OT: Was World War II worth it?
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
immediately. I agree with Pat Buchanan about something! In a column on
WorldNetDaily (!), Buchanan argues that World War II was actually a massive
failure. He is getting slammed hard on the liberal blogs for this column.
I have read the column several times, and I cannot see any flaws in his
facts or logic.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44210
Was World War II worth it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Posted: May 11, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.
In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more
difficult assignment. Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic
War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their
homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."
Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East
Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland.
To ascertain whether Moscow truly liberated those lands, we might survey the
sons and daughters of the generation that survived liberation by a Red Army
that pillaged, raped and murdered its way westward across Europe. As at
Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the
national and Christian character of their countries.
To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six
decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said:
For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of
another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the
oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of
Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful
governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable.
... The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be
remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history.
Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east
of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant
of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh,
Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.
Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century.
The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that
too long remained hidden, buried or ignored.
If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta,
this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical
"Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.
As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a
monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old
Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain,
who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to
Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No
Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist
quislings.
Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of
thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish
freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?
If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central
Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more
odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?
In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain
refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain
agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and
Poland were in Stalin's empire.
How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?
True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from
Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland
and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only
invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany - on
behalf of Poland.
When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France - hundreds of
thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires - was World
War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of
the Elbe were lost anyway?
If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a
"smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was
not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.
If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and
draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and
Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern
Europe.
Was that worth fighting a world war - with 50 million dead?
The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making
Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the
festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center,
smiling - not British and French. Understandably.
Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann (ramashiva)
OrangeSFO
something right.
torx
and america coming to europe to enter a war after they said they will not
ever again enter a war on foreign territory in 1942 ?
but yes, thank you for this post.... some food for thought eh ?
> .... The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be
-torx
http://www.partypoker.com/index.htm?wm=2567113 $25 free on first deposit.
http://www.partypoker.com/index.htm?wm=2567079 20% first deposit bonus.
http://www.intercasinopoker.com/index.html?2374940%7C06597 100% first
deposit bonus.
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Matt7084
>
> Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east
> of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant
> of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh,
> Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.
Ahh the hero's of 60's radicals.
>
> If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the
> Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR?
I, too, ask myself why the hell anyone would venerate FDR.
>
> Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of
> thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish
> freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?
What a deep misunderstanding of World War 2. Do I even bother to read on?
>
> True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from
> Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland
> and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only
> invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany - on
> behalf of Poland.
Is this ass implying that Hitler would not have invaded France, Holland, or
Belgium had those evil British not declared war??????
> When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France - hundreds of
> thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires - was World
> War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of
> the Elbe were lost anyway?
Im really going to go out on a limb and say Yes here.
>
> If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a
> "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was
> not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.
LOL Why destroy Hitler!
Sorry William but this article sucked.
-Matt
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Paul G.
news:9iQge.440
> OMFG! I think I need to check myself into a psychiatric facility
> immediately.
>
Don't you mean check yourself BACK into a psychiatric facility?
Honest to goodness, this has to be the phoniest troll you've ever led. You
phony fuck.
And while you're mentioning these many true facts, let us not forget
Operation Keelhaul where after the war we loaded into boxcars at gunpoint
the brave Russians who had fled from Stalin and fought on OUR side against
Hitler, only to be sent BACK TO STALIN. Yes, get out your Google, Wilhelm,
you phony fuck, and Google "Operation Keelhaul." As tragic and shameful as
the Katyn Forest that you mentioned.
And why stop there? Let us not forget that Mao Tse Tung could never have
taken power without aid from our State Department and the pressure placed
upon Chiang to forge a coilition with this arch-murderer of man's history.
The MASS-MURDERER that YOU, Wilhelm Kuhlmann, have praised here on the
threads of RGP.
Yep, as phony a Kundalini weenie as they come. Nevermind Churchill the
traitor as Man of the Century. Who is the TROLL of the Century? Ha! The
uber troll of all time. Wilhelm Kuhlmann, Bill Coleman, Ramashiva, phony
fuck and TROLL of the Universe. Oh, uh, and an ex casino craps dealer too.
warmest regards,
-Paul G.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
news:1115936938$506...@recpoker.com...
>
>
> >
> > Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II
east
> > of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious
tyrant
> > of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi
Minh,
> > Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.
>
> Ahh the hero's of 60's radicals.
Excuse me, I am a 60's radical. Of these men, I only admire Chairman Mao
and Uncle Ho.
> > If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the
> > Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR?
>
> I, too, ask myself why the hell anyone would venerate FDR.
How about the fact that he is the savior of capitalism?
> > Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds
of
> > thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and
Polish
> > freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?
>
> What a deep misunderstanding of World War 2. Do I even bother to read on?
How is this a misunderstanding of WW II? Do you know anything at all about
the actual history? Poland was the line in the sand drawn by Britain and
France. When Hitler invaded Poland, Britain and France declared war on
Germany. That was the beginning of WW II.
> > True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from
> > Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France,
Holland
> > and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only
> > invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany -
on
> > behalf of Poland.
>
> Is this ass implying that Hitler would not have invaded France, Holland,
or
> Belgium had those evil British not declared war??????
Yes, he is implying that, and I think it is a reasonable implication. We
are talking about hypotheticals here, but Hitler indicated many times that
he wanted to make nice with Britain. Apparently you do not understand that
Britain, France, Holland, and Belgium are all Aryan countries, and that
Hitler considered the Slavs and Jews to be his enemies.
> > When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France - hundreds
of
> > thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires - was
World
> > War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east
of
> > the Elbe were lost anyway?
>
> Im really going to go out on a limb and say Yes here.
Apparently the entire column went right over your head.
> > If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was
a
> > "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it
was
> > not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.
>
> LOL Why destroy Hitler!
Why indeed! Hitler has been totally demonized so we really cannot say we
have an accurate picture of the man. If Hitler could have devoted all his
military forces to the eastern front, he probably would have defeated the
Soviet Union. In this hypothetical scenario, are you really sure the people
of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union would have been worse off than under
Soviet rule?
Wilhelm Kuhlmann (ramashiva)
Boss Tweed
On May 12 2005 6:28 PM, Matt7084 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from
> > Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland
> > and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only
> > invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany - on
> > behalf of Poland.
>
> Is this ass implying that Hitler would not have invaded France, Holland, or
> Belgium had those evil British not declared war??????
>
Hitler in no way wanted war with the western powers; France or England. He
believed that they were natural allys and should unite against Bolshevik Russia.
Had he not been such a flawed character he might have been able to bring this
about. He firmly believed they would not go to war with Germany over the fate of
Poland.
Just imagine had Hitler slowed down in 1936-7 and consolidated his gains. Either
Stalin ,who had already had designs on Poland either invaded or Hitler
manufactured a subterfuge to that effect, we might have a scenario whereas the
Western powers unite with Germany to repulse Stalin .
Say this occured in mid to late 40s. The Germans already were flirting with
building an atomic bomb but the advent of war in 1939 and Hitler's belief that
it wouldnt be developed in time to have a bearing combined with his early
success caused the project to be shelved. Not to mention his racial policies had
run off some of the most brilliant minds on the subject; Einstein for example.
So, had he not pushed for war so early, I think its entirely plausible to have
seen a Germany united with France and England against Stalinist Russia, perhaps
an atomic armed Germany. Scary huh?
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
torx
strategic purpose ?
the france-german border was HEAVILY guarded, bunkers, tanks, all kinds of
defense, so hitler just went thru holland/belgium cuz it was far easier
than the direct way to france.
-torx
http://www.partypoker.com/index.htm?wm=2567113 $25 free on first deposit.
http://www.partypoker.com/index.htm?wm=2567079 20% first deposit bonus.
http://www.intercasinopoker.com/index.html?2374940%7C06597 100% first
deposit bonus.
------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
igotskillz.com
their deluded view over and over until what once was a well intentioned
attempt at clarifying has become a sewer of fragmented thoughts and
misguided accusations.
Letting Hitler survive for one more generation would hae been one of
the greatest errors of all time. Of course you simply want to say life
would have been better if Hitler lived. Most Germans i've met denounce
good ole Adolph.
Why do liberals complain so much ? Maybe they could use all of that
energy to offer logical solutions. When will they learn to stop
behaving like 16 year old brats ?
Stop with all the nonsense, stop saying terrorism will leave us alone
if we stay in the usa , stop murdering babies.
What will happen in the next 20 years will essentially be the end of
the democratic party. Nothing against the guy because in his case it's
just a tv show but you clowns are like the Jerry Springer of politics.
You are a party of freaks and weirdos. No offense to people with spiked
multicolor hair either.
While i'm at it ask yourself this, Would 911 have happened if Clinton
was never president ? Be honest.
Howard Treesong
Was this before or after the asylum?
-Howard Treesong
jap...@firstam.com
was never president ? Be honest."
Yes. In on form or another it would have happened. They had already
attempted it in 1993 on the same target as 9/11. It is a convergance
of not only US policy, but 100+ years of Anglo policy. They are just
projecting all of the anger toward the US because of what we
represent(Opening for liberal and Eurotrash backlash here). Also, it
is a small minority that is trying to protray that the majority is with
them (Al Qaeda, etc). I have had a great deal of interaction with
people from all over the globe and it was only a small minority that
had anything negative to say about Americans. However, the more
negative comments came from my friends in Europe :-). It is a fringe,
albeit a resourceful and well financed fringe that wills us ill.
jj
Susan
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=19037
"Wilhelm Kuhlmann" <wilhelm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9iQge.440$DK....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Paul G.
> >Oh, uh, and an ex casino craps dealer too.
>
> Was this before or after the asylum?
>
> -Howard Treesong
>
I'm not sure exactly. But for more details on Wilhelm's life and his
resume, check out:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ramashiva/ Website of the "Kundalini Weenie".
"Well, I am not a phony guru. With all due modesty, I am a perfected
Kundalini Yoga Master. I am what such charlatans as Baghwan Sri Rashneesh,
Swami Muktananda, and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi wished they were and pretended
to be." --- Wilhelm Kuhlmann
mr.mister
<wilhelm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Excuse me, I am a 60's radical. Of these men, I only admire Chairman Mao
>and Uncle Ho.
lol yeah old man. your shocking and controversial and a real rebel.
and wow, you admire the biggest murderer in history and gosh, thats
really shocking and controversial, gosh. wow, you're really out there
,huh?my goodness, i'm shocked. yawn
Bob
"Liberals maniacly leer at a story until it's all blurry,"
How very strange that you see this as having anything to do with
"liberals"! Let's see, Pat Buchanon and Wilhelm Kuhlmann both think
that Eastern Europe might have been better off under Hitler than
Stalin. Is that the liberal point of view or the conservative point of
view? Neither - they're speculating about alternate history! You'd
have to be obsessed with hating liberals to cast this as a liberal vs.
conservative debate.
Of course, I've read your posts before - you are obsessed with hating
liberals. In addition to being insane, your rants have gotten very
repetitive. Not to mention casting Pat Buchanon as a liberal
baby-murdering welfare-loving Democrat. This is an alternate history
discussion - lighten up, dude!
- Bob
Onyx_Hokie
[Thu, 12 May 2005 23:47:30 GMT]
:"Howard Treesong" <rick...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Interesting line: "Design, create, and manage internet websites."
You know.. as opposed to those websites that are not on the Internet.
Heh.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"There ain't nothing wrong a few cold beers can't iron out
in fact, you tell me just when and where, and I'll buy the first round"
[Terri Clark, "I Think The World Needs a Drink"]
ChrisRobin
> Liberals maniacly leer at a story until it's all blurry, they retell
> their deluded view over and over until what once was a well intentioned
> attempt at clarifying has become a sewer of fragmented thoughts and
> misguided accusations.
Much like that paragraph?
> Why do liberals complain so much ? Maybe they could use all of that
> energy to offer logical solutions. When will they learn to stop
> behaving like 16 year old brats ?
So let me get this straight - you're complaining... about liberals complaining.
You're two for two now, accusing liberals of something while committing the same
offense you're decrying. Absolutely transparent doublespeak, my young friend.
You're well on your way to becoming a full-fledged fascist fuck! Congrats!
> Stop with all the nonsense, stop saying terrorism will leave us alone
> if we stay in the usa , stop murdering babies.
Terrorism will not go away, because the Bush Administration NEEDS terrorism to
advance its domestic and foreign policies - I mean, without terrorism, these
folks are dead in the water politically. I mean, Social Security privatization?
Gay marriage? Puh-LEASE.
Everybody has been so deluded about the mythical threat of Al-Qaeda that they
forget the most basic aspect of terrorism: that it is first and foremost a
political tool, and it's being used to fool tools like you into supporting the
neocons' imperial fantasies. Not only has the "War on Terror" provided a perfect
cover for the looting of the U.S. Treasury, it's being used to justify the
stifling of civil rights, the dismantling of popular social programs, and the
suppression of dissent. And it's working. Keep that in mind next time you make
one of your idiotic, rah-rah pro-Bush posts - you are rabidly supporting someone
who is threatening your rights of free speech and assembly, funnelling your tax
dollars to huge multi-national energy and defense companies (companies that are
already insanely profitable, I might add), destroying all executive and
legislative accountability, slashing budgets for education and health care, and
removing any recourse you as an individual have to challenge corporate America
in our courts. Just another dumb schmuck voting against his own self-interest,
because he doesn't want fags to marry, or foolishly believes Bush is a "man of
God." Swell.
> What will happen in the next 20 years will essentially be the end of
> the democratic party. Nothing against the guy because in his case it's
> just a tv show but you clowns are like the Jerry Springer of politics.
Got out your crystal ball for this one, Skillz? The Democratic Party will still
be around, if in name only, because it is too entrenched in our two-party system
to just vanish. Of course, the ideology of the democratic party has been dead
for some time now - how these schmucks in office can continue to prostitute
themselves to corporate America and still call themselves "democrats" is beyond
me. I mean, Democratic support for the bankruptcy bill? Give me a break.
> You are a party of freaks and weirdos. No offense to people with spiked
> multicolor hair either.
And you are the party of old, greedy, Bible-thumping hypocrites. See, I can
stereotype, too! And much like your tired old generalizations, it also adds
absolutely nothing to the discussion.
> While i'm at it ask yourself this, Would 911 have happened if Clinton
> was never president ? Be honest.
Hmmm. Couldn't resist the fall-back position of every wingnut: blame Clinton.
News flash, genius: 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Bush and his cronies ignored
repeated warnings regarding 9/11. TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR A CHANGE.
Okay kiddies, let's review. Obligatory "blame Clinton" reference? Check. Abject
absence of any/all knowledge regarding politics, terrorism? Check. Several
hypocritical bashings of liberals, complete with Orwell-inspired doublespeak?
Check.
Yep, you're almost there - now run up and down the halls and scream, "The
liberals are trying to steal Christmas!" at the top of your lungs, and you'll
have the complete package of wingnut rhetoric.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
FL Turbo
The current kerfuffle about WWII seems to have gotten a lot of fuel
from comments by a guy labeled as "pitchfork Pat" Buchanan.
One of them "Paleocons", still clinging to world as they knew it back
in the 30's.
Here is yet again another blogger that weighs in on the subject.
The man does sound like he knows some history.
http://vodkapundit.com/archives/007819.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A Fisking"
Posted by Stephen Green · 12 May 2005
"It took 40 years, but today Pat Buchanan hit bottom on the slippery
slope from Young Turk conservative columnist to Nazi Apologist
troglodyte."
"Here's his latest column for WorldNetDaily, who should have known
better than to publish it:"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a long article.
The following is just a little snippet from the middle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Politics is the art of half a loaf. War is the art of taking as much
as the loaf as you can get away with. Britain exhausted of manpower,
capital, and material came out of the war with her sovereignty intact.
Unlike, you know, Poland, Hungary, the Baltic States, etc. I'd call
that a win."
"And that's another thing Buchanan left out. Of those 11 nations
Stalin "liberated," five of them were Fascist nations. East Germany,
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and (marginally) Finland. They took the
wrong side. They, however unjustly, suffered the consequences. And
another thing. Stalin never got his way in Finland or Yugoslavia both
turned out to be complete pains in the neck."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I figured that the discussion about WWII had been
exhausted years ago, but I guess not.
I will await the decisive conclusions of the RGP historians.
"The only thing we learn from history is that we can't learn anything
from history"
igotskillz.com
> their deluded view over and over until what once was a well
intentioned
> attempt at clarifying has become a sewer of fragmented thoughts and
> misguided accusations.
Much like that paragraph? Let's see you make a sentence that
long
> Why do liberals complain so much ? Maybe they could use all of that
> energy to offer logical solutions. When will they learn to stop
> behaving like 16 year old brats ?
So let me get this straight - you're complaining... about liberals
complaining.
You're two for two now, accusing liberals of something while committing
the same
offense you're decrying. Absolutely transparent doublespeak, my young
friend.
You're well on your way to becoming a full-fledged fascist fuck!
Congrats!
yes, i'm telling them to shut the hell up, it's a solution. Try
offering SOLUTIONS
> Stop with all the nonsense, stop saying terrorism will leave us alone
> if we stay in the usa , stop murdering babies.
Terrorism will not go away, because the Bush Administration NEEDS
terrorism to
advance its domestic and foreign policies - I mean, without terrorism,
these
folks are dead in the water politically. I mean, Social Security
privatization?
Gay marriage? Puh-LEASE.
NEWSFLASH: terrorism was around long before Bush
Al Queda's us HQ was next door to where i lived and worked. They were
quite real
> What will happen in the next 20 years will essentially be the end of
> the democratic party. Nothing against the guy because in his case
it's
> just a tv show but you clowns are like the Jerry Springer of
politics.
Got out your crystal ball for this one, Skillz? The Democratic Party
will still
be around, if in name only, because it is too entrenched in our
two-party system
to just vanish. Of course, the ideology of the democratic party has
been dead
for some time now - how these schmucks in office can continue to
prostitute
themselves to corporate America and still call themselves "democrats"
is beyond
me. I mean, Democratic support for the bankruptcy bill? Give me a
break.
JERRY ! JERRY !! { Brown }
> You are a party of freaks and weirdos. No offense to people with
spiked
> multicolor hair either.
And you are the party of old, greedy, Bible-thumping hypocrites. See, I
can
stereotype, too! And much like your tired old generalizations, it also
adds
absolutely nothing to the discussion.
> While i'm at it ask yourself this, Would 911 have happened if Clinton
> was never president ? Be honest.
Hmmm. Couldn't resist the fall-back position of every wingnut: blame
Clinton.
News flash, genius: 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Bush and his cronies
ignored
repeated warnings regarding 9/11. TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR
A CHANGE.
For the last 4 years of Clinton's term i told people in the
intelligence field and numerous democrats that Mr. X was the leader of
a terrorist network and would blow up the trade center. They moved in
during Clinton's term , I saw them and then after 911 my suspiscions
were confirmed. Believe it or not people just like you treated me just
like you do now. You have in all likelyhood never seen a terrorist nor
have you been alone with one in his home while you gather any
information you can on him.These people are real, they want to end
mankind and your head is so far up your ass that you can't see it.
Okay kiddies, let's review. Obligatory "blame Clinton" reference?
Check. Abject
absence of any/all knowledge regarding politics, terrorism? Check.
Several
hypocritical bashings of liberals, complete with Orwell-inspired
doublespeak?
Check.
Yep, you're almost there - now run up and down the halls and scream,
"The
liberals are trying to steal Christmas!" at the top of your lungs, and
you'll
have the complete package of wingnut rhetoric.
You like that word wingnut, you should remove all wingnuts in your life
and see just how much more difficult things become.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
news:8u5881hmeuh72v83e...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:02:58 -0500, mr.mister <mr...@ppp.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:51:43 GMT, "Wilhelm Kuhlmann"
> ><wilhelm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Excuse me, I am a 60's radical. Of these men, I only admire Chairman
Mao
> >>and Uncle Ho.
> >
> >lol yeah old man. your shocking and controversial and a real rebel.
> >and wow, you admire the biggest murderer in history and gosh, thats
> >really shocking and controversial, gosh. wow, you're really out there
> >,huh?my goodness, i'm shocked. yawn
>
>
> The current kerfuffle about WWII seems to have gotten a lot of fuel
> from comments by a guy labeled as "pitchfork Pat" Buchanan.
> One of them "Paleocons", still clinging to world as they knew it back
> in the 30's.
>
> Here is yet again another blogger that weighs in on the subject.
> The man does sound like he knows some history.
>
> http://vodkapundit.com/archives/007819.php
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
> "A Fisking"
> Posted by Stephen Green · 12 May 2005
> "It took 40 years, but today Pat Buchanan hit bottom on the slippery
> slope from Young Turk conservative columnist to Nazi Apologist
> troglodyte."
LMFAO! Pat Buchanan is a Nazi Apologist? I don't think so.
> "Here's his latest column for WorldNetDaily, who should have known
> better than to publish it:"
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
>
> It's a long article.
> The following is just a little snippet from the middle.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
> "Politics is the art of half a loaf. War is the art of taking as much
> as the loaf as you can get away with. Britain exhausted of manpower,
> capital, and material came out of the war with her sovereignty intact.
Britain also came out of the war having lost its worldwide empire and its
importance as a world power vastly diminished.
> Unlike, you know, Poland, Hungary, the Baltic States, etc. I'd call
> that a win."
Buchanan's point is that Britain declared war on Germany because Germany
invaded Poland. So the casus belli was to protect the freedom and
sovereignty of the Polish people. That objective was not realized, since
Poland came under Soviet domination.
> "And that's another thing Buchanan left out. Of those 11 nations
> Stalin "liberated," five of them were Fascist nations. East Germany,
> Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and (marginally) Finland. They took the
> wrong side. They, however unjustly, suffered the consequences. And
> another thing. Stalin never got his way in Finland or Yugoslavia both
> turned out to be complete pains in the neck."
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
>
> Personally, I figured that the discussion about WWII had been
> exhausted years ago, but I guess not.
>
> I will await the decisive conclusions of the RGP historians.
>
>
> "The only thing we learn from history is that we can't learn anything
> from history"
The Vodka Pundit calls Buchanan a Nazi apologist, Goosestep Pat, and an
American Nazi. There is no factual basis for any of these ad hominem
attacks. When you see a writer making unfounded ad hominem attacks, you
know his argument is weak. His argument is REALLY weak, since he doesn't
refute a single one of Buchanan's points. He just engages in a lot of
rhetorical handwaving -- much like you, FL Turbo.
Wilhelm Kuhlmann (ramashiva)
Irish Mike
campaign strategies. All they offer are complaints, criticism and worn out
blame-America-first rhetoric that the public has repeatedly rejected. They
still don't have a clue about why they got voted out of power and, for the
sake of this country, I hope the dumb bastards never wise up.
Irish Mike
"igotskillz.com" <ROYAL...@igotskillz.com> wrote in message
news:1115959075....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
FasterPilot
I am just a conservative fool, a clown. I dont read the paper, its too
depressing, and the LA times is so left wing, that the story's outcome is
predictable anyway. I watch Fox news on TV a little. I listen to Led Zeppelin,
so I dont have to hear talk radio. I do not have a Harvard education, just a
Michigan one, so everything I say means nothing.
Lets see. Hitler killed, what, 10 million people, including 6 million jews.
Thats OK, right? He lied to everyone. He broke every treaty he had
with everybody except with Japan. His leadership style was to kill everyone who
did not agree with him, or who crossed him, and their families. He blamed all
of Germany's economic problems on the "Jewish Problem". He was a good guy,
though. We should have trusted him to give his word that he would do ....what!?
The self percieved well educated, weak, chicken shit, shakey kneed, cowardly, (a
large number of them being communists or socialists) left wing liberals, oh,
excuse me, its politically incorrect to call them that, I should say
"progressives" think that negotiation and "intelligent converstion" about how we
are percieved in the world will solve everything. Lets sit down with them (from
Hitler to the terrorists to the old Soviet Communists) and make a deal. They
give up nothing, we give up pieces here and there until we have given up
everything, hoping that through our "superior intellectual abilities", and our
desire to have the fucking french love us, the terrorists, Hitler, the
communists, whoever, will leave us alone. OH, and we should also let them know
that they are right, we caused them to be like they are, so they are justified
in blowing up our citizens where ever, cause, intellectually speaking, its our
damn fault anyway. Right. Once you give them a cookie, they will want a glass
of milk, you know. Pretty soon, they get the cow, the farm, everything. Then
they kill us anyway. Maybe the "progressives" need a gun to their head to make
them realize that the enemy (oops, we dont have enemies, just adversaries) do
not want justice, they do not want peace, they do not want us to recognize their
special brand of horror, they do not want to talk, they want to walk in your
front door, at your request, and kill you. Period. The end. And they will
laugh at your weakness even after you are dead. When you have figured that out,
you can save yourself. You will probably never be able to save me, I will
probably have to save you. You will probably then denegrad the way I save you,
too.
Progressives forget (maybe I should say "ignore") that it took guts and
bloodshed to get to where we were 40 years ago. Then the "intelligencia"
decided that the rest of us were just brutes, and we should share the love that
the rich (for the most part) worked hard for. Lets take it and give to the poor
folk that do not want to work, cause they will vote for us, and make us free.
The more citizens on the "dole" the more votes we get. You sure dont have to be
a genius to figure that out. Now we get attacked, and the "progressives" feel
we should invite the terrorists in, and lets talk. Hey, you killed 3000 of us,
no problem. Its our fault anyway. Its OK. Here, have a cookie.
This is a rant. I did not spell check it. I dont care.
FasterPilot
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
FasterPilot
On May 12 2005 10:24 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> Liberals have no meaningful ideas, no viable solutions and no winning
> campaign strategies. All they offer are complaints, criticism and worn out
> blame-America-first rhetoric that the public has repeatedly rejected. They
> still don't have a clue about why they got voted out of power and, for the
> sake of this country, I hope the dumb bastards never wise up.
>
> Irish Mike
>
> "igotskillz.com" wrote in message
_______________________________________________________________
igotskillz.com
What blows my mind is that liberals actually think that if we stopped
all fighting that the other side will too.
Imagine if right now every single soldier on our side laid down his
weapon.Better yet, we'll announce it the day before for a specified
time.
Should we close every foriegn military and intelligence installment
also ?
Imagine the world of the democrats. Penthouse in the grammar school
library. Drive thru abortions. Men having sex with each other in
public.Coffeeshops that sell pot {yay}
Then someone from a land you have never seen { we can't spy on this
guy even though we suspected him } opens a vial and within a few weeks
everyone is dead.
While we are at it we should let every person the Fbi watches do
whatever, purchase whatever and basically stop watching these people.
"Lets take it and give to the poor
folk that do not want to work, cause they will vote for us, and make us
free.
The more citizens on the "dole" the more votes we get."
Yup
mr.mister
wrote:
>nd it's being used to fool tools like you into supporting the
>neocons' imperial fantasies. Not only has the "War on Terror" provided a perfect
>cover for the looting of the U.S. Treasury, it's being used to justify the
>stifling of civil rights, the dismantling of popular social programs, and the
>suppression of dissent. And it's working. Keep that in mind next time you make
>one of your idiotic, rah-rah pro-Bush posts - you are rabidly supporting someone
>who is threatening your rights of free speech and assembly, funnelling your tax
>dollars to huge multi-national energy and defense companies (companies that are
>already insanely profitable, I might add), destroying all executive and
>legislative accountability, slashing budgets for education and health care, and
>removing any recourse you as an individual have to challenge corporate America
>in our courts
honestly, do you take your dick out of the jar it's stored in and rub
it when you type this crap?
KilgoreTrout
> Liberals have no meaningful ideas, no viable solutions and no winning
> campaign strategies. All they offer are complaints, criticism and worn out
> blame-America-first rhetoric that the public has repeatedly rejected. They
> still don't have a clue about why they got voted out of power and, for the
> sake of this country, I hope the dumb bastards never wise up.
>
> Irish Mike
Strange: if you change "Liberals" to "Irish Mike" and "campaign" to "poker" the
first sentence goes from ignorant lie to absolute truth. The rest of the
paragraph is the same hate-filled lies Irish Mike always reproduces, but it is a
little progress.
>
> "igotskillz.com" wrote in message
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Bob
Ah, FasterPilot - you have proven that you know just as much about the
real world as you know about poker. Well done!
- Bob
SweetBitches
What were we going to do? Just nicely ask Stalin to remove his armies from
Poland and the rest of the Eastern European countries and go home? He signed a
nonaggression pact with Hitler and got stabbed in the back. Of those 50 million
that died in WWII, roughly half were Russians. You think that the Soviets were
about to say "well, thats a wrap, back to Muscovy everyone!" To the victors, go
the spoils, and the US and Britain were in no position to not let Russia have
anything. We still had Japan to contend with, and people were sick of war. The
only way to liberate Eastern Europe would have been another war, millions of
more lives, and running the risk of losing more than just Eastern Europe. You
understand that attempting to free Europe of the reds could have easily resulted
in us losing the whole thing.
Lets say that in the summer of 1945 we tell Stalin to get back to Russia with
his army. He of course says no and a new war is declared. Now Russia allies
itself with Japan and we are back to fighting a two front war against a stronger
enemy than Germany, with vast amounts of territory and resources.
I think that they did the best that they could with what they had at the time.
Buchannan conveniently wraps the whole war into one column, and ignores so many
of the important factors, that his article is basically laughable.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Bob
"We still had Japan to contend with, and people were sick of war. The
only way to liberate Eastern Europe would have been another war,
millions of more lives, and running the risk of losing more than just
Eastern Europe. You understand that attempting to free Europe of the
reds could have easily resulted in us losing the whole thing. "
Wow, I agree with SweetBitches completely about something!
- Bob
SweetBitches
Well Bob, it is friday the 13th, some freaky shit was bound to happen.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Paul G.
news:1115997407$507...@recpoker.com...
> You think that the Soviets were
> about to say "well, thats a wrap, back to Muscovy everyone!" To the
> victors, go
> the spoils, and the US and Britain were in no position to not let Russia
> have
> anything.
Our troops were held outside of Berlin and Prague for two weeks to allow the
Soviets to arrive from the east. At this point, the Nazi effort was over.
They wanted to surrender to us, but they continued to fight tooth and nail
against the advancing Soviets, even though they knew it was a lost cause.
Why? Because they KNEW what the Soviet troops would do upon entering the
city. And, in fact, their concerns were justified. When the Soviets did
arrive, they pillaged and raped every female from little girls to old
ladies. Why would they do this? They did not do this just because they are
bad guys, even though they ARE bad guys. But they do this to terrorize the
population into submission. This is the way communists work. I know I
don't have to convince you, SweetB, of that.
WE, could have taken Berlin AND Prague. But orders were given to hold off
for TWO WEEKS, to allow the Soviets to have those cities. Why? On whose
orders? As I have said. many times, TREASON at the highest levels. Until
you, Mo, and Fl Turbo, and any other RGPer with good common sense and
intelligence learn of and accept this fact, nothing else will ever fully
make sense.
-Paul G.
Paul G.
>
>
> On May 13 2005 10:47 AM, Bob wrote:
>
>> SweetBitches pointed out:
>>
>> "We still had Japan to contend with, and people were sick of war. The
>> only way to liberate Eastern Europe would have been another war,
>> millions of more lives, and running the risk of losing more than just
>> Eastern Europe. You understand that attempting to free Europe of the
>> reds could have easily resulted in us losing the whole thing. "
>>
>> Wow, I agree with SweetBitches completely about something!
>>
>> - Bob
>
> Well Bob, it is friday the 13th, some freaky shit was bound to happen.
>
You're both mistaken.
Stephen Jacobs
acceptance for, for 60 years. The Yalta agreement did not in any way
surrender Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria
and Yugoslavia (and Albania) to a Russian Empire. They were slated for
Russian occupation and influence, but it was realistically expected at the
time, based on plenty of historical precedent, that they would return to
full independence fairly shortly. There was no other realistic possibility
at the time. There were no "secret addenda" to the Yalta agreement that
affected that.
Latvia in some sense belonged in The Soviet Union, since it was Latvian
cadets (Latvia was then part of the Czarist empire) who swung the revolution
against the Czar. Ukraine had been conquered before WWII and was obviously
not going to be given up. I don't know the history of Estonia very well,
but I believe it was also a Czarist province that had not previously broken
loose. The only country "given up" to The Soviet Union in the Yalta
agreement was Lithuania, and while it might be worth examining the
historical and military justification or otherwise for that, it hasn't been
a focus for anyone.
"Something Happened" (predictably? I don't know) about a year after WWII
ended. Yugoslavia stayed somewhat independent by combining a degree of
cooperation with extreme indigestibility. Most of the others were
subjugated, although Austria was re-unified and became Western-slanting
neutral, and Albania pulled something like a Yugoslav move eventually.
The point is that is a flat lie to say that the Yalta agreement endorsed a
permanent or long-lasting division of Europe.
Berlin and Dresden give a rather stark picture of what would have happened
if East and West had decided to settle things militarily right then.
Boss Tweed
On May 13 2005 12:37 PM, Paul G. wrote:
>> Our troops were held outside of Berlin and Prague for two weeks to allow the
> Soviets to arrive from the east. At this point, the Nazi effort was over.
Correct. Objective acheived. Berlin was nothing more then a symbol by that time
, it had no real military value and wasnt worth the casulties. Not to mention
Ike and the allied high command were seriously concerned with the Nazis waging a
guerilla war from a "national redoubt " from the Alpine Mts.
You may argue that they would have greeted us with open arms in Berlin but dont
forget Hitler was still in the bunker demanding no capitulation and those orders
were still obeyed basically. There were "flying" court martials that were
executing deserters on the spot. There were an estimated 20,000 German soldiers
executed in the last year of the war alone for desertion or dereliction of duty.
> They wanted to surrender to us, but they continued to fight tooth and nail
> against the advancing Soviets, even though they knew it was a lost cause.
> Why? Because they KNEW what the Soviet troops would do upon entering the
> city. And, in fact, their concerns were justified. When the Soviets did
> arrive, they pillaged and raped every female from little girls to old
> ladies. Why would they do this?
Maybe because the Germans had given the same treatment in Russia? Not to defend
the Soviet atrocities but the Nazis had fought a war of extermination against
the Soviets, both soldier and civilian alike. Russian POWs were sent to the gas
chamber in many cases if not shot on the spot. When the German high command told
Montgomery they wanted to surrender to the allies but not the Soviets he replied
that maybe they should have thought about that in 1941 .
They did not do this just because they are
> bad guys, even though they ARE bad guys. But they do this to terrorize the
> population into submission. This is the way communists work. I know I
> don't have to convince you, SweetB, of that.
Well the Nazi regime was pretty good at terrorizing populations too, their own
included.
> WE, could have taken Berlin AND Prague. But orders were given to hold off
> for TWO WEEKS, to allow the Soviets to have those cities. Why? On whose
> orders?
Sweetbitchs already stated why. The allies had already agreed to this.
There had been peace feelers tenatively put out from Berlin to Moscow for an
armistice periodically since 1943 on. Stalin was nothing if not a pragmatical
survivor. He could could have agreed to a ceasefire giving Germany a free hand
in the west and decide he would fight another day. The allies had to keep Russia
in the fight.
The western powers were sick of war, they wanted it over. Not to mention the
fact that the USA never wanted to be involved in the war to begin with. Now you
want them to take on 5 million Soviets too? The Nazis were finished and Germany
posed no more of a threat. We still had a war to fight in Japan and at the time
who knew how much longer it would last. Dont forget a million casulities were
forecast in an invasion of Japan.
As I have said. many times, TREASON at the highest levels. Until
> you, Mo, and Fl Turbo, and any other RGPer with good common sense and
> intelligence learn of and accept this fact, nothing else will ever fully
> make sense.
>
> -Paul G.
*Sigh*
Paul G.
news:1116004974$507...@recpoker.com...
>
>
> As I have said. many times, TREASON at the highest levels. Until
>> you, Mo, and Fl Turbo, and any other RGPer with good common sense and
>> intelligence learn of and accept this fact, nothing else will ever fully
>> make sense.
>>
>> -Paul G.
>
> *Sigh*
>
Go ahead and sigh. I'll stand by my statement. Our government's confusing
foreign policy for decades can only be explained by attributing it to
treason. Treason at the highest levels. Communism has been supported,
built up, maintained, by aid from our country since the very beginning.
Trotsky himself was jailed by Canada on his way to join Lenin in 1917.
Pressure from our State Department was put on Canada to release him on his
way. And on his way he went. Joined with Lenin and together they built a
movement that has seen 100 million people murdered in the last century in
the name of Marx. It's no coincidence that their "color" is red.
There would be no formidable communist enemies in the world if it were not
for the steady stream of help from traitors within our own government.
Treason at the highest level.
-Paul G.
Bob
"I'll stand by my statement. Our government's confusing foreign policy
for decades can only be explained by attributing it to treason. "
This is how you are fundamentally wrong about how the world works. In
actual fact, our government's confusing foreign policy can be much more
simply explained by normal human stupidity and selfishness.
- Bob
Paul G.
news:1116008633....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ha! Now you sound like Fl Turbo. Neither one of you have done your
homework. And as usual, you have not a clue about what the Council on
Foreign Relations, the House of Pratt, was set up to accomplish. Not a clue
about the origin of the Federal Reserve, the creature from Jekyll Island.
Nor, the agenda behind the 17th amendment. Nor, the agenda at Bretton
Woods. And on, and on, and on.
History either happens by accident, uh, or not.
-Paul G.
FL Turbo
<wilhelm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
>>news:8u5881hmeuh72v83e...@4ax.com...
-----------------------------------
>>
>> The current kerfuffle about WWII seems to have gotten a lot of fuel
>> from comments by a guy labeled as "pitchfork Pat" Buchanan.
>> One of them "Paleocons", still clinging to world as they knew it back
>> in the 30's.
>>
>> Here is yet again another blogger that weighs in on the subject.
>> The man does sound like he knows some history.
>>
>> http://vodkapundit.com/archives/007819.php
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------
>> "A Fisking"
>> Posted by Stephen Green · 12 May 2005
>> "It took 40 years, but today Pat Buchanan hit bottom on the slippery
>> slope from Young Turk conservative columnist to Nazi Apologist
>> troglodyte."
>
>LMFAO! Pat Buchanan is a Nazi Apologist? I don't think so.
I don't think so, either.
Mr. Green is guilty of severe rhetorical overkill.
The label of Isolationist probably fits Pitchfork Pat as well as any.
It made sense at one time, when the Atlantic and Pacific were
effective barriers against those wacky Europeans.
But that was the 20th Century.
Pat needs to wake up and smell the 21st Century.
Come to think of it, Pat hasn't been on any slippery slope.
He is still where he was back in the 40's.
>
>> "Here's his latest column for WorldNetDaily, who should have known
>> better than to publish it:"
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------
>>
>> It's a long article.
>> The following is just a little snippet from the middle.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------
>> "Politics is the art of half a loaf. War is the art of taking as much
>> as the loaf as you can get away with. Britain exhausted of manpower,
>> capital, and material came out of the war with her sovereignty intact.
>
>Britain also came out of the war having lost its worldwide empire and its
>importance as a world power vastly diminished.
But they never hung out the white flag like their Froggy cousins did.
Indeed, they had their "finest hour".
>
>> Unlike, you know, Poland, Hungary, the Baltic States, etc. I'd call
>> that a win."
>
>Buchanan's point is that Britain declared war on Germany because Germany
>invaded Poland. So the casus belli was to protect the freedom and
>sovereignty of the Polish people. That objective was not realized, since
>Poland came under Soviet domination.
That was probably the WMD case of it's day, but it wasn't the only
reason to fight Germany.
And of course, the Soviet domination of Poland brings up the whole
issue of Yalta.
A nuther whole bag-o-snakes, eh?
>
>> "And that's another thing Buchanan left out. Of those 11 nations
>> Stalin "liberated," five of them were Fascist nations. East Germany,
>> Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and (marginally) Finland. They took the
>> wrong side. They, however unjustly, suffered the consequences. And
>> another thing. Stalin never got his way in Finland or Yugoslavia both
>> turned out to be complete pains in the neck."
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------
>>
>> Personally, I figured that the discussion about WWII had been
>> exhausted years ago, but I guess not.
>>
>> I will await the decisive conclusions of the RGP historians.
>>
>>
>> "The only thing we learn from history is that we can't learn anything
>> from history"
>
>The Vodka Pundit calls Buchanan a Nazi apologist, Goosestep Pat, and an
>American Nazi. There is no factual basis for any of these ad hominem
>attacks. When you see a writer making unfounded ad hominem attacks, you
>know his argument is weak. His argument is REALLY weak, since he doesn't
>refute a single one of Buchanan's points. He just engages in a lot of
>rhetorical handwaving -- much like you, FL Turbo.
>
That one's a keeper, Vilhelm <giggle snort>
The only question remaining is whether you want to be the Pot or the
Kettle this time.
Just to keep you up to date, the original article here:
http://vodkapundit.com/archives/007819.php
has 124 comments from readers on the web.
They range from "Vodkapundit is a Genius"
to "Vodkapundit is a Moron"
From "Buchanan is a Nazi apologist"
to "Buchanan is not a Nazi apologist"
And a whole lot in between.
It's not too late for even you to get into the discussion.
You could probably set them all straight as to where the bear sits in
the woods.
--------------------------------
Now if you want to see some real eye gouging, crotch stabbing
rhetoric, here it is.
http://nicedoggie.net/
Sub-titled The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
An Affiliate of the VRWC.
Kind of a Michael Savage on crack.
They make Ann Coulter sound like a shy, retiring librarian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"See-BS Steps In Their Own Shit Again"
"In their headlong rush to throw away whatever remained of their
muon-sized credibility, See-BS has been caught with their atrophied
little winkies stuck in the pooch, yet again."
"We, down here in the Imperial Dungeon Game Room, hope that El Rushbo
will apologize, post-haste, to the honorable Mr. Starr and go after
the suppurating fuckweasels at See-BS with a gusto not seen since
Michael Moore-on's last trip to the all-you-can-eat jelly donut &
socialist-semen-stuffed sushi bar."
"(Update: We've been informed by LC Jackboot that MahaRushie did, in
fact, apologize to Mr. Starr today. Good on 'im.)"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BWAHAHAHA
"...caught with their atrophied little winkies stuck in the pooch, yet
again."
Ya gotta luv it for inventive invective.
That refers to the CBS network's interview of Ken Starr, and their
incredible dishonesty in the way they reported it.
(Starr has asked them for a transcript of the entire interview, but so
far their response has been <sounds of crickets chirping>)
They even fooled the Great MahaRushie into thinking that Starr was
courting the Liberal MSM.
Here's another little example from the nicedoggy.
It refers to Condi's interview with Liberal Larry King, where she
gives a first-hand account of the value of the 2nd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Puttin' Da' Smackdown On Socialist LiberIdiot Gun Grabbers"
"Condi landed a crushing, jackbooted kick to the shriveled crotches of
Drooling Leftists everywhere."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No small wonder why VRWC members love that woman.
----------- "Liberal MSM bias? What Liberal bias?' ----------
------------------- "I don't see no Liberal bias" --------------------
Boss Tweed
Ok Paul, forget any of the points made in Sweet or my post. You must be right,
it was because of treason the allies lost the war.
Paul G.
>
> Ok Paul, forget any of the points made in Sweet or my post. You must be
> right,
> it was because of treason the allies lost the war.
>
We have never had to make any concessions to the Soviets. As I said, we
have built up the communists with aid, credits, technology, etc., for
decades. Our government's policies have been one "mistake" after another.
If they were truly mistakes, wouldn't they err in our favor once in awhile?
A steady list of "mistakes" that constantly helps our enemies, cannot be by
accident. Did it make any sense to build up the Soviets at the same time
our boys were dying fighting the North Vietnamese who were Moscow's clients?
Sigh sarcastically all you want. I am right. That wouldn't be important if
it were all a thing of the past. But without understanding how they have
betrayed us in the past, you cannot understand how we are being led down the
path to disaster now. They're selling us out. And you can bet your Ameros
on that.
Boss Tweed
It wasnt really sarcasm. More like exasperation. So really during the cold war
the US was actually secretly the Soviets best friend? I'm guessing anything
short of using the atomic bomb on them was treason.
Paul G.
>
>
> It wasnt really sarcasm. More like exasperation. So really during the cold
> war
> the US was actually secretly the Soviets best friend? I'm guessing
> anything
> short of using the atomic bomb on them was treason.
>
Boss,
They never would have been a formidable enemy whatsoever if it had not been
for aid and technology transfers from us to them. I'm not saying to bomb
anyone. Just quit building them up. Sound logical? Obviously yes. Then
why isn't it logical to our leaders? Our leaders are not stupid. How can
they be stupid? They're NOT stupid.
Ever hear of the Kama River truck factory? It's forty square miles and has
more production than all of US truck producers put together. Major funding
of that plant came from us. A smaller portion came from Chase Manhattan
Bank. Make any sense?
And now we're building up Red China like crazy. Someday we're going to
regret that.
-Paul G.