crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of threatening a federal official
Nickname unavailable
performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
threatening a federal official
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aMU3Ym3qMlN8
Man Charged With Threatening to Kill Senator Murray (Update2)
By Justin Blum
April 6 (Bloomberg) -- A 64-year-old man was accused of threatening to
kill U.S. Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, in response to
passage of health-care legislation that she supported.
The FBI arrested Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on
charges of threatening a federal official, according to a statement
from U.S. prosecutors. He allegedly left a series of threatening voice
mail messages at Murray’s office in Seattle.
In one of the messages, Wilson allegedly said that someone would kill
Murray, and that “if I have the chance, I would do it,” according to a
criminal complaint filed in federal court in Seattle. Other messages
quoted in the complaint were more explicit and laced with expletives.
Congress last month approved the most sweeping changes to the health-
care system in four decades. Lawmakers reported threats and vandalism
to their offices beginning shortly before final passage of the
measure.
Wilson allegedly blocked his phone number when he called Murray’s
office. Wilson, who told an FBI agent that he regularly carries a
firearm, has a concealed weapons permit, according to the complaint.
Nobody answered the phone at the last known number for Wilson listed
in court records.
Wilson was scheduled to appear in court today.
Murray’s office referred calls to spokesman Matt McAlvanah, whose
voice mailbox was full and didn’t respond to an e-mail.
To contact the reporter on this story: Justin Blum in Washington at
jbl...@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: April 6, 2010 17:17 EDT
AZDuffman
> crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was
> performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
> Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
> threatening a federal official
<snip>
So lets see, nowhere in the article did it say he was arrested at a
Tea Party Rally. Nowhere did it mention the Tea Party. Boy, you are
pathetic. This would be like cutting-and-pasting an article of a Crip
shooting a cop and saying "Obama Supporter Shoots Cop!" just because
he was black and thus 95% likely to have voted for or support Obama.
You must really be afraid of the Tea Party Movement andhow it will be
sweeping liberals out of office. Then you might have to go off
welfare and get a job.
If you and Cahill spree, spree local. Shoot up your housing project!
No one will notice.
Nickname unavailable
> On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was
> > performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
> > Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
> > threatening a federal official
>
> <snip>
>
> So lets see, nowhere in the article did it say he was arrested at a
> Tea Party Rally. Nowhere did it mention the Tea Party. Boy, you are
> pathetic. This would be like cutting-and-pasting an article of a Crip
> shooting a cop and saying "Obama Supporter Shoots Cop!" just because
> he was black and thus 95% likely to have voted for or support Obama.
>
did you read the header. if you did, what did it say?
> You must really be afraid of the Tea Party Movement andhow it will be
> sweeping liberals out of office. Then you might have to go off
> welfare and get a job.
>
yes i am afraid of pliable idiots.
> If you and Cahill spree, spree local. Shoot up your housing project!
> No one will notice.
since he was threatening a democrat for voting for the health care
bill, its armed and dangerous. if it walks like a duck, what is it?
its a conservative spree shooter
RichTravsky
WHERE did anyone say anything about a rally??????
What part of "tea party type" did you not understand?
RT
Concerend Citizen
> performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
> Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
> threatening a federal official
Huh? The article didn't specify, so maybe you could tell us which tea
party chapter he belonged to.
Actually, the article didn't mention tea party at all.
So maybe you could just tell us why you make up lies?
Nickname unavailable
wrote:
did you read the header, and if you did you came to that conclusion?
man are conservatives thick!
Frank Pittel
The reason for the lie is simple. Being a liar is a requirement of being a looney
tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dem.
--
-------------------
Keep working dumbo needs the money
Nickname unavailable
> In alt.politics.usa.republican Concerend Citizen <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : On Apr 6, 5:46??pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> : > crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was
> : > performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
> : > Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
> : > threatening a federal official
>
> : Huh? The article didn't specify, so maybe you could tell us which tea
> : party chapter he belonged to.
>
> : Actually, the article didn't mention tea party at all.
>
> : So maybe you could just tell us why you make up lies?
>
> The reason for the lie is simple. Being a liar is a requirement of being a looney
> tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dem.
> --
liberals cannot be fascists. just as conservatives cannot be taught.
>
> -------------------
> Keep working dumbo needs the money
keep working, hannity needs your money sucker:)
RichTravsky
What part of "tea party type" did you not understand?
RT
Gunner Asch
"Tea Party Type"
So which Tea Party did they belong to?
Or are you claiming that the propaganda title is factual?
If so...which Tea Party group DID they belong to?
Use as much whitespace as necessary.
Failure to do so, will simply prove to all the readers that you are
simply another mentally ill Leftwing extremist fringe kook.
We will all be waiting for your response.
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Gunner Asch
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>On Apr 6, 11:27 pm, Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
>> In alt.politics.usa.republican Concerend Citizen <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> : On Apr 6, 5:46??pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> : > crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was
>> : > performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
>> : > Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
>> : > threatening a federal official
>>
>> : Huh? The article didn't specify, so maybe you could tell us which tea
>> : party chapter he belonged to.
>>
>> : Actually, the article didn't mention tea party at all.
>>
>> : So maybe you could just tell us why you make up lies?
>>
>> The reason for the lie is simple. Being a liar is a requirement of being a looney
>> tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dem.
>> --
>
>
> liberals cannot be fascists.
And its obvious that Liberals are stupid if they make claims like that.
I strongly suggest you review the subject a bit more in depth.
Here..let me give you a bit of a hint....
Come back when you learn something besides how to sometimes tie your
shoes.
Gunner
>
>>
>> -------------------
>> Keep working dumbo needs the money
>
> keep working, hannity needs your money sucker:)
Concerend Citizen
Sure I read the header. You implicated the Tea Party. Now deliver
the evidence or admit that you just lie and make shit up.
Concerend Citizen
The "tea party" part. Where did he get that from?
Lisa Lisa
One of the first people I'd blame for this would be Sarah Palin, who
drew crosshairs showing where Democratic congressmen voted for health
care reform. Then she told them to "reload."
Fox News is another culprit, and so are the Republicans who egged
these morons on.
They sowed the wind, and I hope they end up reaping the whirlwind in
full.
Lisa
Nickname unavailable
good god, another thick as a brick.
character: a person of a specified kind (usually with many
eccentricities); "a real character"; "a strange character"; "a
friendly eccentric"; "the capable type"; "a mental case"
of course the definition could be used on you, except the friendly
part:)
Nickname unavailable
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 21:39:51 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
> <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 6, 11:27 pm, Frank Pittel <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
> >> In alt.politics.usa.republican Concerend Citizen <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> : On Apr 6, 5:46??pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> >> : > crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was
> >> : > performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
> >> : > Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
> >> : > threatening a federal official
>
> >> : Huh? The article didn't specify, so maybe you could tell us which tea
> >> : party chapter he belonged to.
>
> >> : Actually, the article didn't mention tea party at all.
>
> >> : So maybe you could just tell us why you make up lies?
>
> >> The reason for the lie is simple. Being a liar is a requirement of being a looney
> >> tune brain dead lying fascist loser lib dem.
> >> --
>
> > liberals cannot be fascists.
>
> And its obvious that Liberals are stupid if they make claims like that.
>
> I strongly suggest you review the subject a bit more in depth.
>
> Here..let me give you a bit of a hint....
>
>
> Come back when you learn something besides how to sometimes tie your
> shoes.
>
> Gunner
>
wow, your cites, i am impressed. now what was WWII about? it was
about liberalism, vs. conservatism, and we liberals won. now here is
real history.
The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of
Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the
Nazis did, All over Germany, thugs in brown shirts took possession of
the streets and roughed up Communists, socialists, and Jews; they
chased socialist mayors and officials out of government buildings
http://www.buy.com/prod/hitler-and-his-secret-partners/q/loc/106/30426378.html
Chapter 1: Financing the 1933 Elections
On the cold winter weekend of January 28, 1933, Germany was officially
without a government. Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and his cabinet
had resigned on Saturday afternoon, and eighty-six-year-old President
von Hindenburg had not yet appointed a new chancellor. A nervous
tension spread over Berlin. Everyone waited for news; most felt
Germany was at an historic turning point.
Who would be the next chancellor? Hitler - the leader of the largest
party, the Nazis, who pledged to destroy democracy? Papen - the
aristocratic horseman who had been chancellor before Schleicher, but
who had no popular following? Perhaps Schleicher again, if he could
persuade the Social Democrats, the second largest political party in
the country, to join him in a coalition? Governing Germany in the
middle of an economic depression with nine million unemployed was not
an enviable task. The country had just had three different chancellors
in rapid succession. By tradition, the leader of the largest party was
usually appointed chancellor. But the Nazis had been the largest party
for over a year, and so far intrigues and political maneuvering had
succeeded in keeping Hitler out of power. Everyone guessed what a
Hitler government would mean. He had not kept his militarism, anti-
Semitism, and dictatorial ambitions a secret.
Political intrigues were so numerous that weekend that no one really
knew what was going on. Sensational rumors were being spread
throughout the city. Some said an army coup was imminent, that
Schleicher and the generals were about to abduct President von
Hindenburg and declare martial law. There were also rumors of an armed
Nazi uprising and a general strike by the socialist workers.
Hitler and Hermann Goering, the second most powerful man in the Nazi
party, stayed up all night on Sunday, January 29, trying to figure out
what Hindenburg might do. It was not until after 10 A.M. on Monday
that Hitler received a summons to the president's office. Even at that
point, the Nazis were not certain whether Hitler would be appointed
chancellor or Hindenburg would ask him to serve as vice-chancellor.
Across the street from the Chancellery, in the Kaiserhof Hotel,
Hitler's lieutenants were waiting, unsure of what was going on.
Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, said:
In the street the crowd stands waiting between the Kaiserhof and the
Chancellery. We are torn between doubt, hope, joy and despair. We have
been deceived too often to be able, wholeheartedly, to believe in the
great miracle. [S.A.] Chief of Staff Roehm stands at the window (with
binoculars) watching the door of the Chancellery from which the
Fuehrer [the leader, Hitler] must emerge. We shall be able to judge by
his face if the interview was a success. Torturing hours of waiting.
At last, a car draws up in front of the entrance. The crowd cheers.
They seem to feel that a great change is taking place....
A few moments later, he is with us. He says nothing. His eyes are full
of tears. It has come! The Fuehrer is appointed Chancellor. He has
already been sworn in by the President of the Reich. All of us are
dumb with emotion. Everyone clasps the Fuehrer's hand....Outside the
Kaiserhof, the masses are in a wild uproar....The thousands soon
become tens of thousands. Endless streams of people flood the
Wilhelmstrasse. We set to work...at once.
Hitler's victory was not a complete one by any means. He had been
appointed chancellor in a coalition government. Papen was to be his
vice-chancellor, and all the powerful cabinet posts were held by
Papen's conservative allies, rather than the Nazis. But at the moment,
Hitler's followers weren't worried about the details; for them the
only thing that mattered was that Hitler was chancellor. They had come
to power! All day, crowds gathered in the square outside the Kaiserhof
Hotel and the Chancellery.
At dusk Nazi storm troopers in their brown uniforms gathered in the
Tiergarten park, along with men of the Stahlhelm, an
ultranationalistic veterans' organization, for a torchlight victory
parade through the center of Berlin. As soon as it was dark, they came
marching by the thousands through the Brandenburg Gate, carrying
swastika flags and the black, white, and red flags of the German
empire. Bands marched between the units, beating their big drums as
the men sang old German military songs. But as each band came to the
Pariser Platz, where the French embassy was located, they stopped
whatever they were playing and, with an introductory roll of drums,
broke into the tune of the challenging war song "Victorious We Will
Crush the French."
The torches carried by the marchers glowed hypnotically in the
darkness. To foreign witnesses, it was a frightening sight. "The river
of fire flowed past the French Embassy," Ambassador François-Poncet
wrote, "whence, with heavy heart and filled with foreboding, I watched
this luminous wake." Liberal Germans found it an "ominous sight." It
was, wrote one German reporter, "a night of deadly menace, a nightmare
in...blazing torches."
As the marchers came by the Chancellery, there were tumultuous cheers
for Hitler, who stood in an open window saluting them. He was so
excited that night, he could hardly stand still. He was raising his
arm up and down heiling, smiling, and laughing so much, his eyes
filled with tears. "It was an extraordinary experience," recalled
Papen, who was standing behind Hitler. "The endless repetition of the
triumphal cry: 'Heil, Heil, Sieg Heil!' rang in my ears like a
tocsin." When Hitler turned to speak with Papen, his voice choked with
emotion. "What an immense task we have set for ourselves, Herr von
Papen - we must never part until our work is accomplished." Hitler and
Papen were much closer allies than anyone at the time imagined.
It was after midnight when the parade ended. Being too excited to
sleep, Hitler, Goering, Goebbels, and a few other Nazis sat up talking
for hours. They could hardly believe it had actually happened: they
were in the Chancellery at last. That evening, Hitler said to
Goebbels, "No one gets me out of here alive." It was one of the few
promises he kept.
On the morning of January 31, Hitler's storm troopers gave the German
people a glimpse of what Nazi rule would be like. All over Germany,
thugs in brown shirts took possession of the streets and roughed up
Communists, socialists, and Jews; they chased socialist mayors and
officials out of government buildings and even broke into the private
homes of their political enemies. When people complained to Papen, he
laughed. "Let the storm troopers have their fling." Among his friends
at the Herrenklub, an exclusive gentlemens club, he boasted: "We've
hired Hitler." To a skeptic he replied: "What do you want? I have
Hindenburg's confidence. Within two months we will have pushed Hitler
so far in the corner that he'll squeak."
The facts seemed to support Papen's optimism. Not only did Papen have
Hindenburg"s confidence, but in fact the old president had promised
never to receive Hitler unless he was accompanied by his vice-
chancellor. Papen also held the important post of minister-president
of Prussia, Germany's largest and most powerful state. From the
composition of the cabinet, it seemed all the real power was in the
hands of the conservatives: the aristocratic General von Blomberg was
minister of defense, Baron von Neurath, a career diplomat, was foreign
minister, and the old archreactionary Hugenberg was both minister of
economics and minister of agriculture. The Nazis were outnumbered six
to two.
The two Nazis in the cabinet, Wilhelm Frick and Goering, held posts
that were thought to be insignificant. Frick was minister of the
interior, but he did not control the police, which in Germany was
under the jurisdiction of the individual state governments. Goering
was made minister without portfolio, but with the promise that he
would be minister of aviation as soon as Germany had an air force. He
was also named minister of the interior of Prussia, an office that did
not receive much notice by the public but did control the Prussian
police.
The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right who made up the majority of
Hitler's cabinet hated the concept of democracy even more than the
Nazis did. These men belonged to the old ruling class of the kaiser's
Germany. They wanted to regain their old position of supremacy, lost
in 1918. They wanted to restore the monarchy, suppress the socialist
unions, avenge the loss of World War I, and make Germany the dominant
power in Europe. It was obvious why such reactionary nationalists
helped put Hitler in power: their goals and his were very similar.
Few people knew the full extent of Papen's collaboration with Hitler.
Historians have said he "did more than anyone else outside the Nazi
party to help Hitler to power." Papen helped Hitler because he was
trying to control him and use the Nazis for his own aims.
Papen was a handsome aristocratic-looking man with distinguished gray
hair and an officer's mustache. From an impoverished family of the
Westphalian nobility, he became a General Staff officer, a skillful
horseman, and a man of great charm. After a successful marriage to the
daughter of a wealthy Saar industrialist, he bought a large block of
shares in the Center party's newspaper, Germania. For a short time in
1932, Papen was chancellor, but his government had no popular support.
Papen believed it would be rather easy for an aristocratic officer
like himself to manipulate a former corporal, like Hitler, and thus be
able to use the Nazi's mass following to accomplish the aims of the
upper-class conservative nationalists.
Hitler immediately began to outmaneuver his conservative colleagues.
He reported to the cabinet that the Center party was making impossible
demands and could not be counted on to form a coalition with the Nazis
and the Nationalists that would have a majority in the Reichstag.
Because of this situation, Hitler argued he would have to call for new
elections. The only "demand" the Center party made was that Hitler
promise to govern constitutionally, but none of the other members of
the cabinet bothered to check Hitler's statement. They agreed to new
elections on the condition that Hitler promise that the composition of
the cabinet would not change regardless of the outcome of the voting.
New elections would provide Hitler with a chance to improve on the
poor results the Nazis had received at the polls the past November. If
the Nazis won a clear majority in the elections, they might be able to
get rid of their coalition partners. Hitler had every reason to
believe the election campaign would be a big success. The entire
machinery of government, including the radio, was now under Nazi
control and could be used for campaigning. The party had been flooded
with new applicants for membership since he had become chancellor. In
the cabinet meeting on February 2, Hitler discussed his preparations
for the elections. Wilhelm Frick, the Nazi minister of the interior,
proposed that the government set aside a million marks for the
election campaign. Count von Schwerin von Krosigk, the minister of
finance, rejected this suggestion. Hitler did not force the issue. He
would have to get the money elsewhere.
The theme of the Nazi election campaign was to be the fight against
communism. Hitler opened the attack in a late-night radio broadcast to
the nation on February 1. He blamed the hard times Germany had gone
through since 1918 on the Social Democrats, which had been the largest
party in the Reichstag during most of those years. The Social
Democrats, he reminded his listeners, were actually a Marxist party.
"Fourteen years of Marxism," he said, "have ruined Germany; one year
of bolshevism [communism] would destroy her. The richest and fairest
territories of the world would be turned into a smoking heap of ruins.
Even the sufferings of the last decade and a half could not be
compared to the misery of a Europe in the heart of which the red flag
of destruction has been hoisted." He went on to promise to put the
unemployed back to work and save the peasants from bankruptcy.
On his fourth day in office, just after opening the election
campaign, Hitler took time off to attend a very important dinner. He
had been invited to the home of General von Hammerstein, chief of
staff of the army, to meet the leading officers of the army and navy.
In a speech that lasted almost two hours, Hitler explained his plans
for rebuilding German military power.
The generals were the real power in Germany during the Weimar period.
After World War II, many Germans tried to cover up the role certain
members of the Officer Corps had played in helping to put Hitler in
power. Many historians naively accepted this view, but the real story
is quite different. Traditionally, the German Army ruled from behind
the scenes and had the final "power to veto" any important issue.
After the loss of World War I, the Versailles Treaty severely
restricted the size of the German Army. The only way the generals
could maintain mass training and develop new weapons was to finance
private paramilitary units, like the Free Corps, with secret army
funds.
Hitler not only began his career as an army agent, but even in the
1930s he was supported by a powerful faction in the army. Over several
years, General von Schleicher, who was in charge of a secret informal
political department of the army, funneled over ten million marks to
Hitler. Why? Many military officers wanted an authoritarian government
that could unify the nation. The people needed to be infused with a
new spirit of patriotism because powerful interests were planning a
war of revenge against the Allies. Naturally there was a division of
opinion among the generals as to how much power to give Hitler.
Hindenburg originally had strong reservations about appointing a man
from a lower-class background, like Hitler, chancellor. However, the
aggressive action the Nazis took against Communists was admired by
Hindenburg, and his relationship with Hitler rapidly improved.
One day, Hindenburg summoned Hitler when Papen was away from Berlin.
Hitler informed the president that Papen was out of town and reminded
him of the rule he (Hindenburg) had made, that the chancellor could
visit him only when accompanied by the vice-chancellor. "The old
gentleman [Hindenburg]," said Hitler, "replied that he wished to see
me alone, and that in the future the presence of Papen could be
regarded as unnecessary. Within three weeks, he had progressed so far
that his attitude towards me became affectionate and paternal. Talking
of the elections fixed for the 3rd of March, he said, 'What are we
going to do if you fail to get a majority? We shall have the same
difficulties all over again.'"
At the beginning of the election campaign, Hitler and Papen persuaded
old President von Hindenburg to sign an emergency decree to protect
law and order. The decree gave Nazi officials the right to prohibit
public meetings. Newspapers could be suppressed if they "incited"
civil disobedience or published "false" reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hitler the conservative:As a master of the "big lie", he was able to
build substantial grass-roots support, based on a platform of anti-
Semitism and anti-communism, conservative values
http://www.harley.com/people/adolph-hitler.html
Interesting People
ADOLPH HITLER
If there is one person in history whose activities changed the world
the most, that person is Adolf Hitler. Hitler (1889-1945) was the
German dictator who founded the National Socialism (Nazi) movement in
1920. Within twonty years, Hitler had led Germany and its allies into
World War II (1939-1945), by any measure, the most devastating war in
history, with over 60 million people killed.
As a young man, Hitler served in the Bavarian army during World War I.
(Bavaria is a part of Germany.) Although he was recognized for
bravery, the experience embittered him, and he blamed Germany's defeat
on Jews and Marxists.
In 1921, Hitler became the leader of the German National Socialist
(Nazi) Party. In 1923, he unsuccessfully attempted to overthrow the
Bavarian government — the so-called Beer Hall Putsch — and was
imprisoned for nine months. During that time, Hitler wrote the book
Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), in which he laid bare his theories of hate
and anti-Semitism, and his plans for world domination, a vision in
which the German master race would create the so-called Third Reich.
("Germany will either become a World Power or will not continue to
exist at all." — Vol. 2, Ch. XIV)
In time, Mein Kampf would become the bible of the Nazi party. The grew
slowly, however, until the Great Depression, during which Hitler's
skills as a speaker and organizer allowed him to capitalize on the
growing social and economic unrest. As a master of the "big lie", he
was able to build substantial grass-roots support, based on a platform
of anti-Semitism and anti-communism.
Although he had some false starts, Hitler became Chancellor of Germany
in 1933 and, within a year, was given full dictatorial powers by the
government. In concert with other Nazi leaders — principally Goering,
Himmler and Goebbels — Hitler crushed all opposition and took control
of most facets of German life. In 1934, laws were passed to establish
official anti-Semitism and to create the first concentration camps.
On August 2, 1934, the elderly president of Germany died. Within
hours, Hitler declared himself Fuhrer (supreme ruler) of Germany.
Technically, the declaration was illegal. However, less than three
weeks later, a special election was held in which 90 percent of the
German people voted to confirm Hitler as Fuhrer. Hitler was now the
absolute ruler of Germany, a law unto himself.
Over the next few years, Hitler prepared Germany for war, carrying out
many political maneuvers that allowed him to extend his power into
smaller, less powerful countries. On September 1, 1939, Germany
invaded Poland. Two days later, Britain, France, Australia and New
Zealand (the Allies) declared war on Germany, formally starting World
War II.
At first, Germany had a great deal of military success, invading and
conquering much of Europe, North Africa and Russia. On December 11,
1941, Germany declared war on the United States, upon which the U.S.
entered the war on the side of the Allies. Still, it was some time
before the Germans would be stopped. Indeed, on April 26, 1942, Hitler
declared, "This war no longer bears the characteristics of former
inter-European conflicts. It is one of those elemental conflicts which
usher in a new millennium and which shake the world once in a thousand
years."
In the fullness of time, Hitler was proved to be wrong. On February 2,
1943, he received his first major setback when the Germans were
defeated at Stalingrad in southwest Russia. Over the next two years,
the Allies began to defeat Germany, one battle at a time and, by the
spring of 1945, virtually all of Europe and North Africa had been
liberated.
With the Third Reich collapsing around him and the Russians
approaching, Hitler hid in an underground bunker in Berlin. On April
29, 1945, as the Russians approached the city, Hitler married his
longtime mistress Eva Braun. The next day, both Hitler and Braun
committed suicide.
Nickname unavailable
here is the definition of type. i know this will probably go over
your head, its your logic capabilities, but here goes.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:type&ei=Ipa8S5yRF...
Nickname unavailable
wrote:
what part of type do you not understand?
AZDuffman
> On Apr 6, 5:41 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was
> > > performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
> > > Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
> > > threatening a federal official
>
> > <snip>
>
> > So lets see, nowhere in the article did it say he was arrested at a
> > Tea Party Rally. Nowhere did it mention the Tea Party. Boy, you are
> > pathetic. This would be like cutting-and-pasting an article of a Crip
> > shooting a cop and saying "Obama Supporter Shoots Cop!" just because
> > he was black and thus 95% likely to have voted for or support Obama.
>
> did you read the header. if you did, what did it say?
The header is what *you* made up. Anyone can make up a header. For
example, we have a new header, is it true? Knowing you, likely it is.
Nickname unavailable
we have to watch out how we say these things. please include a
definition for the more logically challenged. like when we say sarah
palin, we have to supply a complete definition of what she is, now
here it is.
" what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.
what is the definition of a crank? one who accepts, or embraces
advise that makes no sense at all."
fox news.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Apropaganda&btnG=Search
"Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the
attitude of a community toward some cause or position."
"The systematic effort of controlling public opinion or a course of
action by using selected facts, ideas or allegations."
republican party.
http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism
"fascism
Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the
state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the
individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of
dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic
values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly
out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed
from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its
protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of
class systems. The leaders of the fascist governments of Italy (1922 –
43), Germany (1933 – 45), and Spain (1939 – 75) — Benito Mussolini,
Adolf Hitler, and Francisco Franco — were portrayed to their publics
as embodiments of the strength and resolve necessary to rescue their
nations from political and economic chaos. Japanese fascists (1936 –
45) fostered belief in the uniqueness of the Japanese spirit and
taught subordination to the state and personal sacrifice. See also
totalitarianism; neofascism."
Nickname unavailable
here is the definition of type. i know this will probably go over
AZDuffman
> On Apr 7, 9:58 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 9:16 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 6, 5:41 pm, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was
> > > > > performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
> > > > > Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
> > > > > threatening a federal official
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > So lets see, nowhere in the article did it say he was arrested at a
> > > > Tea Party Rally. Nowhere did it mention the Tea Party. Boy, you are
> > > > pathetic. This would be like cutting-and-pasting an article of a Crip
> > > > shooting a cop and saying "Obama Supporter Shoots Cop!" just because
> > > > he was black and thus 95% likely to have voted for or support Obama.
>
> > > did you read the header. if you did, what did it say?
>
> > The header is what *you* made up. Anyone can make up a header. For
> > example, we have a new header, is it true? Knowing you, likely it is.
>
> here is the definition of type. i know this will probably go over
> your head, its your logic capabilities, but here goes.
The article didn't mention the "Tea-Party Tyoe." YOU DID. Since Tea
Party Rallies have been peaceful with no arrests you are the one who
needs to look up the definition.
Gunner Asch
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Tea Party Type"
>>
>> So which Tea Party did they belong to?
>>
>> Or are you claiming that the propaganda title is factual?
>>
>> If so...which Tea Party group DID they belong to?
>>
>> Use as much whitespace as necessary.
>>
>> Failure to do so, will simply prove to all the readers that you are
>> simply another mentally ill Leftwing extremist fringe kook.
>>
>> We will all be waiting for your response.
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>
>
> good god, another thick as a brick.
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:type&ei=Ipa8S5yRFoba8ASTlqjmBw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAYQkAE
>
>character: a person of a specified kind (usually with many
>eccentricities); "a real character"; "a strange character"; "a
>friendly eccentric"; "the capable type"; "a mental case"
>
>
>
> of course the definition could be used on you, except the friendly
>part:)
So then this would fit you then...?
http://forthardknox.com/2008/10/06/bill-ayers-the-wonderful-marxist-murder-co-conspirator/
Gunner Asch
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfYBsxnZ77c
Yes and?
Looks like Leftards are in a panic. <VBG>
Works for me.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>
>> > liberals cannot be fascists.
>>
>> And its obvious that Liberals are stupid if they make claims like that.
>>
>> I strongly suggest you review the subject a bit more in depth.
>>
>> Here..let me give you a bit of a hint....
>>
>> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Mi5&rls=org.mo...>
>>
>> Come back when you learn something besides how to sometimes tie your
>> shoes.
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>
> wow, your cites, i am impressed. now what was WWII about? it was
>about liberalism, vs. conservatism, and we liberals won. now here is
>real history.
>
>The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right
Gentlemen of the Right? You do know that the name Nazi was a shortening
of their actual name...right?
National Socialist German Workers' Party
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
Socialists are hardly members of the Right.
You really ARE stupid arntcha?
Gunner
AZDuffman
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 07:36:37 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
> <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> >> > liberals cannot be fascists.
>
> >> And its obvious that Liberals are stupid if they make claims like that.
>
> >> I strongly suggest you review the subject a bit more in depth.
>
> >> Here..let me give you a bit of a hint....
>
> >> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Mi5&rls=org.mo...>
>
> >> Come back when you learn something besides how to sometimes tie your
> >> shoes.
>
> >> Gunner
>
> > wow, your cites, i am impressed. now what was WWII about? it was
> >about liberalism, vs. conservatism, and we liberals won. now here is
> >real history.
>
> >The aristocrats and gentlemen of the Right
>
> Gentlemen of the Right? You do know that the name Nazi was a shortening
> of their actual name...right?
>
> National Socialist German Workers' Party
> Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
>
> Socialists are hardly members of the Right.
>
> You really ARE stupid arntcha?
>
> Gunner
Don't confuse this guy with facts, Gunner. If you tell him that the
Nazis were strict on gun control his head will explode.
After all, the guy thinks the GOP owns Toyota and gets upset at
companies that open plants in the USA.
Nickname unavailable
it did not have to. the tea party was and still is against the health
care bill, correct? and the tea party type of sarah(i sneak across the
border to use death panel socialized medicine) palin nutcase type has
what on her web site, hint, cross hairs. so someone who has threatened
the life of a senator who has voted for the health care bill, and we
are to come to what conclusion?
AZDuffman
> it did not have to. the tea party was and still is against the health
> care bill, correct? and the tea party type of sarah(i sneak across the
> border to use death panel socialized medicine) palin nutcase type has
> what on her web site, hint, cross hairs. so someone who has threatened
> the life of a senator who has voted for the health care bill, and we
> are to come to what conclusion?
If you are a normal person you come to the conclusion that the person
arrested was a disturbed individual. But since the Tea party Movement
was not mentioned in the article there is no reason to associate the
two. There are plenty of people who do not like the policies of
Barack "Obamacare is good enough for you but my family and I are
exempt" Obama that a few nutcases will surface. There is still no
connection.
But you liberals are really, really afraid of the Tea Party Movement.
And with good reason. The democrats just gave up a majority for years
to come so you might have to actually look for work.
Me, ...again!
Is AZDuffman calling the subject line a "header"? What would he want
anyone to read in "the header" that has anything to do with the content
of the post?
Gee, maybe he is worse than "alexy" or even Rod Speed?
Nickname unavailable
your japanese over lords thought so much of you, that they warned the
russians first that their cars are unsafe at any speed:)
Nickname unavailable
me thinks i am striking to close to home:) i sense discomfort.
Nickname unavailable
i think its hitting to close to home. he must want the word type, to
be deleted out of the english language.
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:28:33 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Gentlemen of the Right? You do know that the name Nazi was a shortening
> >of their actual name...right?
>
> >National Socialist German Workers' Party
> >Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
>
> >Socialists are hardly members of the Right.
>
> >You really ARE stupid arntcha?
>
> >Gunner
>
>
> And that he killed all the Socialist leadership in the party in the
> night of the long knives.
lets not let something as silly as the facts to get in the way of
lying:)
AZDuffman
> On Apr 7, 11:47 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> your japanese over lords thought so much of you, that they warned the
> russians first that their cars are unsafe at any speed:)- Hide quoted text -
Only for people too dopey to know the difference between the gas and
brake pedal. Or in other words, liberals. Maybe it is just natural
selection at work, dumb liberals hitting the gas and removing
themselves from the gene pool.
Yes, I know "dumb liberal" is a redundant term.
AZDuffman
> lets not let something as silly as the facts to get in the way of
> lying
That explains 99% of the content of your posts. You lie about
everything from Toyota = Republican to the Willie Horton ad being
racist.
Nickname unavailable
this will sail so far over your head, that it will appear as a vapor
trial, but here goes.
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Socialism_and_Nazism/
• Socialism and Nazism
Nazism and socialism refers to a polemical, and political claim that
Nazism, or the "German National Socialism" of the 1930s to mid 1940s
is comparable in some way to the ideology of socialism. Political
figures —in the US, Britain, and elsewhere —may at times employ the
comparison as a rhetorical device aimed at discrediting pro-labor and
otherwise socially liberal platforms, by implying a guilt by
association between socialist economic philosophy and the tyrannical
rule of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.
While the claim has little meaning among educated scholars, the
argument has some social resonance among "layman majorities" who tend
to be less able to discern (or have less access to) factual claims and
materials related to history and economics —easy to sway with polemic
rhetoric, even if the claim has little substance or merit.
The definition of Nazism
The name "National Socialist German Workers Party," was a misnomer,
much like the "Peoples Republic of China," the "Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics," the "German Democratic Republic" and the
"Liberal Democratic Party of Russia." Few would argue that any of the
above countries were infact democracies or republics, and it is to
this above category that the Hitlerian self-image as a "National
Socialist German Workers Party," belongs.
The shortened term, "National Socialism," is a misnomer as well, and
by itself simply means a 'nationalist flavor of socialism.' But
because it is a very general term, it has some current resonance in
popular discourse —particularly when it's used synonymously with
Nazism.
It's polemical use within Western capitalist societies, is designed to
evoke the twin demons of Naziism and (Soviet) "socialism," perhaps
generating a Pavlovian response to the common "enemy", in this case .
The accusation of political liberals as "socialists," (and hence by
implication "Nazis" and "Soviets Communists") is a rather typical and
well-documented cornerstone of conservative rhetoric in the United
States and other capitalist democracies. (See smear campaign, Red
scare, McCarthyism)
The Nazi party-appropriated-term "socialism," like "democracy" in the
cases above, was used to appeal to German workers for political
support during the tentative early years of Hitler's ascent to power.
Apart from the occasional use of empty pro-worker political rhetoric,
Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party had no inclination towards true
socialism, in the sense (democratic socialism) that it's used today.
Within the context of Hitler's unified, "racially-pure" Germany,
Hitler instituted and supported social programs that on their surface
had socialist structure. For example, his youth programs, education
and indoctrination programs, reproduction programs, all borrowed some
of their structure from existing "socialist" ideas, but insead of
keeping the democratic spirit of socialist ideals, he simply borrowed
what was popular to serve is quest for power. Whatever appeals Nazism
made to the German worker, family, culture, and society —while in a
very general sense were socialist —they were simply components in the
totalitarian rule of the Nazi party.
The claim that socialism and nazism are one in the same are an example
of the ignatoriao ilenchi fallacy —for example, the same could be said
of the United States military industrial complex, which operates with
socialist/communist-like safeguards and protections, though its a part
of a capitalist system.
Ad-Hominem
The term Nazism typically has such a bad name that to link it to
anything tends to tarnish the reputation of that other thing. A "law"
of internet culture called Godwin's Law humorously states that whoever
first brings up Hitler or the Nazis in a usenet discussion
automatically loses the argument.
[1] [2] (tarring them with the same brush, as it were). Those who see
a connection insist that rather then being driven by ideology, they
seek only greater accuracy in political science.
Reasons Nazism is considered socialist
• Self-depiction: the German Nazi Party called itself the "National
Socialist Worker's Party", and in 1927, Hitler said, "We are
socialists."
•
• The Left Wing (examples include Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm),
and working class brownshirts (or Sturmabteilung) within the Nazi
Party supported socialist programs.
•
• One writer, Lew Rockwell at the Ludwig von Mises Institute,
suggests that the chief difference beween Nazism and (as he puts it)
others forms of socialism is that the Hitler's socialism was
nationalistic while other forms (such as Communism) were
internationalist. [3]
Reasons Nazism is not considered socialist
• Throughout its rise to power and rule, the Nazis were strongly
opposed by left-wing and socialist parties, and Nazi rhetoric was
virulently anti-Marxist, attacking both communists and social
democrats. A central appeal of Nazism was its opposition to Marxism
and other forms of socialism and its claim to be a bulwark against
Bolshevism and this is why they recieved so much material and
political support from industrialists and conservatives.
•
• The Nazi ideology saw socialist collectivism as part of a Jewish
conspiracy (Judeo-Bolshevism) meant to undermine the elitist
principle.
•
• Nazis proposed that only people who were considered "racially pure"
or Aryan would benefit from their policies. This can be seen as
contrary to the socialist ideal of a society for the benefit of all.
•
• In his rise to power, Hitler reassured German industrialists that
he would respect private property and fight labor unions. To the
extent that permitting private property to exist is contrary to
"socialism", then Nazism was not "socialist". On the other hand, some
democratic countries (like Sweden) have adopted some (but not all)
socialist ideas while retaining a degree of freedom to own private
property and have labor unions.
•
• Hitler received strong support from conservatives for the "Enabling
Act." This legislation was opposed by social democrats.
•
• After coming to power, Hitler sent thousand of communists, social
democrats and unionists to concentration camps and killed communist
leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate
profits for Krupp & Co.
•
• The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis. With the
exception of Jewish property which was seized and sold, capitalist
enterprises were not expropriated or nationalised but remained in
private hands.
•
• The Nazis were anti-egalitarian believing in neither equality
(either among Germans or between Germans and non-Germans),
collectivism, nor the rights of the "masses". According to Hitler
biographer Ian Kershaw they had an elitist view of society and
asserted that in competition with each other the superior individual
would emerge on top. Despite the use of slogans such as "the common
good comes before the private good" their vision of social relations,
in practice, was in line with the ideas of Nietzche rather than Karl
Marx.
•
• During the party's ascendency in the 1930s, so called "left wing"
Nazis such as Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm were ruthlessly purged
and even killed.
Nickname unavailable
we shall see as the law suits pile up. you keep making my case of
what constitutes stupidity, and i thank you for the comedic relief:)
AZDuffman
One case was solved already, person was stepping on the gas and ran
into a wall. It must have been a liberal who decided it is easier to
sue Toyota than work. Audi had the same claims in the 1980s. Of
course, that was the Reagan Boom so less people felt the need to sue
instead of work like now in the Obama recession.
Rod Speed
> Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote
>> AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> your japanese over lords thought so much of you, that they warned
>> the russians first that their cars are unsafe at any speed:)
> Only for people too dopey to know the difference between
> the gas and brake pedal. Or in other words, liberals.
Corse that wouldnt be you doing any name calling, eh ?
> Maybe it is just natural selection at work, dumb liberals hitting
> the gas and removing themselves from the gene pool.
Corse that wouldnt be you doing any name calling, eh ?
> Yes, I know "dumb liberal" is a redundant term.
Corse that wouldnt be you doing any name calling, eh ?
Me, ...again!
Or, did he mean to say "the subject line" which is what his NG editor
should have offered him. You normally have to do some extra work to read
the (real) header.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could get "alexy" and Rod Speed and Duffman to
duke it out, three-way, and we all could sit on the sidelines and watch?
;-)
Nickname unavailable
and look what we have here. A UPDATE!!!!
crazed tea party type arrested by F.B.I. after threatening democrat
nancy pelosi over her vote on the health care bill:he allegedly made
several threatening phone calls to Pelosi, a California Democrat
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anLHmA7BGb60&pos=9
FBI Arrests Man Said to Threaten Pelosi on Health Law (Update1)
By Karen Gullo and Justin Blum
April 7 (Bloomberg) -- A man arrested by the FBI for threatening U.S.
House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi was said to be upset
over federal health care legislation passed last month, two law
enforcement officials said.
Gregory Lee Giusti, 48, of San Francisco, was detained earlier today
and will appear in federal court there for an initial appearance
tomorrow, said Joseph Schadler, a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in an e-mail. The charges against Giusti are under
seal, he said.
A call to a phone number listed in Giusti’s name in San Francisco
wasn’t answered.
Giusti allegedly made several threatening phone calls to Pelosi, a
California Democrat, because he was upset over the health-care law
approved by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama, said the
officials, who declined to be identified because they weren’t
authorized to speak publicly on the case.
To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Gullo in San Francisco at
kgu...@bloomberg.net and; Justin Blum in Washington at
jbl...@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: April 7, 2010 17:21 EDT
Gunner Asch
He is much dumber than I thought.
Gunner Asch
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:28:33 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Gentlemen of the Right? You do know that the name Nazi was a shortening
>>of their actual name...right?
>>
>>National Socialist German Workers' Party
>>Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
>>
>>Socialists are hardly members of the Right.
>>
>>You really ARE stupid arntcha?
>>
>>Gunner
>
>
>And you believe that Hitler always told the truth right?
>
>And that he killed all the Socialist leadership in the party in the
>night of the long knives.
Ah...no..he didnt.
Care to provide cites?
Ernst Rohm and Co were his competitors..but hardly "All of the Socialist
Leadership"
In fact..the Brownshirts were much like groups in West
Hollywood..militant gays.
he Night of the Long Knives (German: About this sound Nacht der langen
Messer (help�info)) or "Operation Hummingbird", or, more commonly used
in Germany "R�hm-Putsch" was a purge that took place in Nazi Germany
between June 30 and July 2, 1934, when the Nazi regime carried out a
series of political executions. Most of those killed were members of the
Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary Brownshirts.
Hitler moved against the SA and its leader, Ernst R�hm, because he saw
the independence of the SA and the penchant of its members for street
violence as a direct threat to his power. He also wanted to conciliate
leaders of the Reichswehr, the official German military who both feared
and despised the SA�in particular R�hm's ambition to absorb the
Reichswehr into the SA under his own leadership. Finally, Hitler used
the purge to attack or eliminate critics of his regime, especially those
loyal to Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, and to settle scores with old
enemies.
At least 85 people died during the purge, although the final death toll
may have been into the hundreds,[2][3] and more than a thousand
perceived opponents were arrested.[2] Most of the killings were carried
out by the Schutzstaffel (SS) and the Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei),
the regime's secret police. The purge strengthened and consolidated the
support of the Reichswehr for Hitler. It also provided a legal grounding
for the Nazi regime, as the German courts and cabinet quickly swept
aside centuries of legal prohibition against extra-judicial killings to
demonstrate their loyalty to the regime.
Before its execution, its planners sometimes referred to it as
"Hummingbird" (German: Kolibri), as that was the codeword used to set
the execution squads in motion on the day of the purge.[4] The codename
for the operation appears to have been chosen arbitrarily. The phrase
"Night of the Long Knives" in the German language predates the massacre
itself, and it also refers generally to acts of vengeance. To this day,
Germans still use the term "R�hm-Putsch" ("R�hm coup d��tat") to
describe the event, as that was the term the Nazi regime used at the
time, despite its overall false implication that the murders were
necessary to forestall a coup. To emphasize this, German authors often
use quotation marks or write about the so-called R�hm-Putsch.[5]
Gunner Asch
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Many stormtroopers
>believed in the socialist promise of National Socialism and expected
>the Nazi regime to take more radical economic action, such as breaking
>up the vast landed estates of the aristocracy. That the regime did not
>take such steps disillusioned those who expected an economic as well
>as a political revolution.[16]"
Yes and?
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Mises Daily: Friday, November 11, 2005 by George Reisman
My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi
Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why
socialism, understood as an economic system based on government
ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian
dictatorship.
The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the
many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.
When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English
translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's
identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one
expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with
"socialist" in its name to be but socialism?
Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one
thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to
believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the
Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.
The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact
that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private
hands.
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of
production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual
substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German
government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private
owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it,
not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what
quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well
as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what
dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted
to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed,
was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises
termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist
principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before
the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the
State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of
course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property
is also owned by the State.
But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was
the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed
in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the
regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi
regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast
increase in government spending required by its programs of public
works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were
imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the
inflation.
The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls
is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods
people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.
Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that
consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to
buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later,
with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by
imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic
system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies
between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production
among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital
among the different branches of the economic system.
In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the
effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in
a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability,
thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it
has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the
increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by
price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and
profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in
supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when
the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply
necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in
profitability.
As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes
possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and
profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and
unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the
production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as
life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of
either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the
medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while
a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming
less profitable as their supply increased.
As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price
controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add
further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced,
in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which
I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this
further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the
economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of
the substantive powers of ownership.
This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it
socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious
socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or
Bolshevik pattern.
Of course, socialism does not end the chaos caused by the destruction of
the price system. It perpetuates it. And if it is introduced without the
prior existence of price controls, its effect is to inaugurate that very
chaos. This is because socialism is not actually a positive economic
system. It is merely the negation of capitalism and its price system. As
such, the essential nature of socialism is one and the same as the
economic chaos resulting from the destruction of the price system by
price and wage controls. (I want to point out that Bolshevik-style
socialism's imposition of a system of production quotas, with incentives
everywhere to exceed the quotas, is a sure formula for universal
shortages, just as exist under all around price and wage controls.)
At most, socialism merely changes the direction of the chaos. The
government's control over production may make possible a greater
production of some goods of special importance to itself, but it does so
only at the expense of wreaking havoc throughout the rest of the
economic system. This is because the government has no way of knowing
the effects on the rest of the economic system of its securing the
production of the goods to which it attaches special importance.
The requirements of enforcing a system of price and wage controls shed
major light on the totalitarian nature of socialism — most obviously, of
course, on that of the German or Nazi variant of socialism, but also on
that of Soviet-style socialism as well.
We can start with the fact that the financial self-interest of sellers
operating under price controls is to evade the price controls and raise
their prices. Buyers otherwise unable to obtain goods are willing,
indeed, eager to pay these higher prices as the means of securing the
goods they want. In these circumstances, what is to stop prices from
rising and a massive black market from developing?
The answer is a combination of severe penalties combined with a great
likelihood of being caught and then actually suffering those penalties.
Mere fines are not likely to provide much of a deterrent. They will be
regarded simply as an additional business expense. If the government is
serious about its price controls, it is necessary for it to impose
penalties comparable to those for a major felony.
But the mere existence of such penalties is not enough. The government
has to make it actually dangerous to conduct black-market transactions.
It has to make people fear that in conducting such a transaction they
might somehow be discovered by the police, and actually end up in jail.
In order to create such fear, the government must develop an army of
spies and secret informers. For example, the government must make a
storekeeper and his customer fearful that if they engage in a
black-market transaction, some other customer in the store will report
them.
Because of the privacy and secrecy in which many black-market
transactions can be conducted, the government must also make anyone
contemplating a black-market transaction fearful that the other party
might turn out to be a police agent trying to entrap him. The government
must make people fearful even of their long-time associates, even of
their friends and relatives, lest even they turn out to be informers.
And, finally, in order to obtain convictions, the government must place
the decision about innocence or guilt in the case of black-market
transactions in the hands of an administrative tribunal or its police
agents on the spot. It cannot rely on jury trials, because it is
unlikely that many juries can be found willing to bring in guilty
verdicts in cases in which a man might have to go to jail for several
years for the crime of selling a few pounds of meat or a pair of shoes
above the ceiling price.
In sum, therefore, the requirements merely of enforcing price-control
regulations is the adoption of essential features of a totalitarian
state, namely, the establishment of the category of "economic crimes,"
in which the peaceful pursuit of material self-interest is treated as a
criminal offense, and the establishment of a totalitarian police
apparatus replete with spies and informers and the power of arbitrary
arrest and imprisonment.
Clearly, the enforcement of price controls requires a government similar
to that of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, in which practically
anyone might turn out to be a police spy and in which a secret police
exists and has the power to arrest and imprison people. If the
government is unwilling to go to such lengths, then, to that extent, its
price controls prove unenforceable and simply break down. The black
market then assumes major proportions. (Incidentally, none of this is to
suggest that price controls were the cause of the reign of terror
instituted by the Nazis. The Nazis began their reign of terror well
before the enactment of price controls. As a result, they enacted price
controls in an environment ready made for their enforcement.)
Black market activity entails the commission of further crimes. Under de
facto socialism, the production and sale of goods in the black market
entails the defiance of the government's regulations concerning
production and distribution, as well as the defiance of its price
controls. For example, the goods themselves that are sold in the black
market are intended by the government to be distributed in accordance
with its plan, and not in the black market. The factors of production
used to produce those goods are likewise intended by the government to
be used in accordance with its plan, and not for the purpose of
supplying the black market.
Under a system of de jure socialism, such as existed in Soviet Russia,
in which the legal code of the country openly and explicitly makes the
government the owner of the means of production, all black-market
activity necessarily entails the misappropriation or theft of state
property. For example, the factory workers or managers in Soviet Russia
who turned out products that they sold in the black market were
considered as stealing the raw materials supplied by the state.
Furthermore, in any type of socialist state, Nazi or Communist, the
government's economic plan is part of the supreme law of the land. We
all have a good idea of how chaotic the so-called planning process of
socialism is. Its further disruption by workers and managers siphoning
off materials and supplies to produce for the black market, is something
which a socialist state is logically entitled to regard as an act of
sabotage of its national economic plan. And sabotage is how the legal
code of a socialist state does regard it. Consistent with this fact,
black-market activity in a socialist country often carries the death
penalty.
Now I think that a fundamental fact that explains the all-round reign of
terror found under socialism is the incredible dilemma in which a
socialist state places itself in relation to the masses of its citizens.
On the one hand, it assumes full responsibility for the individual's
economic well-being. Russian or Bolshevik-style socialism openly avows
this responsibility — this is the main source of its popular appeal. On
the other hand, in all of the ways one can imagine, a socialist state
makes an unbelievable botch of the job. It makes the individual's life a
nightmare.
Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time
in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in
the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not
experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and
has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of
clothing, to vegetables, even to bread. Even worse he is frequently
forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore
must certainly hate. (For under shortages, the government comes to
decide the allocation of labor just as it does the allocation of the
material factors of production.) And he lives in a condition of
unbelievable overcrowding, with hardly ever a chance for privacy. (In
the face of housing shortages, boarders are assigned to homes; families
are compelled to share apartments. And a system of internal passports
and visas is adopted to limit the severity of housing shortages in the
more desirable areas of the country.) To put it mildly, a person forced
to live in such conditions must seethe with resentment and hostility.
Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a
socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against
that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has
proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life
of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of
hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further
dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that
socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of
evil men. If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but
the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have
perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?
It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of
the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the
boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow
them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they
do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep
the lid on the citizenry.
Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things
as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of
course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the
newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes
newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can
be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all
the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which
the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond
the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.
A socialist government totally annihilates these freedoms. It turns the
press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in
its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone
who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.
The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers' terror of the
people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry
and the secret police to work 'round the clock. The one, to constantly
divert the people's attention from the responsibility of socialism, and
of the rulers of socialism, for the people's misery. The other, to
spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the
responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who
begins to show signs of thinking for himself. It is because of the
rulers' terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the
failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always
full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption
and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why,
periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and
to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges.
It is because of their terror, and their desperate need to crush every
breath even of potential opposition, that the rulers of socialism do not
dare to allow even purely cultural activities that are not under the
control of the state. For if people so much as assemble for an art show
or poetry reading that is not controlled by the state, the rulers must
fear the dissemination of dangerous ideas. Any unauthorized ideas are
dangerous ideas, because they can lead people to begin thinking for
themselves and thus to begin thinking about the nature of socialism and
its rulers. The rulers must fear the spontaneous assembly of a handful
of people in a room, and use the secret police and its apparatus of
spies, informers, and terror either to stop such meetings or to make
sure that their content is entirely innocuous from the point of view of
the state.
Socialism cannot be ruled for very long except by terror. As soon as the
terror is relaxed, resentment and hostility logically begin to well up
against the rulers. The stage is thus set for a revolution or civil war.
In fact, in the absence of terror, or, more correctly, a sufficient
degree of terror, socialism would be characterized by an endless series
of revolutions and civil wars, as each new group of rulers proved as
incapable of making socialism function successfully as its predecessors
before it. The inescapable inference to be drawn is that the terror
actually experienced in the socialist countries was not simply the work
of evil men, such as Stalin, but springs from the nature of the
socialist system. Stalin could come to the fore because his unusual
willingness and cunning in the use of terror were the specific
characteristics most required by a ruler of socialism in order to remain
in power. He rose to the top by a process of socialist natural
selection: the selection of the worst.
I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis
that socialism is totalitarian by its nature. This concerns the
allegedly socialist countries run by Social Democrats, such as Sweden
and the other Scandinavian countries, which are clearly not totalitarian
dictatorships.
In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these
countries not being totalitarian, they are also not socialist. Their
governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their
ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their
economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered
market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in
important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our
own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic
activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners
motivated by the prospect of private profit.
The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they
come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required.
The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive
act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners
and turned over to the state. Such seizure is virtually certain to
provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance
which can be overcome only by use of massive force.
The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in
Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to
commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery.
The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of
pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in
fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give
up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.
As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize
the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have
seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls,
which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private
ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property
without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.
I think I have shown that socialism — actual socialism — is totalitarian
by its very nature.
Les Cargill
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:27:25 -0700, Gunner Asch<gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> And that he killed all the Socialist leadership in the party in the
>>> night of the long knives.
>>
>> Ah...no..he didnt.
>
> out of the party. The Nazis were rabidly anticommunist. It was a
> conservative movement.
>
>
Not like people like Burke meant "conservatism". National
Socialism meant whatever the central oligarchy said it meant.
In Leninist/Marxist terms, yes, it was a reactionary movement.
But it had strong populist/Progressive leanings. It was too
messy to classify, really. It had strong Romantic resonances (ala
Goethe ), which made it really hard to square with a serious
Conservatism. If there was ever a contradiction, it
would be a Utopian Conservative*. They managed to couple
a Utopian vision of self-sacrifice with a Jungian Other,
which is ... bizarre.
*but Reagan had that odor to him, which is why people
reacted strongly to him. Yours truly included. It's
a funny old world. Reagan still rings false to me.
Fascism was a *general* tendency at the time - both
left and right used it. People didn't understand the
emerging network effects at the time. We barely have
a clue now.
To me at least, it's pretty useful to look at
Bismarck's programme before being too shocked
by the rise of the Nazis in the Weimar state. It
isn't *nearly* far enough from Bismarck.
WWII's roots started about Cold Harbor in the US
Civil War. I am not joking. All the printed
elements of Naziism, the stuff in Mein Kampf mainly
came from *American* authors, from Midwestern doctors
out of their depth having to deal with the Reconstruction
South.
<snip>
--
Les Cargill
Me, ...again!
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Nickname unavailable wrote:
I wouldn't worry, yet, unless they turn into neo-Nazis, and then
crypto-Nazis. Then, they will purge all the left wing, and intimidate the
moderates to become extreme right wingers, and other extremists.
Then, you'd better emigrate to Canada....where you'll get better health
care, anyway.
;-)
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:27:25 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> And that he killed all the Socialist leadership in the party in the
>>> night of the long knives.
>>
>> Ah...no..he didnt.
>
> out of the party. The Nazis were rabidly anticommunist. It was a
> conservative movement.
Purging the other Socialist competition....
Concerend Citizen
> On Apr 7, 9:04 am, Concerend Citizen <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 11:24 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 6, 9:12 pm, Concerend Citizen <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was
> > > > > performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
> > > > > Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
> > > > > threatening a federal official
>
> > > > party chapter he belonged to.
>
> > > > Actually, the article didn't mention tea party at all.
>
> > > > So maybe you could just tell us why you make up lies?
>
> > > did you read the header, and if you did you came to that conclusion?
> > > man are conservatives thick!
>
> > Sure I read the header. You implicated the Tea Party. Now deliver
> > the evidence or admit that you just lie and make shit up.
>
> here is the definition of type. i know this will probably go over
> your head, its your logic capabilities, but here goes.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:type&ei=Ipa8S5yRF...
>
> character: a person of a specified kind (usually with many
> eccentricities); "a real character"; "a strange character"; "a
> friendly eccentric"; "the capable type"; "a mental case"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again I ask you to make the Tea Party connection. Last chance or
forever be known as a liar.
Thanks for playing.
Concerend Citizen
> On Apr 7, 9:06 am, Concerend Citizen <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 12:54 am, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Concerend Citizen wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> > > > > crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was
> > > > > performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
> > > > > Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
> > > > > threatening a federal official
>
> > > > Huh? The article didn't specify, so maybe you could tell us which tea
> > > > party chapter he belonged to.
>
> > > > Actually, the article didn't mention tea party at all.
>
> > > > So maybe you could just tell us why you make up lies?
>
>
> > > RT
>
> > The "tea party" part. Where did he get that from?
>
> what part of type do you not understand?
The "tea party" part of it. Where did that come from? Last chance or
Concerend Citizen
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:37:26 -0700, retrogrouch
>
>
>
>
>
> <retrogro...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 19:12:41 -0700 (PDT), Concerend Citizen
> ><hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> >>> crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was
> >>> performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
> >>> Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
> >>> threatening a federal official
>
> >>Huh? The article didn't specify, so maybe you could tell us which tea
> >>party chapter he belonged to.
>
> >>Actually, the article didn't mention tea party at all.
>
> >>So maybe you could just tell us why you make up lies?
>
>
> Yes and?
>
> Looks like Leftards are in a panic. <VBG>
>
> Works for me.
These folks don't even act ashamed when you nail them on a lie. And
they want to run my country.
> Gunner
>
> "First Law of Leftist Debate
> The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
> that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
> more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
> losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
> homophobe approaches infinity.
>
> This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
> race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
> the subject." Grey Ghost- Hide quoted text -
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:19:44 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
>
> >Mises Daily:
>
ah, i see our fascist friend uses a known fascist as a cite,
priceless. mises shilled for aristocracy, the same boys whom embraced
fascism.
Nickname unavailable
what part of the definition type, do you not understand. i am not
playing with someone whom obviously is short a few cards in his deck.
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:19:44 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ><retrogro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Many stormtroopers
> >>believed in the socialist promise of National Socialism and expected
> >>the Nazi regime to take more radical economic action, such as breaking
> >>up the vast landed estates of the aristocracy. That the regime did not
> >>take such steps disillusioned those who expected an economic as well
> >>as a political revolution.[16]"
>
> >Yes and?
>
> > Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
>
>
> In 1927, Hitler said: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today s
> capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically
> weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a
> human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility
> and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under
> all conditions. [58] Yet two years later, in 1929, Hitler
> backtracked, saying that socialism was an unfortunate word
> altogether and that if people have something to eat, and their
> pleasures, then they have their socialism . Historian Henry A. Turner
> reports Hitler s regret at having integrated the word socialism to the
> Nazi Party name.[59] The Nazi Party s early self-description as
> socialist caused conservative opponents, such as the Industrial
> Employers Association, to describe it as totalitarian, terrorist,
> conspiratorial, and socialist .[60]
>
> In 1930, Hitler said: Our adopted term Socialist has nothing to do
> with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is
> not .[61] In 1931, during a confidential interview with influential
> editor Richard Breiting of the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, a
> pro-business newspaper, Hitler said:
>
> I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the
> principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of
> the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner
> should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich
> will always retain the right to control property owners.[62]
facts confuse the confused. these cranks are so scary, the republican
party is beginning to catch on. to bad the conservative parties of pre-
WWII germany never caught on. if they had not embraced fascism,
controlled their urges for unlimited wealth and power, millions would
have lived, and who knows where we would be today.
conservatives are alarmed by their creations fox news and tea party
extremists who have hijacked the republican party:Republicans
originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we're discovering
that we're working for Fox
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1514
Murdoch rips competitors for bias even as more Fox critics emerge on
the right
In an address last night to the National Press Club, News Corp
Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch ripped into the New York Times as a
media outlet with "an agenda" focused on "anything Mr. Obama wants."
Murdoch, who owns Fox News and the Times' primary competitor the Wall
Street Journal, then fielded a question from the audience about Fox
News' own reputation for advancing a conservative agenda — and lately
the conservative, grass-roots Tea Party movement — in its coverage,
Murdoch waved off the allegation.
"I don't think we should be supporting the Tea Party or any other
party," he said. "We have both sides in our news shows, our politics
or whatever. We have Democrats and Republicans and whatever."
But while Fox News' head cheerleader was trumpeting his network's
objectivity and slinging scorn at liberal bias he sees in the rest of
the media, Fox News' coverage and its connection to the activist right
has been drawing flak from some prominent national conservatives.
Yesterday, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who is strongly identified with
both the fiscal- and social-conservative wings of the GOP, wound up
cautioning some conservative constituents at a town hall gathering not
to "catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody is no good."
Coburn's plea for viewer skepticism came in defense of his courtly
aside about Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom he
characterized as "a nice person." When a wave of grumbling followed,
Coburn stood his ground, asking the crowd "how many of you all have
met her?" before proceeding to chide them for echoing the Fox-branded
view of Pelosi as a poor specimen of humanity.
The Coburn episode was especially striking, since he happens to be one
of the most stalwart conservatives in the Senate, netting a 96-point
rating on the 100-point scale furnished by the American Conservative
Union.
Other conservatives who are closer to the traditional GOP mainstream
have lately raised similar red flags about Fox's broader political
impact. David Frum, the former American Enterprise Institute fellow
who was recently let go in the wake of a widely circulated blog post
he wrote criticizing GOP legislative tactics on health care reform,
has said that "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us,
and now we're discovering that we're working for Fox." Frum spelled
out what he meant by that remark in a weekend appearance on CNN's
"Reliable Sources":
"What that means is that Fox, like Limbaugh, has an interest in
pushing the Republicans to the margins, making people angry," he said.
"When people are angry and alienated, they don't vote. They succumb to
feelings of helplessness."
Bruce Bartlett, a Frum sympathizer, argues
that the network's elevation as the premier source of conservative
information has also closed the right off from healthy debate. "Fox
News is a Republican, conservatively biased organization," Bartlett
told Yahoo! News. "Now conservatives don't need to get into the New
York Times, or on CBS. They've got their own news network, and all
they really think is, 'How can I get a positive mention from Beck or
Limbaugh?' or 'How can I get my boss onto Fox News?' "
Fox's Glenn Beck, indeed, spearheaded the Sept. 12 rally in
Washington, D.C., that served as the national coming out moment for
the Tea Party movement. The network was also instrumental in
publicizing the first round of Tea Party protests over the stimulus
law, which launched last April 15.
Those actions have sent the network's ratings through the roof — Beck,
for one, is now the second highest rated host on cable news, behind
only fellow conservative and Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. But the
popular anger stirred up under the network's auspices may not be an
unqualified boon to a GOP facing a tough primary season that pits many
Tea Party-style insurgents against candidates aligned with the
national party organization. Two of the most prominent such races are
the Senate contests in Florida and Arizona, where two more compromise-
minded mainstream candidates, Charlie Crist and John McCain, are
fending off challenges from candidates backed by the Tea Party — and
running strongly to the right of their usual positions as a result.
Beyond the primaries, the GOP is looking to make significant headway
against the Democratic majorities in Congress — hoping even to return
the House to Republican control. But to do that, Republicans will have
to overcome their disadvantage in voter registration in many districts
by appealing to independent voters — and those are the very sorts of
voters most likely to be repelled by an angry ideological message.
Kevin Madden, a political consultant with the Washington-based firm
Dyke Associates and former communications director for Mitt Romney's
2008 presidential bid, says that GOP leaders aren't yet voicing
"widespread" concerns about the Fox message distorting the fall
campaign. At the same time, however, Madden — a frequent commentator
on the rival cable network CNN — praised Tom Coburn's candor.
"Mr. Coburn's remarks seem to reflect an admirable and rare belief
that one can win a political debate by convincing those seated in the
jury box of public opinion that an opponent has wrong ideas, without
having to demonstrate that same opponent has corrupt intentions,"
Madden said.
— Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.
Concerend Citizen
Go away troll. You're done.
Nickname unavailable
Concerend Citizen
Sayonara.
Gunner Asch
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:19:44 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
>>
>>Mises Daily:
>
>
>Oh please.
Dont like it? Tough shit.
Deal with it.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
Known fascist? I never mentioned Obama at all.
Gunner
While the President’s Homeland Security Department is out with a 9-page
document warning cops about Rightwing Extremists, the truth is that the
enforcement community would be better off watching a far greater
danger…Barack Obama himself. We’re going to use the “F” word and Barack
Obama in the same sentence, However, our “F” word is Fascism.
A nation caught up in the euphoria of thinking it would be cool to have
a partially-black president, and a nation upset with President Bush,
willingly jumped at the chance to vote for Barack Obama. Those who
brought up concerns about him, were labeled rightwingers and few
believed them. The media downplayed any negative stories about Obama.
The result was that we have elected at best, the nation’s first
socialist president and at worst, a Fascist Leader.
You might think I’ve gone too far with this one. However, let’s look at
the facts. First, what is Fascism?
Webster’s Dictionary defines Fascism as follows:
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as
that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the
individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government
headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social
regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or
dictatorial control
Robert Paxton defines Fascism this way:
“a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with
community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults
of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed
nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration
with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with
redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of
internal cleansing and external expansion”
Will Hillary replace Biden as VP?
Who needs two parties?
It’s scary stuff. The Fascist believes in a single-party nationalist
system. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently stated that she
doesn’t understand the two-party system (it is #107 on the Official
Obama Administration Scandals List).
Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. It’s message
is about the good of the nation, rather than the good of a nation’s
individual citizens. It is about spreading the wealth and returning it
to “its rightful owners” rather than recognizing and rewarding
individual accomplishment.
So, does any of it apply to Barack Obama?
President Obama consistently talks about the community over the
individual. It is a battle of collectivism vs. individualism. He
speaks of the “common good” as he did at his inauguration:
“The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of
our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity, on the
ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of
charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.”
Tony Blankley wrote about this at TownHall.com shortly after the
inauguration…
“I believe that Obama intends to craft a new nationalism, using the
disassembled timber of our traditional values to build a new, more
collectivist and less individualistic ship of state. The planks will
look vaguely familiar, but the ship will be quite different. It is as if
he would disassemble the warship Old Ironsides and build with its
timbers a collectivist’s ark.”
President Obama himself says it this way, as quoted in the Chicago
Reader:
“In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual
action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct
things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual
dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build
collective institutions and organizations.”
He certainly fits in with the Fascist desire to replace individualism
with collectivism. He certainly “exalts nation above the individual.”
Another part of the definition is centralizing power. President Obama
is taking steps to invent more presidential powers and give himself more
power than any other president. He is trying to centralize
decision-making. He is taking steps to ensure his 2012 victory and to
create more democrat party voters. Let’s look at seven strong examples:
1. From #70 on the Scandals List: As Obama tries to test the waters
to see how much power he can steal in violation of the US Constitution,
his trial balloon about moving the control of the census into the White
House is creating yet another scandal in his first month in office. Fox
News reports: “Congressional Republicans say they’ll go to court against
President Obama if he doesn’t scuttle his plan to move the census into
the purview of the Oval Office. But the administration says there is no
such plan, even after apparently (and privately) assuring some
Democratic members of Congress that there is. Statements issued by the
White House have seemingly backed both points of view.” Gosh, that’s
surprising (not). UPDATE 3/18/9: Obama’s ACORN community organizers will
be recruiting the workers for the 2010 census! So the democrat party’s
ACORN, plagued with voter fraud problems already, will run a “fair”
census???
2. From #71 on the Scandals List: Republican John Boehner reveals
Obama sneaks money into the Deficit Stimulus Plan for his democrat
partisan pals at ACORN for neighborhood “stabilization” (creating more
democrat voters makes a neighborhood more “stable” I guess)
3. From # 95 on the Scandals List: Democrat Warns Obama about
Constitutional Violations -2/25/9 America’s Watchtower: Democrat Senator
Robert Byrd, sent a letter to President Obama warning him that he is
pushing the constitution’s limits in regards to Obama’s appointment of
all of these “czars” to oversee issues (health reform, energy, climate
change, urban issues) that are supposed to be handled by the legislative
branch of the government.
4. From #135 on the Scandals List: Obama Administration Seeks
Unprecedented Powers over Private Industry – 3/19/9 The Charlotte
Observer says Obama wants: “new powers to seize troubled companies such
as AIG – and take ownership of their toxic assets – if their collapse
would threaten the financial system. His administration will propose…a
“resolution authority” that would have powers similar to those of the
FDIC, which can seize control of banks, take over bad assets and sell
good ones.” No details (of course) on how they would pay for such a
plan.
5. From #150 on the Scandals List: Obama Steals Power from Congress –
3/30/9 President Obama today took the power of the congress to decide on
spending by simply announcing the government will back the warranties of
both GM & Chrysler, a huge new expense. He did so without any
legislative approval, again attacking the US Constitution.
6. From #160 on the Scandals List: Obama Wants to Control the
Internet! – 4/6/9 Team Obama proposes Office of National Cybersecurity
Advisor, an arm of Obama’s executive branch, that would have vast power
to monitor and control Internet traffic to “protect against threats to
critical cyber infrastructure” is “rattling some civil libertarians,”
says the Obama File. “The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (.pdf) gives the
president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut
down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in
the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical
information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would
be left to Obama. The bill also grants the Secretary of Commerce
“access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without
regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting
such access.” This means he or she can monitor or access any data on
private or public networks without regard to privacy laws. Drino Olympia
Snowe is helping Obama (again) with the bill. Leslie Harris of the
Center for Democracy and Technology; “Such a drastic federal
intervention in private communications technology and networks could
harm both security and privacy.”
7. From #177 on the Scandals List: Fascist Obama Tells Local Cops to
Watch out for Rightwing Extremists! – 4/13/9 Team Obama says cops should
watch for right wing extremism which the Washington Post says “may
include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue,
such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” Obama & Janet
Napolitano at Homeland Security sent a 9-page report to cops around the
nation to warn them about conservative Americans! If you are a
pro-lifer, cops are supposed to watch out for YOU! Michelle Malkin has
the document for you, just click here. The president is off his
freaking leftwing extremist rocking chair with this one! It’s part of
his Obama 2012 effort to convince people that conservative Americans
like you and I are “scary.” Can you imagine if President Bush had sent
out a document like this about lefties like Obama? The media would have
run him out of town.
He also assumed he had the power to, as a representative of a minority
shareholder in a publicly traded company, fire a CEO! The government
owns 35% of GM and Obama simply fired the CEO. No board meeting. No
vote. No input from the majority of shareholders. This scandalous
power grab was applauded by the media, rather than questioned. For the
most part, the media fails to provide a check and balance to a system
completely controlled by one party.
Even Democrat Senator Robert Byrd says President Obama is “pushing the
limits” of the Constitution with his power-grabs.
President Obama is the leader of what I believe is an extreme left-wing
political movement. He exalts nation above individual. He is demanding
(and getting) a more centralized autocratic government headed by
himself. He continues to push the limits of the US Constitution, even
trampling on it for more centralized power. He speaks of the
redistribution of wealth and making enemies of wealthy citizens.
President Obama also is acting like he wants to forcibly suppress the
opposition. That sounds an awful lot like the Webster’s definition of
Fascism we list above.
How does he intend to suppress the opposition? Your President wants to
control the internet, deciding on his own what is extreme and what isn’t
and then having the power to shut down sites he doesn’t like. His
Homeland Security Departmet wants to have the cops work as spies on
conservative Americans and those he calls “radical extremist
rightwingers” like…those who are pro-life and believe in the sanctity
and value of each human life. These pro-life American people are not
extremists, yet Team Obama wants to paint them that way. As traditional
conservative Americans, we are among these pro-lifers that the President
thinks are extremists. We are not making any of this up.
He wants all the power to make all the decisions. Americans willingly
gave it to him. He and the democrat-socialist party he runs control the
Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government. They
control the schools and the labor unions. We have more power
centralized into one party and one man today than ever before in our
nation’s history. He wants to be able to decide which private companies
should be taken over by the government. Once he’s made that choice, he
wants to take them over and run them. He has already stolen the power
to fire the CEO’s and put his own people in place.
Isn’t this Fascism? While it is tougher to match the Paxton definition
of Fascism (and there are hundreds who have tried to define the term),
President Obama’s words and deeds match the Webster’s definition.
Americans do have things and people to worry about. True Conservative
Americans, peaceful, Constitution-loving Conservatives, are not among
the people we need to be worried about. The direction President Obama
wants to take this nation may be the thing we should be most worried
about. I think we are witnessing at least the beginnings of Fascism.
This is President Obama’s new (or neo) Fascism. I believe it is clear
that President Barack Obama is behaving as a Fascist would. His actions
certainly match the Webster’s definition.
Gunner Asch
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:19:44 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Clearly, the enforcement of price controls requires a government similar
>>to that of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia,
>
>
>Or Nixon. Or war.
Or Carter, Clinton and Obama.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:19:44 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize
>>the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have
>>seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls,
>>which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private
>>ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property
>>without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.
>
>
>In other words my whole argument relies on redefining words to mean
>what I choose and ignores English, logic and convention. That and
>the ignorance of the reader.
>
>Other than that . . .
Indeed. You hit it smack on.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>The Third Reich
>will always retain the right to control property owners.[62]
And you claim thats NOT socialism?
Fascinating.
Gunner
Nickname unavailable
gee, surprise surprise, gunner lays down with dogs, and gets fleas:)
The Mont Pelerin Society's own members such as Professor Milton
Friedman, have "emphasized" that its policies are those of Adolf
Hitler, and how they spread free market economics and think tanks
Mont Pelerin Society ~ among its founders were some of the oldest and
most powerful families in Europe, such as the von Hapsburgs, former
rulers of Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Thurn und Taxis family,
which ran the intelligence and postal system for that Empire since the
Sixteenth Century.
The Mont Pelerin Society called for a "conservative revolution" - for
the "elimination" of nation states and the return to FEUDALISM a goal
which has characterised all the various European fascist movements of
the 1920s and 1930s, of which the Nazis were merely the most
successful variant...The Mont Pelerin Society is a relic of the
fascist movements of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. The Mont Pelerin
Society's own members such as Professor Milton Friedman, have
"emphasized" that its policies are those of Adolf Hitler [meaning
from Hitler's policies in the 1920's and 1930's].
Needless to say, Hitler's economic policies were NOT worker friendly
at all, and Friedman's policies in Chile mirrored those of Hitler.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.seekgod.ca/cnporg.htm
Mises Institute > http://www.mises.org [libertarian] or called Ludwig
von Mises Institute~[Ludwig von Mises, is a CNP/reconstructionist
connected libertarian institute which esteems notables such as
Friedrich von Hayek. Friedrich von Hayek, protégé and colleague of
Mises, is one of the founders of the Mont Pelerin Society, with Mises
a member for at least 13 years.] Jon Basil Utley
Atlas Foundation Project ~ Jon Basil Utley, Charles H. Brunie
LewRockwell.com > http://www.lewrockwell.com/ ~ Dr. Gary North
Center for Libertarian Studies > http://www.libertarianstudies.org~
Dr. Gary North
Mont Pelerin Society, > http://www.montpelerin.org/[ was formed at
Mont Pelerin in Switzerland in 1947, at a meeting of some of the
leading families of the ancient European oligarchy, chaired by the
economist, Friedrich von Hayek. Mont Pelerin's main thinktank is the
London-based Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA). From there it
expanded worldwide creating thinktanks. Ludwig von Mises, is a CNP/
reconstructionist connected libertarian institute which esteems
notables such as Friedrich von Hayek. Friedrich von Hayek, protégé and
colleague of Mises, is one of the founders of the Mont Pelerin
Society.
The Mont Pelerin Society was founded in 1947 at a meeting in
Switzerland, in a chalet on the slopes of Mt. Pelerin. According to
various sources, among its founders were some of the oldest and most
powerful families in Europe, such as the von Hapsburgs, former rulers
of Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Thurn und Taxis family, which ran
the intelligence and postal system for that Empire since the Sixteenth
Century...those present such as Max von Thurn und Taxis, had supported
Hitler during the 1920s and 1930s. The Mont Pelerin Society called for
a "conservative revolution" - for the "elimination" of nation states
and the return to FEUDALISM a goal which has characterised all the
various European fascist movements of the 1920s and 1930s, of which
the Nazis were merely the most successful variant...The Mont Pelerin
Society is a relic of the fascist movements of Europe in the 1920s and
1930s. The Mont Pelerin Society's own members such as Professor Milton
Friedman, have "emphasized" that its policies are those of Adolf
Hitler 43 [meaning from Hitler's policies in the 1920's and 1930's].
Soon after it was founded in 1947, the Mont Pelerin Society moved to
London... Beginning in the mid-1970s, with lavish corporate financing,
the Mont Pelerin Society, spawned a series of "think tanks"
43. Von Hayek, the founder, wrote The Road to Serfdom in London in
1944, while teaching at the British Fabian Society's London School of
Economics.
"...in London Friedrich Hayek was creating an organization that would
later re-form as the Mont Pelerin Society. The early group was formed
in 1939 and was known as the Society for the Renovation of Liberalism.
Members of the organization included Frank Knight and Henry Simons of
the University of Chicago, the slavishly pro-British American Fabian
Socialist Walter Lippman, the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, Sir John
Clapham of the Bank of England, and of course, Ludwig von Mises. [a
founding member and for at least 13 years]
All of these early members of Hayek's group then met at Mont Pelerin,
Switzerland to form the influential, highly-secretive, and elitist
Mont Pelerin Society in 1947...From the beginning the Mont Pelerin
Society worked hand-in-hand with the Pan European Union..." 43b See:
Footnotes ].~ Dr. Larry P. Arnn; Dr. Edwin J. Feulner, Jr; George C.
Roche III, Charles H. Brunie; Jameson Campaigne, Jr.; Dr. John A.
Howard; Dr. C. L. "Casey" Kay; Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Thomas A. Roe,
"Father" Rev. Robert Sirico, Mark Skousen ,Dr. Lowell Smith
Gunner Asch
<hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 7, 12:12 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:37:26 -0700, retrogrouch
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <retrogro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 19:12:41 -0700 (PDT), Concerend Citizen
>> ><hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> >>> crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was
>> >>> performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
>> >>> Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
>> >>> threatening a federal official
>>
>> >>Huh? The article didn't specify, so maybe you could tell us which tea
>> >>party chapter he belonged to.
>>
>> >>Actually, the article didn't mention tea party at all.
>>
>> >>So maybe you could just tell us why you make up lies?
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfYBsxnZ77c
>>
>> Yes and?
>>
>> Looks like Leftards are in a panic. <VBG>
>>
>> Works for me.
>
>These folks don't even act ashamed when you nail them on a lie. And
>they want to run my country.
They ARE running your country at the moment.
But..shrug..within 2 yrs they will all be dead.
So its not a biggy.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
So you are Communist Type. Would that be a correct summation?
Gunner Asch
Go away troll..before your diapers start to leak and you get those
painful burns down your legs.
Is that a threat, fucktard?
Gunner Asch
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>On Apr 7, 11:33 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> gee, surprise surprise, gunner lays down with dogs, and gets fleas:)
>
Really?
>The Mont Pelerin Society's own members such as Professor Milton
>Friedman, have "emphasized" that its policies are those of Adolf
>Hitler, and how they spread free market economics and think tanks
>
Cites? Be specific. Use as much whitespace as necessary.
Concerend Citizen
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 20:24:46 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
>
>
It must be hard for that guy to be a liberal without being a victim.
> "First Law of Leftist Debate
> The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
> that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
> more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
> losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
> homophobe approaches infinity.
>
> This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
> race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
> the subject." Grey Ghost- Hide quoted text -
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 20:13:20 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
how can that be oh so little minded one. i find conservative
economics(fascism)has much in common with marxism(communism)in either
system, almost all wealth and power ends up in the hands of a few.
see, you have much more in common with the other extreme.
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 20:24:46 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
gee, you must be the concerned citizen correct, gotcha.
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 21:42:29 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
> >On Apr 7, 11:33 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > gee, surprise surprise, gunner lays down with dogs, and gets fleas:)
>
> Really?
>
> >The Mont Pelerin Society's own members such as Professor Milton
> >Friedman, have "emphasized" that its policies are those of Adolf
> >Hitler, and how they spread free market economics and think tanks
>
> Cites? Be specific. Use as much whitespace as necessary.
>
>
it won't take much. hey, its your cite. you lay down with dogs, you
get fleas.
> >LewRockwell.com >http://www.lewrockwell.com/~ Dr. Gary North
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:19:44 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> to that of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia,
>
>
> Or Nixon. Or war.
None of which exude freedom!
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:27:25 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> And that he killed all the Socialist leadership in the party in the
>>> night of the long knives.
>>
>> Ah...no..he didnt.
>
> Oh please. Come off it. It was about purging the socialist elements
> out of the party. The Nazis were rabidly anticommunist. It was a
> conservative movement.
Purging the other Socialist competition....
Socialists will eat their young.
Nickname unavailable
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:34:15 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:39:50 -0700, retrogrouch
>
> >>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:19:44 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>Clearly, the enforcement of price controls requires a government similar
> >>>to that of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia,
>
> >>Or Nixon. Or war.
>
> >Or Carter, Clinton and Obama.
>
> >Gunner
>
> ones you mentioned did not. Other than that . . .
>
> Again your knee jerk responses only show a total ignorance of history.
>
> http://www.econreview.com/events/wageprice1971b.htm
>
> And the US has implemented price controls repeatedly in war,
> particularly WWI and WWII.
>
> So your mises author is full of shit.
we also know his type is unstable. he is having multiple
conversations going on at once and has them mixed up.
Concerend Citizen
Why must he be? Are you stoopid or something?
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Apr 7, 12:12 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:37:26 -0700, retrogrouch
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <retrogro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 19:12:41 -0700 (PDT), Concerend Citizen
>>> <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 6, 5:46 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>>>> crazed tea party type arrested for threatening senator who was
>>>>> performing her constitutional responsibilities:The FBI arrested
>>>>> Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, today on charges of
>>>>> threatening a federal official
>>
>>>> Huh? The article didn't specify, so maybe you could tell us which tea
>>>> party chapter he belonged to.
>>
>>>> Actually, the article didn't mention tea party at all.
>>
>>>> So maybe you could just tell us why you make up lies?
>>
>>
>> Yes and?
>>
>> Looks like Leftards are in a panic. <VBG>
>>
>> Works for me.
>
> These folks don't even act ashamed when you nail them on a lie. And
> they want to run my country.
>
>>
>> "First Law of Leftist Debate
>> The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
>> that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
>> more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
>> losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
>> homophobe approaches infinity.
It's hopeless to argue with the Liberals.... they are some form of brain
damaged situation, like a cross between Autism and Tourette's syndrome,
fact and logic are stimuli that can't be processed by their brains and
the resulting frustration causes a Tourette syndrome response of lies
and curse words. *Talk-n-Dog*
Nickname unavailable
Concerend Citizen
Since you're not going to go away, Marxist, I ask again for you to
make the tea party connection.
Use as much white space as necessary.
Concerend Citizen
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:46:50 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>These folks don't even act ashamed when you nail them on a lie. And
> >>they want to run my country.
>
> >They ARE running your country at the moment.
>
> >But..shrug..within 2 yrs they will all be dead.
>
> >So its not a biggy.
>
> >Gunner
>
I don't think Gunner is the joiner type. Probably the last thing he
joined was the Army.
How about you? Did you join the Army?
Concerend Citizen
Agree, but in doing so realize that I am insulting those with autism.
My apologies.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Yes and they both breath air..... They are identical.
Gunner Asch
<Vid...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> >The Mont Pelerin Society's own members such as Professor Milton
>> >Friedman, have "emphasized" that its policies are those of Adolf
>> >Hitler, and how they spread free market economics and think tanks
>>
>> Cites? �Be specific. Use as much whitespace as necessary.
>>
>>
>
> it won't take much. hey, its your cite. you lay down with dogs, you
>get fleas.
Really? Cites?
Gunner
Gunner Asch
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Clearly, the enforcement of price controls requires a government similar
>>>>to that of Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia,
>>>
>>>
>>>Or Nixon. Or war.
>>
>>Or Carter, Clinton and Obama.
>>
>>Gunner
>
>
>Except of course Nixon actually implemented price controls and all the
>ones you mentioned did not. Other than that . . .
>
>Again your knee jerk responses only show a total ignorance of history.
>
>http://www.econreview.com/events/wageprice1971b.htm
>
>
>And the US has implemented price controls repeatedly in war,
>particularly WWI and WWII.
So Nixon was president in WW1 and WW2?
Gunner Asch
Cites?
Gunner Asch
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 21:34:15 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"First Law of Leftist Debate
>>The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
>>that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
>>more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
>>losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
>>homophobe approaches infinity.
>
>
>Your sig is pretty funny given your ignorance and repeated total lack
>of factual bases of your claims.
Really? Cites?