Do the Bush supporters WANT a dictatorship?
Stop The War
Is any Bush supporter besides Trace hoing to stand up for the
Bill of Rights?
Or are all the rest on this newsgroup too unbalanced and unpatriotic
to support our United States Constitution? Let's hear it openly then.
You really want a dictatorship?
Go ahead and confess: "I want a dictatorship."
Stanley F. Nelson
somebody to solve their national problems for them. They stood or sat by
while Adoph Hitler and his National Socialist Party gained more and more
power appearing to do just that. The result, by mid-1945, was almost total
destruction of Germany, paving the way for a German nation that never again
will resort to war to achieve its goals. We, the American people, still
holding a little political power in our hands, must never, ever, give up our
rights as a people that determines the future of our nation. Neither Bush
nor the socially, religiously correct Republican Party can take that away
from us.
Stanley F. Nelson
Dallas.
Fredric L. Rice
>Is any Bush supporter besides Trace hoing to stand up for the
>Bill of Rights?
Bush supporters and defenders want a theocratic fascist State -- and
they've got it.
---
"Who died and made you Pat Robertson?" - alt.atheism.holysmoke
"Andy screams and breaks out his crucifix." - Stoney
"Rice is steamed." -- Seethis Pass (alt.impeach.bush.)
Timothy
Stanley F. Nelson wrote:
> In the 1920s, the German people -- good, hardworking, people -- wanted
> somebody to solve their national problems for them. They stood or sat by
> while Adoph Hitler and his National Socialist Party gained more and more
> power appearing to do just that.
Note that Hitler called his party "National Socialist Party." That
makes him a LIBERAL. Also, Hitler's aim was world domination, whereas
Bush II's aim is to eliminate evil and to fight terrorism.
Matt
ROFLMAO.
That was *good*. I loved it.
Oh, wait, you weren't serious, were you?
matt
Tag Heuer
<Timothy....@alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
On the contrary, and this has been de-bunked time and again out here,
and not by simple the term "socialist," either. By, consider this, if
you possess the ability:
" . . .Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the
grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism
requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In
Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of
production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi
party and state.
True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can
only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost
always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance,
eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality,
competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over
pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism,
realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism,
exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science,
pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the
Church, even though he was an atheist . . . "
" . . .But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it's
worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These
include:
- Individualism over collectivism.
- Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
- Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
- Merit over equality.
- Competition over cooperation.
- Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
- One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
- Capitalism over Marxism.
- Realism over idealism.
- Nationalism over internationalism.
- Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
- Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
- Gun ownership over gun control
- Common sense over theory or science.
- Pragmatism over principle.
- Religion over secularism.
" . . .Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two
years at the monastery at Lambauch, Austria. As late as 24 he still
called himself a Catholic, but somewhere along the way he became an
atheist. It is highly doubtful that this was an intellectual decision,
as a reading of his disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf will attest. The
decision was most likely a pragmatic one, based on power and personal
ambition. Bullock reveals an interesting anecdote showing how these
considerations worked on the young Hitler. After five years of eking
out a miserable existence in Vienna and four years of war, Hitler
walked into his first German Worker's Party meeting . . ."
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Get the picture? If not, look it up.
http://tagheuerblog.blogspot.com/
http://tagheuerblog.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Seethis Pass
<Timothy....@alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
Maybe he should have called it Disneyland.
That would have made him Walt Disney.
Not.
Lamont Cranston
> Stanley F. Nelson wrote:
>
>>In the 1920s, the German people -- good, hardworking, people -- wanted
>>somebody to solve their national problems for them. They stood or sat by
>>while Adoph Hitler and his National Socialist Party gained more and more
>>power appearing to do just that.
>
>
> Note that Hitler called his party "National Socialist Party." That
> makes him a LIBERAL. Also, Hitler's aim was world domination, whereas
No, that makes him a LIAR.
chess
"Timothy" <Timothy....@alumni.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:1137007550....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The current War on Terrorism is widely considered to be an attempt to create
a state of perpetual war, as terrorism is rarely under the control of a
single authority who can clearly surrender - and usually can keep recruiting
even under extreme pressure. The Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes against
nations with certain technological and military capacities that 'may
threaten' the United States also implies a perpetual war, as these
capacities proliferate into the hands of greater numbers of less friendly
nations, and a greater number of non-state and anti-state (but not
anarchistic) radical groups, and become cheaper to exploit in a threatening
way. President Bush said in August 2004 that he believes the "War on Terror"
is "not winnable," implying that he plans to wage a perpetual war without
end.
Tazmanian Devil
"Timothy" <Timothy....@alumni.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:1137007550....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>> In the 1920s, the German people -- good, hardworking, people -- wanted
>> somebody to solve their national problems for them. They stood or sat by
>> while Adoph Hitler and his National Socialist Party gained more and more
>> power appearing to do just that.
>
> Note that Hitler called his party "National Socialist Party." That
> makes him a LIBERAL.
No, that shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of history and
politics. You have no idea what liberal, socialist, communist, fascist or
neocon even mean. You are too stupid to vote, and too stupid to post here.
By your thinking, they could print "neocon chocolates" on turds, and you'd
eat them.
GW Chimpzilla
Just change the name of dictatorship to 'freedom' and they're all on board!
GW Chimpzilla
You answered the question well, Grasshopper.
Fredric L. Rice
>Stanley F. Nelson wrote:
>> In the 1920s, the German people -- good, hardworking, people -- wanted
>> somebody to solve their national problems for them. They stood or sat by
>> while Adoph Hitler and his National Socialist Party gained more and more
>> power appearing to do just that.
>Note that Hitler called his party "National Socialist Party." That
>makes him a LIBERAL.
<rofl!> And another rightard pile of dog shit opens his fucking
rightard yap and informs the world that he knows nothing about
the history of his own Republican Party. Amusing.
chess
"Stop The War" <stopt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:a2cxf.454241$zb5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier."
Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
(Governing Magazine 7/98)
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree
with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a
heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about
it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001
I. M. Phedup
There is nothing wrong with ignorance; nobody knows everything.
But it is undignified to WALLOW in it, as you do.
--
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of
fighting a foreign enemy."
- James Madison
"Timothy" <Timothy....@alumni.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:1137007550....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
Julian D.
Ingenuous. He explained it later on to the dullards that it is not
winnable in the conventional matter that past wars were won, i.e. a
surrender, clear-cut victory, stalemate, etc.
Bush has said that the war on terrorism will take years.
Which is not false.
The only measure of victory is when those countries sponsoring,
condoning, or not policing its terrorists are
conquered/invaded/bombed-out-of-existence.
I truly believe the only way to eliminate terrorism is to threaten
every anti-American muslim country that spawns terrorists.
If we have to wipe out a city at a time, totally flatten Mecca, kill
millions of anti-American muslims to do it, it's worth doing.
The only way to really understand the islamofascist's anger, the only
way to help these people, the only way to truly understand
and solve their grievances with us, is to kill them.
Julian D.
"But if we must engage in a national debate on half-measures:
After 9/11, any president who was not spying on people calling
phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for
being an inept commander in chief."
-Ann Coulter
"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing
their memory, or their backbone, but we're not going to sit by and
let them rewrite history." -- Dick Cheney 11/16/2005
"If somebody from al-Qaida is calling you, we'd like to know why."
- President George W. Bush - January 1, 2006
Deaf Power
Bush, sr, said in his state of the union, "our goal is New World
Order". Whaz that?
--
A vote for republican is a vote for fascism!
What Me Worry?
"Julian D." <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote in message
news:8hdbs19ou635saop9...@4ax.com...
Sane people disagree with your filthy fascist lunacy. You are not sane.
Seek help.
mordacp...@hotmail.com
Timothy wrote:
> Stanley F. Nelson wrote:
> > In the 1920s, the German people -- good, hardworking, people -- wanted
> > somebody to solve their national problems for them. They stood or sat by
> > while Adoph Hitler and his National Socialist Party gained more and more
> > power appearing to do just that.
>
> Note that Hitler called his party "National Socialist Party."
Bush calls himself a "compassionate conservative" and he's anything but
compassionate or conservative.
So what's your fucking point, moron?
> That
> makes him a LIBERAL. Also, Hitler's aim was world domination, whereas
> Bush II's aim is to eliminate evil and to fight terrorism.
Hitler and Bush are two peas in a pod.
"It would be a heck of a lot easier if it were a dictatorship. As long
as I'm the dictator."
- GWB
Julian D.
wrote:
Of course you consider it insane to wipe out the terrorists. You're a
Democrat.
What Me Worry?
Are all Muslims terrorists, you jackbooted fascist moron?
Yes or no?
Sieg Heil!!
Kilgore Trout
> I truly believe the only way to eliminate terrorism is to threaten
> every anti-American muslim country that spawns terrorists.
> If we have to wipe out a city at a time, totally flatten Mecca, kill
> millions of anti-American muslims to do it, it's worth doing.
Then you're a fucking lunatic.
--
Stop The War
> I truly believe the only way to eliminate terrorism is to threaten
> every anti-American muslim country that spawns terrorists.
> If we have to wipe out a city at a time, totally flatten Mecca, kill
> millions of anti-American muslims to do it, it's worth doing.
For your Final Solution, do you prefer gas ovens or hydrogen bombs?
smokey
mordacp...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Timothy wrote:
> > Stanley F. Nelson wrote:
> > > In the 1920s, the German people -- good, hardworking, people -- wanted
> > > somebody to solve their national problems for them. They stood or sat by
> > > while Adoph Hitler and his National Socialist Party gained more and more
> > > power appearing to do just that.
> >
>
> > Note that Hitler called his party "National Socialist Party."
>
>
> Bush calls himself a "compassionate conservative" and he's anything but
> compassionate or conservative.
>
> So what's your fucking point, moron?
>
>
> > That
> > makes him a LIBERAL. Also, Hitler's aim was world domination, whereas
> > Bush II's aim is to eliminate evil and to fight terrorism.
>
> Hitler and Bush are two peas in a pod.
I respectfully disagree. Hitler was much more intelligent than Bush.
EagleEye
> I truly believe the only way to eliminate terrorism is to threaten
> every anti-American muslim country that spawns terrorists.
> If we have to wipe out a city at a time, totally flatten Mecca, kill
> millions of anti-American muslims to do it, it's worth doing.
>
> The only way to really understand the islamofascist's anger, the only
> way to help these people, the only way to truly understand
> and solve their grievances with us, is to kill them.
>
> Julian D.
Is that the rantings of a sane and rational person, or a madman?
Angry Dave
If we are gonna line up anyone against the wall, I vote for starting
with extremist dickheads like this. (from all sides)
chess
Anybody that quotes Ann Coulter (the psycho fuck bitch) has no Credibility
anyway.
Mamamia
"Timothy" <Timothy....@alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
You really believe that Bush's aim is to eliminate evil and fight
terrorism, huh? Maybe you also believe that he's an upstanding
forthright Christian? Hey, I have a bridge you might be interested in
buying....
--
"It is easier to fight for your principles
than to live by them."
Julian D.
Conventional bombing will do. For those hard-to-reach scratches,
those new nifty bunker-busters should suffice.
No one said kill all the muslims. Only backing up the threats to
those radical muslim countries that spawn terrorists.
Don't be so reactionary.
Threatening to flatten Mecca would have every decent 'peace-loving'
muslim very, very eager to quell the terrorists among them.
Julian D.
wrote:
Don't know who this 'fascist moron' person your asking the question
of, but I'll answer it:
No. Did you think all of them are?
>Yes or no?
No.
>Sieg Heil!!
>
Oh, you're a nazi.
btw..GODWIN!
Julian D.
<jne...@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
Sane and most rational.
And perhaps a bit prescient.
Bush said the war on terrorism would take many years.
Is the war on terrorism only going to reside in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Damn, people. Think it thru for once.
Stop The War
>>"Julian D." <ju...@ersatz.com> wrote in message news:jrobs1limlrn0ekmn...@4ax.com...
>>> I truly believe the only way to eliminate terrorism is to threaten
>>> every anti-American muslim country that spawns terrorists.
>>> If we have to wipe out a city at a time, totally flatten Mecca, kill
>>> millions of anti-American muslims to do it, it's worth doing.
>>> Julian D.
>>
>> For your Final Solution, do you prefer gas ovens or hydrogen bombs?
>>
> Conventional bombing will do. For those hard-to-reach scratches,
> those new nifty bunker-busters should suffice.
>
> No one said kill all the muslims.
Are you going to back off from your proposal to wipe out entire
cities, totally flatten Mecca, kill millions or not? Wiping out entire
cities with conventional bombing is highly inefficient.
Here's another: Rumsfeld said we had to attack Iraq because
Afghanistan was already bombed so far back into the stone age
that there were no targets left in Afghanistan.
"There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan but there are
lots of good targets in Iraq."
(Donald Rumsfeld as quoted by Richard Clarke)
"I said publicly at one stage during our effort in Afghanistan,
which was, of course, a highly successful effort to deal with
the al Qaeda there and run them out and deny them that haven,
that Afghanistan had run out of targets. That is a correct quote."
(Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld)
<http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040328-secdef0568.html>
If a $20000 JDAM can't hit a $20000 target, then the terrorists win. ;-)
So, at some point, either you need to send in the soldiers or you
need to make the land radioactive. Conventional bombing was
evidently not sufficient in the case of Iraq. Any excuse why we
didn't follow your approach with Iraq has to take a lot of the bluster
off of your "Conventional bombing will do" assertion.
Maybe you were about to tell us we should pull all our troops out
of Iraq now and send in the planes? No? ;-)
I don't think you are thinking to deeply into the details or ramifications
of your spew before you spew it.
"Better to remain silent and thought to be a fool,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
--Mark Twain
Maybe you would be wise not to answer. ;-)
Deaf Power
>
>mordacp...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Timothy wrote:
>> > Stanley F. Nelson wrote:
>> > > In the 1920s, the German people -- good, hardworking, people -- wanted
>> > > somebody to solve their national problems for them. They stood or sat by
>> > > while Adoph Hitler and his National Socialist Party gained more and more
>> > > power appearing to do just that.
>> >
>>
>> > Note that Hitler called his party "National Socialist Party."
>>
>>
>> Bush calls himself a "compassionate conservative" and he's anything but
>> compassionate or conservative.
>>
>> So what's your fucking point, moron?
>>
>>
>> > That
>> > makes him a LIBERAL. Also, Hitler's aim was world domination, whereas
>> > Bush II's aim is to eliminate evil and to fight terrorism.
>>
>> Hitler and Bush are two peas in a pod.
>
>I respectfully disagree. Hitler was much more intelligent than Bush.
Unfortunately we have Rove who made him look smarter.
What Me Worry?
> On 11 Jan 2006 22:44:44 -0800, "EagleEye"
> <jne...@globalmanagement.ca> wrote:
>
>>Listen to this
>>
>>> I truly believe the only way to eliminate terrorism is to threaten
>>> every anti-American muslim country that spawns terrorists.
>>> If we have to wipe out a city at a time, totally flatten Mecca, kill
>>> millions of anti-American muslims to do it, it's worth doing.
>>>
>>> The only way to really understand the islamofascist's anger, the only
>>> way to help these people, the only way to truly understand
>>> and solve their grievances with us, is to kill them.
>>>
>>> Julian D.
>>
>>Is that the rantings of a sane and rational person, or a madman?
>
>
> Sane and most rational.
> And perhaps a bit prescient.
> Bush said the war on terrorism would take many years.
> Is the war on terrorism only going to reside in Iraq and Afghanistan?
> Damn, people. Think it thru for once.
Bush says a lot of crazy shit. So do you. Birds of a feather, I guess.