on Usenet is almost exclusively to associate them
> >with one's opposition, is a type of fallacious argumentem ad hominem.
>
> Not *necessarily*, and that is my objection to this sophomoric
> pretense of a "Law". Your use of the words "almost exclusively"
> highlights the point.
Good point. Which is why I don't autokill the mere mention of the word.
I will say, however, that I've never seen the names invoked
-rhetorically-
without Godwin's Law being appropriate, either because it's a fallacious
reference, as you put it, or it's some White Power yahoo trying to deny
the Holocaust or some idiotic piffle like that.
> It is certainly true that ideologues of *every* stripe make
> fallacious references to Hitler. That does not mean that every
> reference to Hitler is fallacious, and that is precisely what this
> stoopid "Law" asserts. In essence, it is the flip side of the coin:
> even a valid reference is arbitrarily waved off as invalid by invoking
> this "Law" like a rule in Chutes & Ladders.
I disagree. In my experience, any -rhetorical- invocation of the name of
Hitler or the Nazis that I've ever seen has fit Godwin's Law to a T.
And it certainly holds true in the stupid-ass thread about Hitler being
a socialist.
> "Godwin" ought to have his ass kicked up around his neck.
Well, thank you for sharing.
-----
Malkav
> > >If I may expand on that, Mr. Anderson, Godwin's law acknowledges that invoking
> > >Hitler or the Nazis, which on Usenet is almost exclusively to associate them
> > >with one's opposition, is a type of fallacious argumentem ad hominem.
> >
> > Not *necessarily*, and that is my objection to this sophomoric
> > pretense of a "Law". Your use of the words "almost exclusively"
> > highlights the point.
>
> Although I disagree with Beck on the political issue of socialism, I
> join forces with him in condemning this utterly silly rule. Are we to
> avoid discussing American Nazis, under the assumption that such discussion
> is fallacious?
That's different, and most people who know Godwin's Law know this. But
when the American Nazis start getting tied into other American
philosophies simply to trash the other philosophies, Godwin's Law rears
its head, and it's dead-on accurate IMHO.
These sort of "laws" are actually speech codes that have
> no place on the Internet. As a studying political scientist, I can confirm
> that there are countless valid and highly relevant lessons to be learned
> from Nazi Germany that can be applied even to our contemporary issues.
I have yet to see one on Usenet.
> Yes. Godwin deserves a big fat Censor-of-the-Year Award for attempting to impose
> speech codes. If someone is evoking Hitler incorrectly, then scholars or
> other historians will correct them.
Baloney. Because Hitler is typically evoked correctly and the point made
by the evocation is STILL rhetorical crap. For example.
"You want to outlaw abortion? Great. You know who else outlawed
abortion? Adolf Hitler! It was the one case where the Nazis and
Catholics were in agreement, though for different reasons. Catholics
claim a woman's body is not her own, it belongs to God, and the Nazis
claimed that a woman's body belongs to the State."
I may be pro-choice, but even I see this (real example! A band called
Consolidated had a speech with words to this effect on one of their
albumbs.) as a transparent attempt to call pro-lifers Nazis. Yet the
words are not untrue. Hitler DID outlaw abortion. Of course he did other
nasty things to pregnant women later, but that's beside the point.
The simple truth is that whatever rhetorical point one has to make can
be made WITHOUT invoking the Nazis. Making such an invocation is cheap
ad hominem.
Steve Casburn
In article <E4wF7...@iglou.com>, mken...@iglou.com wrote:
>
> Tim Brown:
> > K. Knopp:
>
> >>The liberals in the White House share a lot in common with Hitler.
> >
> >There are no liberals in the White House!
>
So, by your "logic," if "the Left" denies that Max Kennedy is a
leftist, that means that you "share a lot in common with Hitler"?
Steve
--
Steve Casburn (Casb...@osu.edu)
"Shut up he explained"
-- Ring Lardner
g...@ix.netcom.com
James Doemer wrote:
>
> Tim Brown wrote:
> >
> > kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) writes:
> >
> > >In article <E4uCK...@iglou.com>, bath...@iglou1.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
> >
> > >> The conservatives of Congress share a lot in common with Hitler. They
> > >> censor. They suppress dissent. Yes, they even have concentration camps.
> > >> (Ever heard of "involuntary commitment"?)
> > >> Watch Phil Gramm give a speech, and you'll notice stylistic
> > >> similarities as well.
"a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom.
When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move
to limit it. --William J. Clinton, April 19th, 1994
Mr clinton, in a speech the mourning after his victory, told a dem
audience that he would be "going after those that disagree with him"...
yeah, we need to get the conservatives out of washington...
we need more people like dems diane feinstein and babbs boxes to fight
for our freedoms.... btw, both these california "conservatives" voted
for internet censorship
you might want to open your eyes both you post...
oh yeah.... all those above mentioned "conservates" (slick, di-fi,
babbs, & most all dems) are in favor of extensive gun control too:
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a
civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will
be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will
follow our lead into the future!"
Did bill clinton said this when he signned gun control legislation?
No, it was said over 60 years ago by another "great" leader like
clinton...
Adolf Hitler, 1935
> >
> > >The liberals in the White House share a lot in common with Hitler.
> >
> > There are no liberals in the White House!
>
> You kidding?? White House is chocked full of liberals.... Some of them just
> act conservative to please their audience...
put your freedom in the liberals trust and they will for sure take it
from you...
(while they tell you it's the other side that you should fear)
bill clinton & the dems...
re-inventing gov't
re-inventing liberalisum
re-inventing conservatisum
re-inventing nazisum
re-inventing communisum
re-inventing slavery
re-inventing servatude
re-inventing your future & destorying your children's future
call it what you want but it's not freedom and it's not American...
Zepp
t...@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter) caused us all to grin by saying:
>
>???????????
>
>Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
Of course he did, you damn fool. He was the Chancellor.
Zepp
"Steven R. Fordyce" <steven_r...@ccm.jf.intel.com> caused us all to grin
by saying:
>"ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>Before you start sucking your bong, you might explain why conservatives
>>praised Hitler, and the leftists hated him. The conspiracy buffs say
>>there's a good explanation for this, but they never get around to telling
>>us what it is. Care to take a run at it?
>
>Sure: it isn't true that conservatives praised him and leftists hated him.
>Hitler never had many admirers in this country, but those he had were
>from disparate groups from both sides of the political spectrum,
>especially before Hitler attacked the USSR. Naziism grew out of the
>left, but borrowed from right (or what was the right in Germany at the
>time), so this is not surprising.
There were quite a few Hitler admirers in this country, starting with the
German-American Bundt, which had a membership of 200,000 at its peak.
The "borrowed from the left" is just the same silly assinine propaganda that
we've been seeing all over the place the past few days.
>Hitler was liked by some racists (left, right, and center), and by
>Stalinists before he attacked the USSR.
Actually, if he had attacked the USSR FIRST, Americans would have still liked
him. The USSR, after all, was "leftist". But instead, he attacked other
countries, some of which were profitable to Americans. A bad move by the
little paper hanger.
Billy Beck
Malkav <bla...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> "Godwin" ought to have his ass kicked up around his neck.
>
>Well, thank you for sharing.
No charge.
Billy
midt...@slip.net
Steve Casburn wrote:
> In article <E4wF7...@iglou.com>, mken...@iglou.com wrote:
> > Tim Brown:
> > > K. Knopp:
> > >
> > >There are no liberals in the White House!
> >
> > leftist, now they deny Clinton is a leftist.
>
> So, by your "logic," if "the Left" denies that Max Kennedy is a
Not only that, but if someone denies that the Blak Helikoptors are
coming to take us away, then they must be a leftist and a Nazi.
So keep that tinfoil on your head. You may never know what Dan Rather
might walk by.
> --
> Steve Casburn (Casb...@osu.edu)
> "Shut up he explained"
> -- Ring Lardner
--
Midt...@slip.net
Liarman: A name you can trust
Just another Lying Socialist Weasel
midt...@slip.net
From today's Associated Press article:
For $100,000 contributors, there were recepetions at the White House,
invitations to state dinners and briefings with senior officials.
Maybe even a ride on Air Force One with baseball greats Ted Williams
and Joe Dimaggio, and the President.
President George Bush, that is.
The White House and the perks that come with it, it seems, were an
irresistible instrument of political fund-raising long before Bill
Clinton came to Washington.
President Ronald Reagan, for example, greeted big Republican
donors at the White House. He even attended a Roosevelt Room reception
for major contributors to a group that was providing military aid
to Nicaragua's Contra rebels - despite a congressional ban on such
aid.
And long before Representative Newt Gingrich was a household name -
or House Speaker - the Georgia Republican rewarded big contributors
to his GOPAC political organization with invitations to a special
White House reception with Bush.
"Prior to the reception, we will go to the old EXecutive
Office Building for briefings with Cabinet memebers and other
White House officials," Gingrich said in an October 1989 letter
to major GOPAC donors.
"They raise more foreign money," Clinton, with obvious bitterness,
said of Republicans in a speech last week. "They raise more money
in big contributions and we take all the heat. It's a free ride."
Federal election records prove part of Clinton's point:
Republicans do have a perennial advantage in fund raising,
including collections of the large, unregulated "soft money"
donations at the core of Justice Department and congressional
investigations of Democratic fund-raising in the last year's
campaign.
In the 1995-96 cycle, national Republican committees raised
$141 million in soft money, compared with $122 million for
Democratic committees.
And, like Democrats, Republicans have marketed access.
Early last year, for example, the Republican National Committee
promised meetings with Speaker Gingrich, other GOP congressional
leaders and the party's presidential nominee - who had not yet
ben selected - for a $250,000 contribution.
[rest of article deleted. You get the idea.]
Brett Kottmann
President Clinton found guilty of murder!
The DNC says "hey, OJ did it too!"
I guess some weasels don't care that Clinton campaigned
against this sort of behavior, claiming it would never
happen in his administration. Hey, of course Clinton
lies, so what?
Brett
__________________________________________________________
Pathetic, just pathetic.
Loren Petrich
>"a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom.
> When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move
> to limit it. --William J. Clinton, April 19th, 1994
That is the sort of thing one expects to see from the
social-authoritarian branch of the right wing. It's amusing to see a
right-winger criticize him on account of this. And also on searches of
housing projects without warrants; I thought all those law-and-order
right-wingers would be *proud*.
[bogus Hitler quote about gun control deleted...]
Clinton is the opposite of Hitler in some important ways.
Hitler was forceful, Clinton is a waffler.
Hitler believed that anyone not on his side is to be crushed without
mercy, Clinton often tries pathetically to make everybody happy, even
those who would happily kick him in the crotch if they could.
Hitler believed that women ought to be housewives, Clinton happily
accepts female careerism.
Hitler thought that it was Real Germans, and only Real Germans, who ought
to rule, Clinton has bragged about the multiethnicity of his appointments.
One of Hitler's first territorial acquisitions was the annexation of
Austria, Clinton has no interest in annexing Canada.
Hitler wanted to acquire "living space" for the German people in the lands
to the east, Clinton has no interest in trying to turn South America into
Lebensraum for the US.
Hitler had served in the military in WWI, Clinton tried to evade being
sent to Vietnam.
Etc.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Zepp
g...@ix.netcom.com caused us all to grin by saying:
>James Doemer wrote:
>>
>> Tim Brown wrote:
>> >
>> > kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) writes:
>> >
>> > >In article <E4uCK...@iglou.com>, bath...@iglou1.iglou.com (Tim Brown) wrote:
>> >
>> > >> The conservatives of Congress share a lot in common with Hitler. They
>> > >> censor. They suppress dissent. Yes, they even have concentration camps.
>> > >> (Ever heard of "involuntary commitment"?)
>> > >> Watch Phil Gramm give a speech, and you'll notice stylistic
>> > >> similarities as well.
>
>
>"a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom.
> When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move
> to limit it. --William J. Clinton, April 19th, 1994
... he then went on to say that people who said this were wrong. But, being
the ethically bankrupt little conservative that you are, you snipped that.
>
>Mr clinton, in a speech the mourning after his victory, told a dem
>audience that he would be "going after those that disagree with him"...
>yeah, we need to get the conservatives out of washington...
We already got off to a rollicking start with your first cite, which was a
partial quote. Now you want us to believe this "quote", unattributed, but not
made by Clinton, since he doesn't refer to himself in the third person (unlike
certain right-wing radio commentators).
>we need more people like dems diane feinstein and babbs boxes to fight
>for our freedoms.... btw, both these california "conservatives" voted
>for internet censorship
Yep, and they were both wrong. One of the nice things about being a liberal
is that we don't have to agree with our representatives when they fuck up.
Still feeling embarrassed over defending Noot, BTW?
>you might want to open your eyes both you post...
Just got of the boat, did you? What country are you from?
>
>oh yeah.... all those above mentioned "conservates" (slick, di-fi,
>babbs, & most all dems) are in favor of extensive gun control too:
>
>"This year will go down in history. For the first time a
> civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will
> be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will
> follow our lead into the future!"
>
Ah, yes, the fake Hitler quote. He never said that, you know. German had
full gun control immediately after losing WW1.
>
>Did bill clinton said this when he signned gun control legislation?
>
>No, it was said over 60 years ago by another "great" leader like
>clinton...
>
>Adolf Hitler, 1935
>
Gotta stop listien to the NRA. They'll make you sound like a fool.
>> >
>> > >The liberals in the White House share a lot in common with Hitler.
>> >
>> > There are no liberals in the White House!
>>
>> You kidding?? White House is chocked full of liberals.... Some of them just
>> act conservative to please their audience...
>
>put your freedom in the liberals trust and they will for sure take it
>from you...
>(while they tell you it's the other side that you should fear)
>
>bill clinton & the dems...
>
>re-inventing gov't
>re-inventing liberalisum
>re-inventing conservatisum
>re-inventing nazisum
>re-inventing communisum
>re-inventing slavery
>re-inventing servatude
>re-inventing your future & destorying your children's future
>
>call it what you want but it's not freedom and it's not American...
That's an interesting charge, coming from you. Six or seven fake quotes and
flat-out lies, and now you prattle about freedom and being American? Tch,
tch.
Daniel Hugh Nexon
In article <32f4f530...@news.snowcrest.net>,
Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>>"This year will go down in history. For the first time a
>> civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will
>> be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will
>> follow our lead into the future!"
>>
>Ah, yes, the fake Hitler quote. He never said that, you know. German had
>full gun control immediately after losing WW1.
>>
>>Did bill clinton said this when he signned gun control legislation?
>>
>>No, it was said over 60 years ago by another "great" leader like
>>clinton...
>>
>>Adolf Hitler, 1935
>>
>
>Gotta stop listien to the NRA. They'll make you sound like a fool.
The truly ironic part of this fabrication is that Hitler's seizure of power
in Germany was intimately tied to the existance of large private, armed,
armies on both the Nazi and radical left, who undermined public authority.
In Prussia, the private Nazi armed was used to guarantee an electoral
victory through the suppression of his enemies.
In other words, the public orde collapse in Nazi Germany which was both
in part engineered by the Nazis and exploited by them was a result of
having too many MILITIAS around, and could have been avoided by having
more EFFECTIVE laws against private training and firearms (see, e.g.
Mosse, 1985; Arendt, 1975; Peukert, 1982).
Regards, Dan
Department of Political Science
Columbia University
Paul H. Henry
Steve Kangas wrote:
> These sort of "laws" are actually speech codes that have
> no place on the Internet.
Bunk. Godwin's Law (a "law" in the same sense as Murphy's Law) merely
recognizes that when someone has run so completely out of ideas that they
cannot retort without invoking the name of Adolf Hitler in an ad hominem,
then the discussion is manifestly over and the person making the Hitler
reference has lost. It is not a "speech code" in any sense of the word,
any more than recognizing that losers who spam hundreds of newsgroups with
ads for web sites featuring 10,000 NAKED GERLZ!!!!1!!1!1!!!11!! are evil
and should be flamed. "Cannot" and "should not" are nor the same thing.
[...]
> Godwin deserves a big fat Censor-of-the-Year Award for attempting to impose
> speech codes.
Dear Lord, you're an idiot. Do you even know who Mike Godwin is?
--
=============================================================================
_ (phe...@halcyon.com) || Okay, folks. Show's over. Nothing
|_) || to see here. Move along.
| aul H. Henry - Seattle, Wash.||"I'm a hoochie-coochie man!" --Muddy Waters
====================== http://www.halcyon.com/phenry/ =====================
midt...@slip.net
In article <32F465...@dnaco.net>,
bkot...@dnaco.net wrote:
>
> President Clinton found guilty of murder!
>
> The DNC says "hey, OJ did it too!"
>
> I guess some weasels don't care that Clinton campaigned
> against this sort of behavior, claiming it would never
> happen in his administration. Hey, of course Clinton
> lies, so what?
It sure would be nice if you would actually reply to what
I posted instead of deleting it.
But nevertheless, don't you think it is relevant that the
people who are screaming the loudest about the DNC's campaign
policy are doing the exact same thing?
Don't you think that if two people commit a crime that we
should prosecute _both_ people rather than just one of them?
Isn't there a possibility that the Republicans are screaming
so hard because it distracts people from their own indiscretions
in the same matters?
Don't you think that hypocrisy on such a grand scale needs to
be exposed?
> Brett
> __________________________________________________________
> Pathetic, just pathetic.
That both parties are doing it? Yes. That no one is
paying attention to the RNC's actions in these matters? Yes.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Steve Kangas
ain't...@tno.e-mail (Billy Beck) wrote:
> Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
> > True socialism is always democratic, not dictatorial.
>
> Look, Kangas: every classical liberal on the net has been over
> this with you, and I've watched the whole bloody circus for two years
> now. What makes you think a "democra[cy]" is "not dictatorial" to the
> minority?
There you go again, confusing political terms. Perhaps for your birthday
I'll mail you a copy of "The HarperCollins Dictionary of American Government
and Politics." I've read it cover-to-cover; I suggest you do, too.
To wit, "dictatorship" and "democracy" concern who gets to actively exercise
political power. "Frustrated will" concerns who must passively accept a law they
did not agree to. These are vaguely related concepts, but ultimately two
very different things. Yet you confuse them.
You cannot completely eliminate frustrated wills, because everyone has different
opinions, concepts of rights, special interests, and economic and political
capabilities. Therefore, the best we can do is minimize frustrated will as
much as possible. Liberals argue that majority rule is the best way to acheive
that.
And you should bear in mind that even in a completely lawless market, frustrated
wills would abound. All you have to do is visit your local courthouse and see how many
participants in the marketplace are locked in legal combat. The women who are
suing Dow Chemical for leaky silicon breast implants, for example. If you think
the market is not filled with violations of rights and frustrated wills, you're
a blind ideologue.
Also, the majority/minority dichotomy is a false one. We all belong to minorities,
and the horsetrading that goes on between minorities to reach a majority vote
in a democracy is one of the best defenses against the tyranny of the majority.
Sure, clearly-defined minorities like blacks still suffer in a democracy, but
compare their treatment after they got the vote to their treatment before, or
compare their treatment to nonvoting minorities in other countries, and it
becomes blindingly obvious that we treat our voting minorities better than
totalitarians treat their non-voting ones.
>
> Go *wank* with someone else. I know a basket-case when I see
> one.
My my, what sophisticated language. I must say I'm enjoying these one-sided
arguments.
> Billy
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
"Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his opinion prevails at
some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at
other times. Without this mutual disposition we are disjointed individuals,
but not a society."
-- Thomas Jefferson to J. Dickinson, 1801
Billy Beck
Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>You cannot completely eliminate frustrated wills, because everyone has different
>opinions, concepts of rights, special interests, and economic and political
>capabilities. Therefore, the best we can do is minimize frustrated will as
>much as possible. Liberals argue that majority rule is the best way to acheive
>that.
"Might makes right" - Kangas delivers the revolutionary new
epistemology.
Look: if you are arguing that democracy is inept to reconcile
the concepts of rational people with the whims of fools, emotional
"opinions" with reasoned convictions, "special interests" of the
envious or powerful with the earned probity of merit, the welfare of
some with the self-sufficiency of others, then I absolutely agree: it
is manifestly incapable of doing the job and someone must be
sacrificed. And, it is easy enough to wash your hands of others'
"frustration[s]" for, after all, they are not *yours*, are they,
Kangas? It's all simply an abstraction, a lovely parlor game of
Internet fun without consequence out there in the real world where
some peoples' rubber meets the roads.
How "liberal" of you.
In any case...
>And you should bear in mind that even in a completely lawless market, frustrated
>wills would abound. All you have to do is visit your local courthouse and see how many
>participants in the marketplace are locked in legal combat.
"All [I] have to do is visit [my] local courthouse" for an
example of a "completely lawless market"...is that it? Did you really
intend the latter as an example of the former?...or is this simply a
half-baked pair of sentences which dribbled onto your keyboard before
you realized that there is no connection between the two?
>Also, the majority/minority dichotomy is a false one. We all belong to minorities,
>and the horsetrading that goes on between minorities to reach a majority vote
>in a democracy is one of the best defenses against the tyranny of the majority.
Marvelous. I'll trade you dope laws for anti-abortion laws.
Is that it? Would you care to make that sort of a deal with, say, the
"minority" of the religious right?
Speak up, Kangas.
>Sure, clearly-defined minorities like blacks still suffer in a democracy, but
>compare their treatment after they got the vote to their treatment before, or
>compare their treatment to nonvoting minorities in other countries, and it
>becomes blindingly obvious that we treat our voting minorities better than
>totalitarians treat their non-voting ones.
Good deal. They should take what they can get, consider
themselves fortunate, and refect that life could be worse.
What a shining vision of justice. "We've 'overcome' about as
much as we can, this term, folx, so y'all just lie back and take it
until we catch you on the flip side."
>> Go *wank* with someone else. I know a basket-case when I see
>> one.
>
>My my, what sophisticated language. I must say I'm enjoying these one-sided
>arguments.
Of course you are.
That's because this is a *game* to you.
Billy
Brett Kottmann
Steve Kangas wrote:
...
> True socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world.
Play time is over Kangas!
You still haven't answered why Hilter hated Communists!
Time's up, we need an answer!
Brett
______________________________________________________________________________
The Reagan Home Page: http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/reagan.html
Exposing lies about that page:
http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/liarman.html
My home page: http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/brett.html
Brett Kottmann
scot...@maine.maine.edu wrote:
...
> The name of the party (National Socialist Workers
> Party). Why proof fails: proven that the name was chosen for propaganda
> purposes
Hitler joined the NDSP, he did not name it. Socialism was the root
of most continental political movements after 1848.
...
> With this kind of Orwellian newspeak coming from the right, I hate to see
> what's next...
Typical of lying liberals to call the truth "Orwellian".
Tragically ironic to boot.
Brett
______________________________________________________________________________
The Reagan Home Page: http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/reagan.html
Exposing lies about that page:
http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/stilt_lies.html
william c anderson
Billy Beck (ain't...@tno.e-mail) wrote:
:
: >Billy, I haven't trimmed the followup line this time, because you
: >seem to be of the opinion the these messages NEED to be directed to
: >t.p.g. three times. May I ask why?
:
: Sure. Answer: I have no bloody idea. I never touch newsgroup
: headers anymore. It's been months since I did that. You'll have to
: ask someone further up-thread.
Ah. In that case, I apologize.
: >I won't even try the old "there's never been a real socialist
: >government" ploy, although I think there's some merit in it.
: >I'd like to know, though, how you think Mao and Stalin serve to
: >discredit Kropotkin and Goldman.
:
: All four of them deny the right of private property. The
: former pair actually had their chance to practice the doctrine.
:
: The results were crystal clear.
Yes; the results were crystal clear. No doubt. The philosophies
of Mao and Stalin have been utterly discredited by history.
Mao, Stalin, Ayn Rand and Albert Einstein all agreed the Earth was
round. Has this notion also been discredited?
There are significant--nay, vital--differences between Mao and Stalin
on the one hand, and Kropotkin and Red Emma on the other. Lumping
them all into one category is intellectually sloppy.
: >You have a point. Socialism=Hitler, though, still seems to me a
: >valid violation. Can you tell me why it isn't?
:
: Yes.
Cute, Billy.
Bill
william c anderson
Brett Kottmann (bkot...@dnaco.net) wrote:
: President Clinton found guilty of murder!
:
: The DNC says "hey, OJ did it too!"
:
: I guess some weasels don't care that Clinton campaigned
: against this sort of behavior, claiming it would never
: happen in his administration. Hey, of course Clinton
: lies, so what?
That would be a great comeback, Brett, if it didn't come from somebody
who defends the actions of any conservative at any time.
How about a little intellectual consistency, boyo? Hell, you won't
even condemn your compatriots when they resort to making vulgar jokes
about seventeen-year-old girls.
Bill
Tom Potter
In article <32f40517...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>t...@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter) caused us all to grin by saying:
>
>>
>>???????????
>>
>>Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
>
>Of course he did, you damn fool. He was the Chancellor.
So you agree,
the greatest threat to the creative, working peasants
are people on the government payroll, eh what?
The teenage gangs, cults, slave lead revolts, KKK's,
Mafia's, dopers, etc. are trivial threats compared to
the threat offered by people on the government payroll.
Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
Steve Casburn
In article <op3evex...@remus.cs.uml.edu>, Andrew Hall
<ah...@remus.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>
> Brett Kottmann:
>
> > I guess some weasels don't care that Clinton campaigned
> > against this sort of behavior, claiming it would never happen
> > in his administration. Hey, of course Clinton lies, so what?
>
> way political campaigns work these days.
>
> I excuse none of them.
>
> Neither Clinton nor the 25k club in congress.
>
> If the people educate themselves, they would throw
> both parties out on their ear.
...and replace them with what?
And how long will it take for the new parties to develop the same
vices as the old parties?
> But they are too busy watching sitcoms.
Most people aren't interested in politics, and never will be. That's
just a fact of life. (Has anyone ever done a poll to determine how many
people vote because they are interested, informed and want to take part,
versus how many drag themselves to the polls because they consider their
duty to vote?)
Steve
--
Steve Casburn (Casb...@osu.edu)
"Shut up he explained"
-- Ring Lardner, Jr.
Steven R. Fordyce
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>"Steven R. Fordyce" <steven_r...@ccm.jf.intel.com> caused us all to grin
>by saying:
>>"ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>Before you start sucking your bong, you might explain why conservatives
>>>praised Hitler, and the leftists hated him. The conspiracy buffs say
>>>there's a good explanation for this, but they never get around to telling
>>>us what it is. Care to take a run at it?
>>
>>Sure: it isn't true that conservatives praised him and leftists hated him.
>>Hitler never had many admirers in this country, but those he had were
>>from disparate groups from both sides of the political spectrum,
>>especially before Hitler attacked the USSR. Naziism grew out of the
>>left, but borrowed from right (or what was the right in Germany at the
>>time), so this is not surprising.
>
>There were quite a few Hitler admirers in this country, starting with the
>German-American Bundt, which had a membership of 200,000 at its peak.
Exactly my point: they were a very small percentage of voters in the U.S.
>The "borrowed from the left" is just the same silly assinine propaganda that
>we've been seeing all over the place the past few days.
? Please read more carefully.
>>Hitler was liked by some racists (left, right, and center), and by
>>Stalinists before he attacked the USSR.
>
>Actually, if he had attacked the USSR FIRST, Americans would have still liked
>him. The USSR, after all, was "leftist". But instead, he attacked other
>countries, some of which were profitable to Americans. A bad move by the
>little paper hanger.
Your point?
--
ste...@hevanet.com
"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance, and even our very existence depends on it.
Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to our lives."
-- Albert Einstein
To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I
say thee, "Nay!"
K. Knopp
> >>>>> Brett Kottmann writes:
>
> Brett> President Clinton found guilty of murder! The DNC says
> Brett> "hey, OJ did it too!"
>
> Brett> I guess some weasels don't care that Clinton
> Brett> campaigned against this sort of behavior, claiming it would
> Brett> never happen in his administration. Hey, of course Clinton
> Brett> lies, so what?
>
> All sides do it, and probably have to because of the
> way political campaigns work these days.
>
> I excuse none of them.
>
> Neither Clinton nor the 25k club in congress.
>
> If the people educate themselves, the would throw
> both parties out on their ear. But they are too
> busy watching sitcoms.
Yes, both parties can equally be accused of SLEAZY behavior...and that has
always been the case. The problem is that the scandals of late have been
concerning not only sleazy, but ILLEGAL behavior. Most of America will
hold their nose and swallow the sleazy (see Election 96 for example), but
illegal takes a lot more than just a clothespin on the nose to ignore.
scot...@maine.maine.edu
In article <kknopp-0302971921110001@park3_18s.citynet.net>,
kkn...@citynet.net says...
>Yes, both parties can equally be accused of SLEAZY behavior...and that has
>always been the case. The problem is that the scandals of late have been
>concerning not only sleazy, but ILLEGAL behavior.
True. One of Dole's top aids had to pay a fine and I don't remember -- is he
serving time now? Some of Clinton's fundraisers are also going to be
investigated, with uncertain results. Luckily the President now is in a
position where it's in his interest to push for campaign finance reform, and
maybe that will help get Congress to go for a change.
cheers, scott
Rich Travsky
OJ isn't claiming the moral high ground like the republicons
are. Not even a good dodge on the part of the right wing.
> I guess some weasels don't care that Clinton campaigned
> against this sort of behavior, claiming it would never
> happen in his administration. Hey, of course Clinton
> lies, so what?
Tsk. Bonzo campaigned on a promise of balancing the budget
by 1984 and instead ran this country into debt. What was that about
lying?
RT
Between 1980 and 1989, some 138 appointees of the Reagan administration
either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. This
marks the largest collection of political wrongdoers in the nation's
history.
Elite Deviance - David R. Simon & D. Stanley Eitzen
Claude Du Bois
"Steven R. Fordyce" <steven_r...@ccm.jf.intel.com> wrote:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>"Steven R. Fordyce" <steven_r...@ccm.jf.intel.com> caused us all to grin
>>by saying:
>>>"ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>>Before you start sucking your bong, you might explain why conservatives
>>>>praised Hitler, and the leftists hated him. The conspiracy buffs say
>>>>there's a good explanation for this, but they never get around to telling
>>>>us what it is. Care to take a run at it?
>>>
>>>Sure: it isn't true that conservatives praised him and leftists hated him.
>>>Hitler never had many admirers in this country, but those he had were
>>>from disparate groups from both sides of the political spectrum,
>>>especially before Hitler attacked the USSR. Naziism grew out of the
>>>left, but borrowed from right (or what was the right in Germany at the
>>>time), so this is not surprising.
First I suggest that you read some history books on the period from
1924 to 1945, you will find that there was an extremely well
established BUND ( Germany Nazi Organizations ) throughout the U.S..
Most of the people of German Extraction belonged to one! At the same
time you had notable people like Charles Lindburg ( Flew the Atlantic
alone ) and the majority of the conservatives in the U.S. backed
Hitler. Your conservative re-write of History just doesn't hold water!
If you ever take the time to take your nose out of conservative
propaganda history rewrites, you will also see that the vast majority
of the then very conservative Congress were actively backing Hitlers
Power Grabs in Europe! I took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to shame the
Congress into rethinking there Pro-Hitler views!
>>
>>There were quite a few Hitler admirers in this country, starting with the
>>German-American Bundt, which had a membership of 200,000 at its peak.
>Exactly my point: they were a very small percentage of voters in the U.S.
>>The "borrowed from the left" is just the same silly assinine propaganda that
>>we've been seeing all over the place the past few days.
>? Please read more carefully.
>>>Hitler was liked by some racists (left, right, and center), and by
>>>Stalinists before he attacked the USSR.
>>
>>Actually, if he had attacked the USSR FIRST, Americans would have still liked
>>him. The USSR, after all, was "leftist". But instead, he attacked other
>>countries, some of which were profitable to Americans. A bad move by the
>>little paper hanger.
Your ascertion that Russia was " Leftist " is totally incorrect! From
1917 to the breakup of the U.S.S.R. it was a Totalitarian State ( Re:
of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or
hierarchy,) the U.S.S.R. was never a communist State nor did it ever
have Socialist leanings! I suggest you learn the difference! Maybe
then you will understand that Hitler was in no shape or form a
Socialist or have any leaning towards the left! As to Hitler and
Stalin there was no difference in their Ideologies, they were both
Totalitarians!
Brett Kottmann
Rich Travsky (rtra...@uwyo.edu) wrote:
: > Brett Kottmann (bkot...@dnaco.net) wrote:
: > President Clinton found guilty of murder!
: > The DNC says "hey, OJ did it too!"
: OJ isn't claiming the moral high ground like the republicons
: are. Not even a good dodge on the part of the right wing.
You seem to have confused Bill Clinton's "most ethical
administration in history" campaign as a Republican promise.
Brett
_____________________________________________________________________________
For a team that Clinton promised would adhere to a "higher ethical standard"
his administration has presided over an extraordinary amount of corruption
and an unprecedented number of high-level officials forced to resign in
disgrace. The Times (of London), Feb 12, 1995.
Zepp
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>"Steven R. Fordyce" <steven_r...@ccm.jf.intel.com> caused us all to grin
>>by saying:
>>>"ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>>Before you start sucking your bong, you might explain why conservatives
>>>>praised Hitler, and the leftists hated him. The conspiracy buffs say
>>>>there's a good explanation for this, but they never get around to telling
>>>>us what it is. Care to take a run at it?
>>>
>>>Sure: it isn't true that conservatives praised him and leftists hated him.
>>>Hitler never had many admirers in this country, but those he had were
>>>from disparate groups from both sides of the political spectrum,
>>>especially before Hitler attacked the USSR. Naziism grew out of the
>>>left, but borrowed from right (or what was the right in Germany at the
>>>time), so this is not surprising.
>>
>>There were quite a few Hitler admirers in this country, starting with the
>>German-American Bundt, which had a membership of 200,000 at its peak.
>
>Exactly my point: they were a very small percentage of voters in the U.S.
The Bundt members were. But this was an organization that grew to that size
in just a few years. "Liberty Bill" and Aimee Semple McPherson, who commanded
audiences of millions, thought well of Hitler. Huey Long was asked if he
thought Fascism would ever come to America. He replied, "Sure. Only they'll
call it Anti-Fascism.". But I defy you to name anyone from the left who
supported Hitler.
>
>>The "borrowed from the left" is just the same silly assinine propaganda that
>>we've been seeing all over the place the past few days.
>
>? Please read more carefully.
I have. It's asinine propaganda.
>
>>>Hitler was liked by some racists (left, right, and center), and by
>>>Stalinists before he attacked the USSR.
>>
>>Actually, if he had attacked the USSR FIRST, Americans would have still liked
>>him. The USSR, after all, was "leftist". But instead, he attacked other
>>countries, some of which were profitable to Americans. A bad move by the
>>little paper hanger.
>
>Your point?
My point is you keep hoping people will think Hitler was a leftist by
labelling his supporters leftist. The facts contradict you even more strongly
there.
>--
>ste...@hevanet.com
>
>"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
>actions. Our inner balance, and even our very existence depends on it.
>Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to our lives."
> -- Albert Einstein
>
>To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I
>say thee, "Nay!"
>
>
>
>
=====================================================================
"No Keith, I am not a racist, nor have I ever practiced racism. I have
tried to post the facts they have asked for only to be personally
attacked and called a racist for my efforts. My using epithets and
personal attacks against them was only to drop to their level so they
could understand what I was talking about."
--Truth ("Dippy") Mason, giving an "explanation" of his
use of racial epithets.
Zepp
Andrew Hall <ah...@remus.cs.uml.edu> caused us all to grin by saying:
> Steve> just a fact of life. (Has anyone ever done a poll to determine how many
> Steve> people vote because they are interested, informed and want to take part,
> Steve> versus how many drag themselves to the polls because they consider their
> Steve> duty to vote?)
>
>Sounds like a hard poll to design. Could be very
>interesting if done well.
>
It occurs to me that a great indicator question would be, "Did you like any of
the candidates?"
Zepp
kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) caused us all to grin by saying:
>Yes, both parties can equally be accused of SLEAZY behavior...and that has
>always been the case. The problem is that the scandals of late have been
>concerning not only sleazy, but ILLEGAL behavior. Most of America will
>hold their nose and swallow the sleazy (see Election 96 for example), but
>illegal takes a lot more than just a clothespin on the nose to ignore.
Actually, the biggest problem is that most of the sleaze is LEGAL. We need
campaign finance reform desperately. We need to make office seekers
independentant of the need to seek financing from special interests in order
to get their message out.
Steven R. Fordyce
pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) wrote:>>>"Steven R. Fordyce" <steven_r...@ccm.jf.intel.com> caused us all to grin
>>>by saying:
>>>>"ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>Before you start sucking your bong, you might explain why conservatives
>>>>>praised Hitler, and the leftists hated him. The conspiracy buffs say
>>>>>there's a good explanation for this, but they never get around to telling
>>>>>us what it is. Care to take a run at it?
>>>>
>>>>Sure: it isn't true that conservatives praised him and leftists hated him.
>>>>Hitler never had many admirers in this country, but those he had were
>>>>from disparate groups from both sides of the political spectrum,
>>>>especially before Hitler attacked the USSR. Naziism grew out of the
>>>>left, but borrowed from right (or what was the right in Germany at the
>>>>time), so this is not surprising.
>
>1924 to 1945, you will find that there was an extremely well
>established BUND ( Germany Nazi Organizations ) throughout the U.S..
>Most of the people of German Extraction belonged to one!
It so happens that I am of German extraction (I'm half German from my
mother) and I live in a Meninonite (i.e. German) community -- service in
the local church was given in German up until WWII -- and I can tell you
that around here and in my family, your "most" is BS!
If you have a specific reference, I am open to it, but it looks to me
that it is your history that is faulty.
>At the same
>time you had notable people like Charles Lindburg ( Flew the Atlantic
>alone ) and the majority of the conservatives in the U.S. backed
>Hitler.
BS. Please provide a reference that a majority of conservatives backed
Hitler.
>Your conservative re-write of History just doesn't hold water!
>If you ever take the time to take your nose out of conservative
>propaganda history rewrites, you will also see that the vast majority
>of the then very conservative Congress were actively backing Hitlers
>Power Grabs in Europe! I took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to shame the
>Congress into rethinking there Pro-Hitler views!
Speaking of history re-writes! The Democrats had a large majority in
Congress the whole time Hitler was in power. Conservative congress
indeed!
[...]
>>>>Hitler was liked by some racists (left, right, and center), and by
>>>>Stalinists before he attacked the USSR.
>>>
>>>Actually, if he had attacked the USSR FIRST, Americans would have still liked
>>>him. The USSR, after all, was "leftist". But instead, he attacked other
>>>countries, some of which were profitable to Americans. A bad move by the
>>>little paper hanger.
>
> Your ascertion that Russia was " Leftist " is totally incorrect! From
>1917 to the breakup of the U.S.S.R. it was a Totalitarian State ( Re:
>of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or
>hierarchy,) the U.S.S.R. was never a communist State nor did it ever
>have Socialist leanings! I suggest you learn the difference! Maybe
>then you will understand that Hitler was in no shape or form a
>Socialist or have any leaning towards the left! As to Hitler and
>Stalin there was no difference in their Ideologies, they were both
>Totalitarians!
This is a scream! It wasn't me saying that Russia was leftist above, it
was Zepp, a leftist himself. Your argument is not just with the right,
it is with the left.
Steve Casburn
In article <32F7BF...@ix.netcom.com>, Jeff Blunt <jbl...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>
> If you are sick of sleazy politicians, you ought to quit voting for the
> idiots in the Democratic and Republican parties.
>
> Vote for someone ethical, Vote Libertarian! Harry Browne, the 1996
> Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, did not take funds from shady
> characters [...]
He didn't take any funds from Libertarians? ;->
Jeff Blunt
Zepp wrote:
>
> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) caused us all to grin by saying:
>
> >Yes, both parties can equally be accused of SLEAZY behavior...and that has
> >always been the case. The problem is that the scandals of late have been
> >concerning not only sleazy, but ILLEGAL behavior. Most of America will
> >hold their nose and swallow the sleazy (see Election 96 for example), but
> >illegal takes a lot more than just a clothespin on the nose to ignore.
>
> Actually, the biggest problem is that most of the sleaze is LEGAL. We need
> campaign finance reform desperately. We need to make office seekers
> independentant of the need to seek financing from special interests in order
> to get their message out.
>
If you are sick of sleazy politicians, you ought to quit voting for the idiots
in the Democratic and Republican parties.
Vote for someone ethical, Vote Libertarian! Harry Browne, the 1996 Libertarian
Party Presidential Candidate, did not take funds from shady characters as Clinton
others did. In fact, he turned down Federal matching funds that he qualified for
(the first time that ever happened- I know for damned sure no Democrat or Republican
will ever turn down a government handout!).
J.
Claude Du Bois
"Steven R. Fordyce" <steven_r...@ccm.jf.intel.com> wrote:
>pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) wrote:
>>"Steven R. Fordyce" <steven_r...@ccm.jf.intel.com> wrote:
>>>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>"Steven R. Fordyce" <steven_r...@ccm.jf.intel.com> caused us all to grin
>>>>by saying:
>>>>>"ppar...@swbell.net" <ppar...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Before you start sucking your bong, you might explain why conservatives
>>>>>>praised Hitler, and the leftists hated him. The conspiracy buffs say
>>>>>>there's a good explanation for this, but they never get around to telling
>>>>>>us what it is. Care to take a run at it?
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure: it isn't true that conservatives praised him and leftists hated him.
>>>>>Hitler never had many admirers in this country, but those he had were
>>>>>from disparate groups from both sides of the political spectrum,
>>>>>especially before Hitler attacked the USSR. Naziism grew out of the
>>>>>left, but borrowed from right (or what was the right in Germany at the
>>>>>time), so this is not surprising.
>>
>> First I suggest that you read some history books on the period from
>>1924 to 1945, you will find that there was an extremely well
>>established BUND ( Germany Nazi Organizations ) throughout the U.S..
>>Most of the people of German Extraction belonged to one!
>It so happens that I am of German extraction (I'm half German from my
>mother) and I live in a Meninonite (i.e. German) community -- service in
>the local church was given in German up until WWII -- and I can tell you
>that around here and in my family, your "most" is BS!
Are attempting to say that (1) there were no BUNDS? (2) That the
majority of people in Congress during the 1924 to 1941 time period
were not in fact conservative? I suggest to you that even though
F.D.R. was President, that Congress was in fact conservative and that
the a large number of programs F.D.R. instituted were by executive
order and by threats of expanding the size of the Supreme Court (
Court Packing.)
>If you have a specific reference, I am open to it, but it looks to me
>that it is your history that is faulty.
>>At the same
>>time you had notable people like Charles Lindburg ( Flew the Atlantic
>>alone ) and the majority of the conservatives in the U.S. backed
>>Hitler.
>BS. Please provide a reference that a majority of conservatives backed
>Hitler.
(1) Congress refused to back the British or the French in 1939 to Nov.
1941, which meant that no U.S. made Arms were allowed to go to these
countries who were at WAR with Germany! (2) F.D.R. circumvented this
by the use of " Lend Lease!" (3) Congress lowered the number of legal
immigrants allowed to enter the U.S. during the 1938 to 1941 period!
(4) There was a very strong bias against Jews in this country, and
people here refused to believe anything reported about Nazi
Concentration Camps and the extermination of Jews!
>>Your conservative re-write of History just doesn't hold water!
>>If you ever take the time to take your nose out of conservative
>>propaganda history rewrites, you will also see that the vast majority
>>of the then very conservative Congress were actively backing Hitlers
>>Power Grabs in Europe! I took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to shame the
>>Congress into rethinking there Pro-Hitler views!
>Speaking of history re-writes! The Democrats had a large majority in
>Congress the whole time Hitler was in power. Conservative congress
>indeed!
From 1925 to 1947 the Senate was controlled by Republicans ie:
Majority leaders 1925 to 1929 Charles Curtis- R. Kan. - 1929 to 1933
James E. Watson - R. Ind. - 1933 to 1944 Charles L. McNary - R. Ore.
While in the House it was controlled by Republicans from 1927 to 1933.
and the Supreme Court was in Republican Hands from 1924 to 1942.
On Sept 5, 1939 the U.S. Congress declares U.S. Neutrality in European
War!
>[...]
>>>>>Hitler was liked by some racists (left, right, and center), and by
>>>>>Stalinists before he attacked the USSR.
>>>
>>>>Actually, if he had attacked the USSR FIRST, Americans would have still liked
>>>>him. The USSR, after all, was "leftist". But instead, he attacked other
>>>>countries, some of which were profitable to Americans. A bad move by the
>>>>little paper hanger.
The U.S.S.R. was never a Leftist State, in was in fact a Totalitarian
State! Something which seems to confuse you Republicans and
conservatives.
>>
>> Your ascertion that Russia was " Leftist " is totally incorrect! From
>>1917 to the breakup of the U.S.S.R. it was a Totalitarian State ( Re:
>>of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or
>>hierarchy,) the U.S.S.R. was never a communist State nor did it ever
>>have Socialist leanings! I suggest you learn the difference! Maybe
>>then you will understand that Hitler was in no shape or form a
>>Socialist or have any leaning towards the left! As to Hitler and
>>Stalin there was no difference in their Ideologies, they were both
>>Totalitarians!
>This is a scream! It wasn't me saying that Russia was leftist above, it
>was Zepp, a leftist himself. Your argument is not just with the right,
>it is with the left.
>--
My argument is against ignorance whether it be from the Left or the
Right, and those who wish to re-write history for there own
ideaological point of view!
Michael Zarlenga
: Peddling White House Access began before Clinton
Ahhh yes, the cry of the desperate Clinton supporter.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
AMA on Clinton's drug policy: "Misguided, heavy-handed and inhumane."
Steven R. Fordyce
No, I am challenging your contention that *most* people of German
extraction belonged to one or that they were in any meaningful sense
right-wing.
>(2) That the majority of people in Congress during the 1924 to 1941
>time period were not in fact conservative?
No, I'm saying that they were not conservative from 1933 to 1941 (and
beyond). The notion that they were is beyond absurd.
>I suggest to you that even though F.D.R. was President, that Congress
>was in fact conservative and that the a large number of programs F.D.R.
>instituted were by executive order and by threats of expanding the size
>of the Supreme Court (Court Packing.)
The threat of court packing only worked because FDR had the support of
the Senate (which has to approve his nominations, remember). Moreover,
FDR made the threat of court packing because the Supreme Court was
ruling unConstitutional FDR's program *which had passed Congress*. You
are proving me right and discrediting yourself.
>>If you have a specific reference, I am open to it, but it looks to me
>>that it is your history that is faulty.
This is still true.
>>>At the same
>>>time you had notable people like Charles Lindburg ( Flew the Atlantic
>>>alone ) and the majority of the conservatives in the U.S. backed
>>>Hitler.
>
>>BS. Please provide a reference that a majority of conservatives backed
>>Hitler.
>
> (1) Congress refused to back the British or the French in 1939 to Nov.
>1941, which meant that no U.S. made Arms were allowed to go to these
>countries who were at WAR with Germany!
The majority was isolationist (in both the public and Congress). You
are the first I've seen say this meant the Democrat controlled Congress
was conservative. On the contrary I have seen it argued that the left
was isolationist in this period in deference to the Hitler-Stalin pact
which started WWII.[1]
>(2) F.D.R. circumvented this
>by the use of " Lend Lease!" (3) Congress lowered the number of legal
>immigrants allowed to enter the U.S. during the 1938 to 1941 period!
>(4) There was a very strong bias against Jews in this country, and
>people here refused to believe anything reported about Nazi
>Concentration Camps and the extermination of Jews!
None of this shows that they were conservative. Although it is a common
slander of the left, hatred of Jews is not a feature of conservatism.
>>>Your conservative re-write of History just doesn't hold water!
>>>If you ever take the time to take your nose out of conservative
>>>propaganda history rewrites, you will also see that the vast majority
>>>of the then very conservative Congress were actively backing Hitlers
>>>Power Grabs in Europe! I took the bombing of Pearl Harbor to shame the
>>>Congress into rethinking there Pro-Hitler views!
>
>>Speaking of history re-writes! The Democrats had a large majority in
>>Congress the whole time Hitler was in power. Conservative congress
>>indeed!
>
>From 1925 to 1947 the Senate was controlled by Republicans ie:
>Majority leaders 1925 to 1929 Charles Curtis- R. Kan. - 1929 to 1933
>James E. Watson - R. Ind. - 1933 to 1944 Charles L. McNary - R. Ore.
>While in the House it was controlled by Republicans from 1927 to 1933.
>and the Supreme Court was in Republican Hands from 1924 to 1942.
> On Sept 5, 1939 the U.S. Congress declares U.S. Neutrality in European
>War!
None of this shows that Congress was conservative then, and Hitler
wasn't in power in 1924.
>>>>>>Hitler was liked by some racists (left, right, and center), and by
>>>>>>Stalinists before he attacked the USSR.
>
>>>>
>>>>>Actually, if he had attacked the USSR FIRST, Americans would have still
>>>>>liked him. The USSR, after all, was "leftist". But instead, he
>>>>>attacked other countries, some of which were profitable to Americans. A
>>>>>bad move by the little paper hanger.
That's "paperhanger", and I read that it was a myth that he was one.
> The U.S.S.R. was never a Leftist State, in was in fact a Totalitarian
>State! Something which seems to confuse you Republicans and
>conservatives.
That it was totalitarian doesn't mean it was not leftist. It can be
argued totalitarianism is a feature of leftism.[1] In any case,
totalitarianism is the opposite of the individualism of the right.
Let's see what leading leftists of the day had to say about the USSR
(just after the Hitler-Stalin pact):
"The Soviet Union considers political dictatorship a transitional form
and has shown a steadily expanding democracy in every sphere. Its
epoch-making new constitution guarantees Soviet citizens universal
suffrage, civil liberties, the right to employment, to leisure, to free
medical care, to material security in sickness and in old age, to
equality of the sexes in all fields of activity and to equality of all
races and nationalities."
-- From a newspaper ad signed by: Jay Allen, Henry Pratt Fairchild,
Waldo Frank, Loe Hubermann, George Kaufmann, Paul de Kruif, Max Lerner,
Clifford Odets, Frederick L. Schumann, George Seldes, James Thurber,
Richard Wright, Dashiell Hammett, Vincent Sheean, Maxwell Stuart --
some leading lights of the left in the U.S. at the time.
>>> Your ascertion that Russia was " Leftist " is totally incorrect! From
>>>1917 to the breakup of the U.S.S.R. it was a Totalitarian State ( Re:
>>>of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or
>>>hierarchy,) the U.S.S.R. was never a communist State nor did it ever
>>>have Socialist leanings! I suggest you learn the difference! Maybe
>>>then you will understand that Hitler was in no shape or form a
>>>Socialist or have any leaning towards the left! As to Hitler and
>>>Stalin there was no difference in their Ideologies, they were both
>>>Totalitarians!
>
>>This is a scream! It wasn't me saying that Russia was leftist above, it
>>was Zepp, a leftist himself. Your argument is not just with the right,
>>it is with the left.
>
> My argument is against ignorance whether it be from the Left or the
>Right, and those who wish to re-write history for there own
>ideaological point of view!
Physician heal thy self. You are calling conservative or right-wing
anything you don't like or approve of, while ignoring the philosophical
underpinnings of those things. Please read "The Road to Serfdom", by F.
A. Hayek and or [1].
Both National Socialism and Soviet Communism were collective:
individuals all were to work, not for themselves, but for the state, the
party or "the people". This is the exact opposite of the view of
conservatives -- that people should work for themselves -- but it is a
near cousin of what you call socialism (the opposite of personalism,
afterall).
What you call socialism is a fantasy and will always be so (because
people will not willingly vote to be slaves of a national collective), but I
don't even agree that it is a good fantasy. I consider it, even if it
existed, to be unjust and immoral because people wouldn't be able to
work for themselves, but only the collective.
One of the following was said by Hitler, the other by Lenin. Can you
tell which was which?
"Right is what benefits the People."
"Right is what benefits the Party"
Please explain why the views expressed above should be placed on the
right. I can tell you why they belong on the left (the denial of moral
absolutes).
--
ste...@hevanet.com
"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance, and even our very existence depends on it.
Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to our lives."
-- Albert Einstein
To those that wouldst query, "Dost thou speaketh for thine employer?", I
say thee, "Nay!"
[1] "Leftism Revisted", Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
K. Knopp
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) comically wrote:
> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) caused us all to grin by saying:
>
> >Yes, both parties can equally be accused of SLEAZY behavior...and that has
> >always been the case. The problem is that the scandals of late have been
> >concerning not only sleazy, but ILLEGAL behavior. Most of America will
> >hold their nose and swallow the sleazy (see Election 96 for example), but
> >illegal takes a lot more than just a clothespin on the nose to ignore.
>
> Actually, the biggest problem is that most of the sleaze is LEGAL. We need
> campaign finance reform desperately. We need to make office seekers
> independentant of the need to seek financing from special interests in order
> to get their message out.
None of this "reform" stuff will happen until we are able to enforce the
laws we currently have. What makes you think that people who are currently
breaking the law will give two hoots as to what new reforms say?
I say, punish severely those who break the law and that itself will reform
campaigns quite a bit. Let's do that first before messing with the
Constitution.
Steven R. Fordyce
pla...@erols.com (Claude Du Bois) wrote:
>"Steven R. Fordyce" <steven_r...@ccm.jf.intel.com> wrote:
>>Speaking of history re-writes! The Democrats had a large majority in
>>Congress the whole time Hitler was in power. Conservative congress
>>indeed!
>
>From 1925 to 1947 the Senate was controlled by Republicans ie:
>Majority leaders 1925 to 1929 Charles Curtis- R. Kan. - 1929 to 1933
>James E. Watson - R. Ind. - 1933 to 1944 Charles L. McNary - R. Ore.
>While in the House it was controlled by Republicans from 1927 to 1933.
When I responded to this before, I thought this was wrong, but I wanted
to check to be sure. Where did you get this nonsense? The following
table comes from The World Almanac, 1947, page 801 (I filled in the
years):
Senate House
Year Congress Total Rep Dem Total Rep Dem
1925 69th 96 54 40 435 247 183
1927 70th 96 48 47 435 237 195
1929 71st 96 56 39 435 267 163
1931 72 96 48 47 435 220 214 (a)
1933 73 96 36 59 435 117 313
1935 74 96 25 69 435 103 322
1937 75 96 17 75 435 89 333
1939 76 96 23 69 435 169 262
1941 77 96 28 66 435 162 267
1943 78 96 38 57 435 209 222
1945 79 96 38 57 435 190 243
1947 80 96 51 45 435 246 188
(a) Democrats organized the House due to Republican deaths.
The number of Republicans and Democrats don't add to the total because
of independents, etc. The years refer to the start of that congress
(Jan 3rd).
So, Democrats overwhelmingly controlled both houses from 1933 through
1946 and had effective control of the House in the 72nd congress, and
were very close in the Senate. The Senate majority was filibuster proof
up until the 78th congress. 1924 was the year Hitler was released from
prison, not the year he came to power; that was 1933 (or was it 1932?).
So what I said was exactly correct. Moreover, the Republicans of those
years were not as conservative as Republicans today. They offered no
ideological opposition to FDR's programs . . . they just thought FDR
went too far too fast.
I am at a loss to understand how you could have been so absurdly
mistaken. There was in fact a Republican senator from Oregon named
Charles L. McNary, who died in office in 1944, but Republicans were a
minority at the time. Unless you have an explanation, I will have to
conclude you are the one trying to rewrite history. In any case, you
are more in need of rereading your history than I am.
Daniel Hugh Nexon
The relevant question is not whether Democrats or Republicans controlled
the Congress, but the distribution of political views on foreign policy
of the Congress -- and, I suppose, how that correlated with views other
ideologies.
Regards, Dan
Grad Student, Department of Political Science, Columbia University
Zepp
ain't...@tno.e-mail (Billy Beck) caused us all to grin by saying:
>
>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
>>You cannot completely eliminate frustrated wills, because everyone has different
>>opinions, concepts of rights, special interests, and economic and political
>>capabilities. Therefore, the best we can do is minimize frustrated will as
>>much as possible. Liberals argue that majority rule is the best way to acheive
>>that.
>
> "Might makes right" - Kangas delivers the revolutionary new
>epistemology.
No, "might makes right" means Rule. With or without any majority, and the
number of people suffering is irrelevant. One addition I could make to
Steve's excellent post is that in our system, there are constitutional
constraints limiting majority rule, as well, since the dictatorship of the mob
is something to genuinely fear. "Die in a death camp--ten million dittoheads
can't be wrong" is as good a way of summing up the worst in majority rule.
>
> Look: if you are arguing that democracy is inept to reconcile
>the concepts of rational people with the whims of fools, emotional
>"opinions" with reasoned convictions, "special interests" of the
>envious or powerful with the earned probity of merit, the welfare of
>some with the self-sufficiency of others, then I absolutely agree: it
>is manifestly incapable of doing the job and someone must be
>sacrificed. And, it is easy enough to wash your hands of others'
>"frustration[s]" for, after all, they are not *yours*, are they,
>Kangas? It's all simply an abstraction, a lovely parlor game of
>Internet fun without consequence out there in the real world where
>some peoples' rubber meets the roads.
>
With a few exceptions, we all have lives outside of Usenet. I sometimes have
a frustrated customer whose source of frustration strikes me as foolish.
Nonetheless, being a reasonably intelligent business man, I must address that
frustration, and attempt to remedy same. Politics works the same way, and
often on about the same scale. I am far less worried about a customer who
expresses a frustration--even one having nothing to do with my services--then
I am about the one who suffers in silence.
In a similar vein, some of us here may regard you as a pure-D fool. But
nobody that I've seen has disputed the value of you being able to vent your
frustration.
> How "liberal" of you.
>
> In any case...
>
>>And you should bear in mind that even in a completely lawless market, frustrated
>>wills would abound. All you have to do is visit your local courthouse and see how many
>>participants in the marketplace are locked in legal combat.
>
> "All [I] have to do is visit [my] local courthouse" for an
>example of a "completely lawless market"...is that it? Did you really
>intend the latter as an example of the former?...or is this simply a
>half-baked pair of sentences which dribbled onto your keyboard before
>you realized that there is no connection between the two?
>
>>Also, the majority/minority dichotomy is a false one. We all belong to minorities,
>>and the horsetrading that goes on between minorities to reach a majority vote
>>in a democracy is one of the best defenses against the tyranny of the majority.
>
> Marvelous. I'll trade you dope laws for anti-abortion laws.
>Is that it? Would you care to make that sort of a deal with, say, the
>"minority" of the religious right?
Now, THERE'S a group that would go well out of it's way to address the
frustrations of non Christians. Not.
>
> Speak up, Kangas.
>
>>Sure, clearly-defined minorities like blacks still suffer in a democracy, but
>>compare their treatment after they got the vote to their treatment before, or
>>compare their treatment to nonvoting minorities in other countries, and it
>>becomes blindingly obvious that we treat our voting minorities better than
>>totalitarians treat their non-voting ones.
>
> Good deal. They should take what they can get, consider
>themselves fortunate, and refect that life could be worse.
No, they should reflect that it can be better. That's what our system, based
on laws, allows.
>
> What a shining vision of justice. "We've 'overcome' about as
>much as we can, this term, folx, so y'all just lie back and take it
>until we catch you on the flip side."
>
>>> Go *wank* with someone else. I know a basket-case when I see
>>> one.
>>
>>My my, what sophisticated language. I must say I'm enjoying these one-sided
>>arguments.
>
> Of course you are.
>
> That's because this is a *game* to you.
>
What is it to you? What makes these discussions so searingly important to you
that you trivialize the meaning they might have for others?
Zepp
t...@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter) caused us all to grin by saying:
>In <32f236f1...@news.netheaven.com> t...@uFaa.com (Thomas
>Steegmann) writes:
>>
>>On 31 Jan 1997 17:27:09 GMT, t...@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>???????????
>>>
>>>Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
>>
>> Come on tom, you're being rediculous. I'll make a similar
>>comparison for you: Didn't Jeffrey Dalhmer work for himself? What
>>about Charles Manson? Hey for that matter, those two and hitler all
>>drank milk too!!!!!!!! See??????????????????? Don't be stupid.
>
>Are you suggesting that neurotic, brutal people
>in the private sector are as great a threat to
>the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
>as the same person in government?
Absolutely. Charles Keating, Leona Helmsley, and Rupert Murdoch are NOT
working for your best interests, you know.
>
>Would you like to see a Jeffrey Dalhmer workinf
>for the police department, FBI, CIA or the BATF?
>
>And if they were, how would you ever know it?
>
>And if it got out some how that someone like this
>was in the government, how would you fire them or
>get them prosecuted?
>
>Have you every heard of "the brotherhood"?
>
>Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
The "brotherhood", eh? Secret handshakes, world-wide conspiracies, black
helicopters, all that neat stuff?
Zepp
t...@earthlink.net (Tom Potter) caused us all to grin by saying:
>In article <32f40517...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>t...@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter) caused us all to grin by saying:
>>
>>>
>>>???????????
>>>
>>>Tom Potter http://pobox.com/~tdp
>>
>>Of course he did, you damn fool. He was the Chancellor.
>
>So you agree,
>the greatest threat to the creative, working peasants
>are people on the government payroll, eh what?
No. I agree that Hitler got paid for being Chancellor.
>
>The teenage gangs, cults, slave lead revolts, KKK's,
>Mafia's, dopers, etc. are trivial threats compared to
>the threat offered by people on the government payroll.
I would be a lot more worried about government if you were in it.
Billy Beck
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>No, "might makes right" means Rule. With or without any majority, and the
>number of people suffering is irrelevant.
(narrow glare)
>In a similar vein, some of us here may regard you as a pure-D fool.
"Look into my eyes," Zepp.
There's manifest *toads* running a rotting government and
smiling those drippy grins at *fuckups* like you who come running here
with these bloody lies about all this rancid stink in the land, and
you can't even find a single burnt church in Arkansas.
And I'm the fool.
Fine, Zepp. You get to "regard" me.
Billy
Zepp
kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) caused us all to grin by saying:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) comically wrote:
>
>> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) caused us all to grin by saying:
>>
>> >Yes, both parties can equally be accused of SLEAZY behavior...and that has
>> >always been the case. The problem is that the scandals of late have been
>> >concerning not only sleazy, but ILLEGAL behavior. Most of America will
>> >hold their nose and swallow the sleazy (see Election 96 for example), but
>> >illegal takes a lot more than just a clothespin on the nose to ignore.
>>
>> Actually, the biggest problem is that most of the sleaze is LEGAL. We need
>> campaign finance reform desperately. We need to make office seekers
>> independentant of the need to seek financing from special interests in order
>> to get their message out.
>
>None of this "reform" stuff will happen until we are able to enforce the
>laws we currently have. What makes you think that people who are currently
>breaking the law will give two hoots as to what new reforms say?
Well, what laws are being broken? We have a wealth publisher who offered the
Speaker of the House a $4.5 million advance for a mediocre book that
subsequently made less than $600,000 in profits. We have Indonesian gardeners
coughing up $100,000 for Clinton's campaign. All quite legal. Corrupt as
hell, but legal. Our campaign laws suck.
>
>I say, punish severely those who break the law and that itself will reform
>campaigns quite a bit. Let's do that first before messing with the
>Constitution.
Who the hell said anything about messing with the Constitution? Certainly not
I! But we can obviate the power of money in campaigns. The airwaves are a
public resource--the public should demand that free air time be provided
candidates for public office.
Zepp
Brett Kottmann <ro...@127.0.0.1> caused us all to grin by saying:
>Steve Kangas wrote:
>...
>> True socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world.
>
> Play time is over Kangas!
>
> You still haven't answered why Hilter hated Communists!
He hated them because they were Slavs and other "Mud Races". I mean, can you
really see HITLER attacking someone for oppressing free people? Really?
>
> Time's up, we need an answer!
>
>Brett
>______________________________________________________________________________
>The Reagan Home Page: http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/reagan.html
>Exposing lies about that page:
>http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/liarman.html
>My home page: http://www.dnaco.net/~bkottman/brett.html
K. Knopp
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) comically wrote:
> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) caused us all to grin by saying:
<SNIP>
> >None of this "reform" stuff will happen until we are able to enforce the
> >laws we currently have. What makes you think that people who are currently
> >breaking the law will give two hoots as to what new reforms say?
>
> Well, what laws are being broken? We have a wealth publisher who offered the
Laws against foreign contributions, laws against using taxpayer funds for
political gain, laws against using the White House for direct fund raising
purposes.......should I go on?
> Speaker of the House a $4.5 million advance for a mediocre book that
> subsequently made less than $600,000 in profits. We have Indonesian gardeners
> coughing up $100,000 for Clinton's campaign. All quite legal. Corrupt as
> hell, but legal. Our campaign laws suck.
A. Mr. Gingrich ended up declining that advance, so nothing illegal or
unethical was done (by the way, do you know how much Marsha Clark is
getting for her book? I believe about the same price as Newt was
offered....and didn't Dick Morris get 2 mill., and his book is sinking
faster than the Titanic)
B. An Indonesian giving any amount of money to a political campaign is not
just corrupt....but ILLEGAL! Check your facts....
> >I say, punish severely those who break the law and that itself will reform
> >campaigns quite a bit. Let's do that first before messing with the
> >Constitution.
>
> Who the hell said anything about messing with the Constitution? Certainly not
> I! But we can obviate the power of money in campaigns. The airwaves are a
> public resource--the public should demand that free air time be provided
> candidates for public office.
Some of the Democrats (I believe one of the Kennedy's in particular) are
suggesting a Constitutional amemdment to allow the curtailing of US
citizen's contributions, which the Supreme Court has deemed "free speach".
The only way to implement some of this campaign reform is through a
amendment.
Fetus
K. Knopp wrote:
> The only way to implement some of this campaign reform is through a
> amendment.
All right! Let's do it! I certainly have no problem with Big Money
having less influence over our political process...
Fetus
This is not my real email address
Zepp wrote:
>
> Brett Kottmann <ro...@127.0.0.1> caused us all to grin by saying:
...
> > You still haven't answered why Hilter hated Communists!
>
> He hated them because they were Slavs and other "Mud Races". I mean, can you
> really see HITLER attacking someone for oppressing free people? Really?
Nope! He hated them because he felt that Marx was subverted by
Jews.
Brett
_____________________________________________________________________
Not because they were communists, or socialists. Simply because
they were "controlled by Jews".
Zepp
ain't...@tno.e-mail (Billy Beck) caused us all to grin by saying:
>
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>>No, "might makes right" means Rule. With or without any majority, and the
>>number of people suffering is irrelevant.
>
> (narrow glare)
>
>>In a similar vein, some of us here may regard you as a pure-D fool.
>
> "Look into my eyes," Zepp.
>
>
> There's manifest *toads* running a rotting government and
>smiling those drippy grins at *fuckups* like you who come running here
>with these bloody lies about all this rancid stink in the land, and
>you can't even find a single burnt church in Arkansas.
>
> And I'm the fool.
>
> Fine, Zepp. You get to "regard" me.
I figure I'll see you in the evening news one of these days. The only
questions are when, and how many you'll hurt before the cops take you out.
>
>
>Billy
>
>Anthology
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Daniel Hugh Nexon
In article <32FE87...@127.0.0.1>,
This is not my real email address <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>Zepp wrote:
>> really see HITLER attacking someone for oppressing free people? Really?
>
> Nope! He hated them because he felt that Marx was subverted by
>Jews.
The images conjured up by this sentence are rather amusing; however, I
suggest that you continue to misunderstand the quotation you are citing.
James Doemer
Zepp wrote:
>
> ain't...@tno.e-mail (Billy Beck) caused us all to grin by saying:
>
> >
> >ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
> >
> >>No, "might makes right" means Rule. With or without any majority, and the
> >>number of people suffering is irrelevant.
> >
> >
> >>In a similar vein, some of us here may regard you as a pure-D fool.
> >
> >
> >
> > There's manifest *toads* running a rotting government and
> >smiling those drippy grins at *fuckups* like you who come running here
> >with these bloody lies about all this rancid stink in the land, and
> >you can't even find a single burnt church in Arkansas.
> >
> > And I'm the fool.
> >
> > Fine, Zepp. You get to "regard" me.
>
> I figure I'll see you in the evening news one of these days. The only
> questions are when, and how many you'll hurt before the cops take you out.
> >
> >
> >Billy
> >
> >Anthology
> >http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
>
> "No Keith, I am not a racist, nor have I ever practiced racism. I have
> tried to post the facts they have asked for only to be personally
> attacked and called a racist for my efforts. My using epithets and
> personal attacks against them was only to drop to their level so they
> could understand what I was talking about."
> --Truth ("Dippy") Mason, giving an "explanation" of his
> use of racial epithets.
>
> Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
> =====================================================================
Hey Zepp! Did you ever find that church??
Zepp
James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
>Zepp wrote:
>>
>> ain't...@tno.e-mail (Billy Beck) caused us all to grin by saying:
>>
>> >
>> >ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>> >
>> >>No, "might makes right" means Rule. With or without any majority, and the
>> >>number of people suffering is irrelevant.
>> >
>> > (narrow glare)
>> >
>> >>In a similar vein, some of us here may regard you as a pure-D fool.
>> >
>> > "Look into my eyes," Zepp.
>> >
>> >
>> > There's manifest *toads* running a rotting government and
>> >smiling those drippy grins at *fuckups* like you who come running here
>> >with these bloody lies about all this rancid stink in the land, and
>> >you can't even find a single burnt church in Arkansas.
>> >
>> > And I'm the fool.
>> >
>> > Fine, Zepp. You get to "regard" me.
>>
>> I figure I'll see you in the evening news one of these days. The only
>> questions are when, and how many you'll hurt before the cops take you out.
>> >
>> >
>> >Billy
>> >
>> >Anthology
>> >http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
>>
>> =====================================================================
>> "No Keith, I am not a racist, nor have I ever practiced racism. I have
>> tried to post the facts they have asked for only to be personally
>> attacked and called a racist for my efforts. My using epithets and
>> personal attacks against them was only to drop to their level so they
>> could understand what I was talking about."
>> --Truth ("Dippy") Mason, giving an "explanation" of his
>> use of racial epithets.
>>
>> Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
>> =====================================================================
>
>
>Hey Zepp! Did you ever find that church??
Nope. Did you ever find anything besides chamber of commerce claims
from the local rag?
=====================================================================
As a liberal, I think tolerance and understanding is all fine and
good. But that doesn't mean I have to suffer fools gladly. I
disrespect ignorance. I despise willful ignorance.
And I detest dittoheads.
Billy Beck
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>James Doemer <big...@provide.net> wrote:
>>Hey Zepp! Did you ever find that church??
>
>Nope. Did you ever find anything besides chamber of commerce claims
>from the local rag?
Nevermind that. We're talking about Bill Clinton, and we have
been for weeks.
Now, what do you suppose made him *lie* like that?
Billy
Zepp
kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) caused us all to grin by saying:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) comically wrote:
>
>> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) caused us all to grin by saying:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> >None of this "reform" stuff will happen until we are able to enforce the
>> >laws we currently have. What makes you think that people who are currently
>> >breaking the law will give two hoots as to what new reforms say?
>>
>> Well, what laws are being broken? We have a wealth publisher who offered the
>
>Laws against foreign contributions, laws against using taxpayer funds for
>political gain, laws against using the White House for direct fund raising
>purposes.......should I go on?
Yeah. You'll eventually hit something that, at this time, is illegal
eventually. None of those things are illegal. They should be.
>
>> Speaker of the House a $4.5 million advance for a mediocre book that
>> subsequently made less than $600,000 in profits. We have Indonesian gardeners
>> coughing up $100,000 for Clinton's campaign. All quite legal. Corrupt as
>> hell, but legal. Our campaign laws suck.
>
>A. Mr. Gingrich ended up declining that advance, so nothing illegal or
>unethical was done (by the way, do you know how much Marsha Clark is
>getting for her book? I believe about the same price as Newt was
>offered....and didn't Dick Morris get 2 mill., and his book is sinking
>faster than the Titanic)
He gave it up under a huge public outcry. And is Marsha Clark Speaker of the
House? Is she in a position to influence legislation pending that directly
affects the Publisher in question? Did she accept $4.5 in advances from OJ
Simpson before the trial began?
>B. An Indonesian giving any amount of money to a political campaign is not
>just corrupt....but ILLEGAL! Check your facts....
>
>> >I say, punish severely those who break the law and that itself will reform
>> >campaigns quite a bit. Let's do that first before messing with the
>> >Constitution.
>>
>> Who the hell said anything about messing with the Constitution? Certainly not
>> I! But we can obviate the power of money in campaigns. The airwaves are a
>> public resource--the public should demand that free air time be provided
>> candidates for public office.
>
>Some of the Democrats (I believe one of the Kennedy's in particular) are
>suggesting a Constitutional amemdment to allow the curtailing of US
>citizen's contributions, which the Supreme Court has deemed "free speach".
>The only way to implement some of this campaign reform is through a
>amendment.
First I've heard about that, and I don't approve. The public OWNS the
airwaves, despite what Murdoch thinks. Give office seekers opportunity to
have their voices heard. Lessen the power of the purse, and you've got half
of campaign finance reform solved.
Mike Jones
What do you mean "WAS"?
As if he ever stopped being one?
MIke.
K. Knopp
In article <330514dd...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net
(Zepp) wrote:
> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) caused us all to grin by saying:
<SNIP>
> >Laws against foreign contributions, laws against using taxpayer funds for
> >political gain, laws against using the White House for direct fund raising
> >purposes.......should I go on?
>
> Yeah. You'll eventually hit something that, at this time, is illegal
> eventually. None of those things are illegal. They should be.
I'd get off that crack pipe you must be smoking and realize that ALL of
what I mentioned IS illegal. VERY ILLEGAL...
> >A. Mr. Gingrich ended up declining that advance, so nothing illegal or
> >unethical was done (by the way, do you know how much Marsha Clark is
> >getting for her book? I believe about the same price as Newt was
> >offered....and didn't Dick Morris get 2 mill., and his book is sinking
> >faster than the Titanic)
>
> He gave it up under a huge public outcry. And is Marsha Clark Speaker of the
> House? Is she in a position to influence legislation pending that directly
> affects the Publisher in question? Did she accept $4.5 in advances from OJ
> Simpson before the trial began?
No. But your argument that "he gave it up" is laughable. You must first
accept something before you can "give it up". You see, Newt never accepted
the advance because it would have the appearance of impropriety. The
example you are trying to make would be correct if Newt accepted the money,
and then had to give it back after getting caught with it. Kinda like what
the DNC has been doing.
Michael Beck
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
But Clinton has taken it to an unprecidented level. He has taken the
White House to the level of Arkansas politics.
Zepp
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:03:01 -0500, kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp)
wrote:
>In article <330514dd...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net
>(Zepp) wrote:
>
>> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) caused us all to grin by saying:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> >Laws against foreign contributions, laws against using taxpayer funds for
>> >political gain, laws against using the White House for direct fund raising
>> >purposes.......should I go on?
>>
>> Yeah. You'll eventually hit something that, at this time, is illegal
>> eventually. None of those things are illegal. They should be.
>
>I'd get off that crack pipe you must be smoking and realize that ALL of
>what I mentioned IS illegal. VERY ILLEGAL...
Not for "soft money" donations, it isn't. And that's what we're
talking about here. Over half a billion dollars' worth, most of it to
the Republicans.
>
>> >A. Mr. Gingrich ended up declining that advance, so nothing illegal or
>> >unethical was done (by the way, do you know how much Marsha Clark is
>> >getting for her book? I believe about the same price as Newt was
>> >offered....and didn't Dick Morris get 2 mill., and his book is sinking
>> >faster than the Titanic)
>>
>> He gave it up under a huge public outcry. And is Marsha Clark Speaker of the
>> House? Is she in a position to influence legislation pending that directly
>> affects the Publisher in question? Did she accept $4.5 in advances from OJ
>> Simpson before the trial began?
>
>No. But your argument that "he gave it up" is laughable. You must first
>accept something before you can "give it up". You see, Newt never accepted
>the advance because it would have the appearance of impropriety. The
>example you are trying to make would be correct if Newt accepted the money,
>and then had to give it back after getting caught with it. Kinda like what
>the DNC has been doing.
He did accept it. He signed the contract for it. It never made it to
his bank account (at least, none that we know about) but he indeed
signed a contract stipulating a $4.5 million advance for a mediocre
book from a publisher who stood to gain billions from legislation then
pending before the house and needing Newt's support to go through. In
other words, it was a bribe. Foreign corporation, no less.
Ding Dong, the Deng is Dead!
K. Knopp
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) wrote:
> >ze...@snowcrest.net wrote:
> >> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) caused us all to grin by saying:
> ><SNIP>
> >
> >> >Laws against foreign contributions, laws against using taxpayer funds for
> >> >political gain, laws against using the White House for direct fund raising
> >> >purposes.......should I go on?
> >>
> >> Yeah. You'll eventually hit something that, at this time, is illegal
> >> eventually. None of those things are illegal. They should be.
> >
> >I'd get off that crack pipe you must be smoking and realize that ALL of
> >what I mentioned IS illegal. VERY ILLEGAL...
>
> Not for "soft money" donations, it isn't. And that's what we're
> talking about here. Over half a billion dollars' worth, most of it to
> the Republicans.
EARTH TO ZEPP....EARTH TO ZEPP...COME IN ZEPP! It is ILLEGAL for people
not residing in the US to give to a political campaign...for SOFT MONEY or
otherwise. If you are a foriegner you can't contribute to either party for
any reason. It is against the law. Why is the DNC returning over 2
million dollars worth of "soft money" donations if it is legal for them to
receive them? There is evidence that the Democrats have been taking part
in this kind of activity, but none for the Republicans. The Republicans
can take in over 900 billion in soft money, and it wouldn't be against any
laws as long as the money came from Americans, legal aliens, or US branches
of foriegn corporations. Please take the time to educate yourself on
campaign finance before replying.
<SNIP>
> >No. But your argument that "he gave it up" is laughable. You must first
> >accept something before you can "give it up". You see, Newt never accepted
> >the advance because it would have the appearance of impropriety. The
> >example you are trying to make would be correct if Newt accepted the money,
> >and then had to give it back after getting caught with it. Kinda like what
> >the DNC has been doing.
>
> He did accept it. He signed the contract for it. It never made it to
> his bank account (at least, none that we know about) but he indeed
> signed a contract stipulating a $4.5 million advance for a mediocre
> book from a publisher who stood to gain billions from legislation then
> pending before the house and needing Newt's support to go through. In
> other words, it was a bribe. Foreign corporation, no less.
> Ding Dong, the Deng is Dead!
Well, Rupert Murdoch is an American for your information, and unless Mr.
Gingrich received the money, and you could show a direct benefit (not just
a possible one) then your accusations of bribe taking are specious at best.
Zepp
On Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:40:43 -0500, kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp)
wrote:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) wrote:
>
>> >ze...@snowcrest.net wrote:
>
>> >> kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp) caused us all to grin by saying:
>
>> ><SNIP>
>> >
>> >> >Laws against foreign contributions, laws against using taxpayer funds for
>> >> >political gain, laws against using the White House for direct fund raising
>> >> >purposes.......should I go on?
>> >>
>> >> Yeah. You'll eventually hit something that, at this time, is illegal
>> >> eventually. None of those things are illegal. They should be.
>> >
>> >I'd get off that crack pipe you must be smoking and realize that ALL of
>> >what I mentioned IS illegal. VERY ILLEGAL...
>>
>> Not for "soft money" donations, it isn't. And that's what we're
>> talking about here. Over half a billion dollars' worth, most of it to
>> the Republicans.
>
>EARTH TO ZEPP....EARTH TO ZEPP...COME IN ZEPP! It is ILLEGAL for people
>not residing in the US to give to a political campaign...for SOFT MONEY or
>otherwise.
Ah. Now I see your problem. You don't know what "soft money" is.
It's donations given, not to campaigns, but to political parties to
"help them get their message out". While the distinction is a narrow
one, in the eyes of the law, it's major. An Indonesian contributing
to the Presidential campaign would be breaking the law. An Indonesian
contributing to the DNC is not.
>If you are a foriegner you can't contribute to either party for
>any reason. It is against the law.
Yes you can. No it isn't.
>Why is the DNC returning over 2
>million dollars worth of "soft money" donations if it is legal for them to
>receive them?
Because it's a political embarrassment. Haven't heard of any
indictments coming down, have you? If someone shoplifts, do they just
tell the shoplifter that he should put it back?
>There is evidence that the Democrats have been taking part
>in this kind of activity, but none for the Republicans. The Republicans
>can take in over 900 billion in soft money, and it wouldn't be against any
>laws as long as the money came from Americans, legal aliens, or US branches
>of foriegn corporations. Please take the time to educate yourself on
>campaign finance before replying.
The Republicans accepted over $300 million in soft money. A good
chunk of it came from a collection of trash churches seriously abusing
their tax-exempt status, and known as the Chrisitian Coalition. At
this juncture, you trying to lecture me on campaign law is like my dog
trying to lecture me on the laws of thermodynamics. Cute, but not
very productive.
>
><SNIP>
>
>> >No. But your argument that "he gave it up" is laughable. You must first
>> >accept something before you can "give it up". You see, Newt never accepted
>> >the advance because it would have the appearance of impropriety. The
>> >example you are trying to make would be correct if Newt accepted the money,
>> >and then had to give it back after getting caught with it. Kinda like what
>> >the DNC has been doing.
>>
>> He did accept it. He signed the contract for it. It never made it to
>> his bank account (at least, none that we know about) but he indeed
>> signed a contract stipulating a $4.5 million advance for a mediocre
>> book from a publisher who stood to gain billions from legislation then
>> pending before the house and needing Newt's support to go through. In
>> other words, it was a bribe. Foreign corporation, no less.
>> Ding Dong, the Deng is Dead!
>
>Well, Rupert Murdoch is an American for your information, and unless Mr.
>Gingrich received the money, and you could show a direct benefit (not just
>a possible one) then your accusations of bribe taking are specious at best.
I said Foreign Corporation. I know Murdoch got himself a bullshit
citizenship. And that's vital, because the law Murdoch wanted Newt to
change was one giving foreign corporations more access to control of
American media. And guess what? Newt pushed hard for, and got, that
change in the law!
K. Knopp
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) cause me to let out a BIG SIGH by writing:
> >EARTH TO ZEPP....EARTH TO ZEPP...COME IN ZEPP! It is ILLEGAL for people
> >not residing in the US to give to a political campaign...for SOFT MONEY or
> >otherwise.
>
> Ah. Now I see your problem. You don't know what "soft money" is.
Yes I do.
> It's donations given, not to campaigns, but to political parties to
> "help them get their message out". While the distinction is a narrow
> one, in the eyes of the law, it's major. An Indonesian contributing
> to the Presidential campaign would be breaking the law. An Indonesian
> contributing to the DNC is not.
Here is a quote from http://allpolitics.com/issues/in.focus/fundraising.flap/
You would be doing yourself a huge favor by reading the whole thing.
"Since October 1996, the Democratic National Committee has returned about
$1.5 million in donations from non-U.S. citizens and businesses who, by
law, are not permitted to contribute to U.S. elections."
You notice they did not say "campaigns" or "candidates"? NO FORIEGNERS ARE
ALLOWED TO CONTRIBUTE TO ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN U.S. ELECTIONS.
> >If you are a foriegner you can't contribute to either party for
> >any reason. It is against the law.
>
> Yes you can. No it isn't.
No you can't. Yes it is.
> >Why is the DNC returning over 2
> >million dollars worth of "soft money" donations if it is legal for them to
> >receive them?
>
> Because it's a political embarrassment. Haven't heard of any
> indictments coming down, have you? If someone shoplifts, do they just
> tell the shoplifter that he should put it back?
SEE ABOVE FOR WHY WRONG ONCE AGAIN WRONG.
> >There is evidence that the Democrats have been taking part
> >in this kind of activity, but none for the Republicans. The Republicans
> >can take in over 900 billion in soft money, and it wouldn't be against any
> >laws as long as the money came from Americans, legal aliens, or US branches
> >of foriegn corporations. Please take the time to educate yourself on
> >campaign finance before replying.
>
> The Republicans accepted over $300 million in soft money. A good
> chunk of it came from a collection of trash churches seriously abusing
> their tax-exempt status, and known as the Chrisitian Coalition. At
Soft money contributions from U.S. citizens is legal. NEXT!
> this juncture, you trying to lecture me on campaign law is like my dog
> trying to lecture me on the laws of thermodynamics. Cute, but not
> very productive.
But probably a lot more productive then trying to get you to understand
campaign law.
RHA
In article <kknopp-ya02408000...@news.citynet.net>,
K. Knopp <kkn...@citynet.net> wrote:
>ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) cause me to let out a BIG SIGH by writing:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:40:43 -0500, kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp)
>> wrote:
>
>> >EARTH TO ZEPP....EARTH TO ZEPP...COME IN ZEPP! It is ILLEGAL for people
>> >not residing in the US to give to a political campaign...for SOFT MONEY or
>> >otherwise.
>>
>> Ah. Now I see your problem. You don't know what "soft money" is.
>
>Yes I do.
>
>> It's donations given, not to campaigns, but to political parties to
>> "help them get their message out". While the distinction is a narrow
>> one, in the eyes of the law, it's major. An Indonesian contributing
>> to the Presidential campaign would be breaking the law. An Indonesian
>> contributing to the DNC is not.
>
>Here is a quote from http://allpolitics.com/issues/in.focus/fundraising.flap/
>You would be doing yourself a huge favor by reading the whole thing.
>
>"Since October 1996, the Democratic National Committee has returned about
>$1.5 million in donations from non-U.S. citizens and businesses who, by
>law, are not permitted to contribute to U.S. elections."
>
>You notice they did not say "campaigns" or "candidates"? NO FORIEGNERS ARE
>ALLOWED TO CONTRIBUTE TO ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN U.S. ELECTIONS.
Shows how little *you* know. Foreigners are allow to contribute
if they are legal residents at the time. Just like US divisions
of foreign companies. Typical neo-con Know-Nothing.
It was almost funny, the headlines, at the time when all this
stuff started coming out: "Asian-americans give to Clinton
re-election" Almost every republican saw the "ASIAN" part, but
missed the "hyphen americans". Go figger.
--
rha
John W. Tibbs
K. Knopp wrote:
>
> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) cause me to let out a BIG SIGH by writing:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:40:43 -0500, kkn...@citynet.net (K. Knopp)
> > wrote:
>
> > >EARTH TO ZEPP....EARTH TO ZEPP...COME IN ZEPP! It is ILLEGAL for people
> > >not residing in the US to give to a political campaign...for SOFT MONEY or
> > >otherwise.
> >
> > Ah. Now I see your problem. You don't know what "soft money" is.
>
> Yes I do.
>
> > It's donations given, not to campaigns, but to political parties to
> > "help them get their message out". While the distinction is a narrow
> > one, in the eyes of the law, it's major. An Indonesian contributing
> > to the Presidential campaign would be breaking the law. An Indonesian
> > contributing to the DNC is not.
>
> Here is a quote from http://allpolitics.com/issues/in.focus/fundraising.flap/
> You would be doing yourself a huge favor by reading the whole thing.
>
> "Since October 1996, the Democratic National Committee has returned about
> $1.5 million in donations from non-U.S. citizens and businesses who, by
> law, are not permitted to contribute to U.S. elections."
>
> You notice they did not say "campaigns" or "candidates"? NO FORIEGNERS ARE
> ALLOWED TO CONTRIBUTE TO ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN U.S. ELECTIONS.
>
> > >any reason. It is against the law.
> >
> > Yes you can. No it isn't.
>
> No you can't. Yes it is.
>
> > >Why is the DNC returning over 2
> > >million dollars worth of "soft money" donations if it is legal for them to
> > >receive them?
> >
> > Because it's a political embarrassment. Haven't heard of any
> > indictments coming down, have you? If someone shoplifts, do they just
> > tell the shoplifter that he should put it back?
>
> SEE ABOVE FOR WHY WRONG ONCE AGAIN WRONG.
>
> > >There is evidence that the Democrats have been taking part
> > >in this kind of activity, but none for the Republicans. The Republicans
> > >can take in over 900 billion in soft money, and it wouldn't be against any
> > >laws as long as the money came from Americans, legal aliens, or US branches
> > >of foriegn corporations. Please take the time to educate yourself on
> > >campaign finance before replying.
> >
> > The Republicans accepted over $300 million in soft money. A good
> > chunk of it came from a collection of trash churches seriously abusing
> > their tax-exempt status, and known as the Chrisitian Coalition. At
I guess you think that predominately black churches don't 'politic from
the pulpit'?
You must either be totally stupid or so biased as to be completely
dishonest and hopeless. I guess you think bashing white Christians is
ok where others are sacrosanct. jwt/ke5p
>
> Soft money contributions from U.S. citizens is legal. NEXT!
>
> > this juncture, you trying to lecture me on campaign law is like my dog
> > trying to lecture me on the laws of thermodynamics. Cute, but not
> > very productive.
From your posts, it appears you need serious schooling on campaign law
or maybe just
the difference in 'lawful and unlawful' definitions. jwt
> But probably a lot more productive then trying to get you to understand
> campaign law.
Good post, Mr Knopp.