Why vote Republican?

[John317]

Kidding?

He wrote exactly what he would do in his book Mein Kampf, so if people did not see it coming, it was their fault. Have you read it?

He hid nothing. It was written by 1926. It was all out in the open, his plan to kill Jews and everything. All right there for the whole world to see.

[jasd]

>>Personally I'm grateful to our cousins the Brits, the Australians and Canadians for all they've done to help in the war against terrorism.<<

The Brits, yeah. The Australians... are they still in Iraq? I suppose there’s a lesson there, like, if they have your back, you might do well to be concerned – umm, they kinda crept away, did they not? What, they had tah go home to fight another of their recurrent

rabbit depredations?

The Canadians may well be weirder than weird...

“If the selection of Sarah Palin sent the American left around the bend, the effect seems to have been even stronger on the Canadian left. Columnist and author Heather Mallick, a regular contributor to the notoriously liberal Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, writes that Palin ‘added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.’

In an earlier column Mallick referred to McCain as a ‘tiny old hateful man’ who ‘named the political equivalent of his local school crossing guard as his vice presidential candidate.’ “ --Heather Mallik, Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

I guess the North Country has a lot of slow news days, eh? like, wha’s happinin’ up thataway, anywayz?

[Tom Wetmore]

Hi Jack!

(by those who don't know Jack...)

[Bravus]

It is an insult to the Australian troops who have served honorably beside Americans in every conflict since WW2 (whether they should have been there or not, a decision not made by the troops) to speak as you have done, jasd.

[carolaa]

No, I have not read it, so I'll have to take your word for it. But what I was thinking is that it seemed the German people themselves, as well as their European neighbors and the world, either didn't know how bad he was or didn't take him seriously until it was too late.

[John317]

Here's an accurate description of Mein Kampf, published 1924, 1926---

Quote:

Throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler refers to Jews as parasites, liars, dirty, crafty, sly, wily, clever, without any true culture, a sponger, a middleman, a maggot, eternal blood suckers, repulsive, unscrupulous, monsters, foreign, menace, bloodthirsty, avaricious, the destroyer of Aryan humanity, and the mortal enemy of Aryan humanity...

"...for the higher he climbs, the more alluring his old goal that was once promised him rises from the veil of the past, and with feverish avidity his keenest minds see the dream of world domination tangibly approaching."

This conspiracy idea and the notion of 'competition' for world domination between Jews and Aryans would become widespread beliefs in Nazi Germany and would even be taught to school children.

This, combined with Hitler's racial attitude toward the Jews, would be shared to varying degrees by millions of Germans and people from occupied countries, so that they either remained silent or actively participated in the Nazi effort to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe.

Mein Kampf also provides an explanation for the military conquests later attempted by Hitler and the Germans. Hitler states that since the Aryans are the master race, they are entitled simply by that fact to acquire more land for themselves. This Lebensraum, or living space, will be acquired by force, Hitler says, and includes the lands to the east of Germany, namely Russia. That land would be used to cultivate food and to provide room for the expanding Aryan population at the expense of the Slavic peoples, who were to be removed, eliminated, or enslaved.

But in order to achieve this Hitler states Germany must first defeat its old enemy France, to avenge the German defeat of World War One and to secure the western border. Hitler bitterly recalls the end of the first World War, saying the German Army was denied its chance for victory on the battlefield by political treachery at home. In the second volume of Mein Kampf he attaches most of the blame to Jewish conspirators in a highly menacing and ever more threatening tone.

When Mein Kampf was first released in 1925 it sold poorly. People had been hoping for a juicy autobiography or a behind-the-scenes story of the Beer Hall Putsch. What they got were hundreds of pages of long, hard to follow sentences and wandering paragraphs composed by a self-educated man.

However, after Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, millions of copies were sold. It was considered proper to own a copy and to give one to newlyweds, high school graduates, or to celebrate any similar occasion. But few Germans ever read it cover to cover. Although it made him rich, Hitler would later express regret that he produced Mein Kampf, considering the extent of its revelations.

Those revelations concerning the nature of his character and his blueprint for Germany's future served as a warning to the world. A warning that was mostly ignored.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/kampf.htm

[carolaa]

Hitler states that since the Aryans are the master race, they are entitled simply by that fact to acquire more land for themselves.

Oh, that sounds kind of like the current U.S. philosophy that we have a right to go into other countries whenever and however we wish, for whatever reason we want.

[John317]

Do you agree with Obama on that issue?

Here's an apropos question:

Let's say a militant group is going from the US into Mexico and killing Mexican civiilians and Mexican troops. What if the US did not do anything about it? Would you support Mexico's right to come across our borders and get those people?

And if they did go across our border to get them, would that mean they are students of Hitler or agree with his thinking?

By the way, this did happen between the US and Mexico about 1865, when our Navaho were raiding in Mexico and then returning to the US. What happened in that instance?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Hitler states that since the Aryans are the master race, they are entitled simply by that fact to acquire more land for themselves.

Oh, that sounds kind of like the current U.S. philosophy that we have a right to go into other countries whenever and however we wish, for whatever reason we want.

I'm beginning to have some insights.

Glad for these exchanges.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The Australians... are they still in Iraq? I suppose there’s a lesson there, like, if they have your back, you might do well to be concerned – umm, they kinda crept away, did they not? What, they had tah go home to fight another of their recurrent

rabbit depredations?

Quote:Bravus

It is an insult to the Australian troops who have served honorably beside Americans in every conflict since WW2 (whether they should have been there or not, a decision not made by the troops) to speak as you have done, jasd.

So, where are they? right honorable though they may be.

They certainly don’t have the backs of our guys and gals, do they? Matter of fact,

listening to the words of the wise (not simply yours) that emanate from down under – I caution concern for our collective back. There is the friend who, having committed, will stand with you and see the matter through; then, there are those who will – simply slip away - at that opportune moment or for that servicable excuse.

There are friends and allies, and there are friends and allies...

Should I have minced my words? :-o

[Bravus]

You should have been honest instead of partisan. Talk to some Americans who served in Vietnam alongside Australians and see what they have to say. I will accept a lot from you, but this I will not. Australian blood has been shed for American imperialist fantasies for too long, and to spit on that is just... obscene. Good day to you sir, you do not deserve the freedom you have.

[jasd]

>>...Vietnam alongside Australians and see what they have to say. I will accept a lot from you, but this I will not.<<

What’s the problem? Have I dissed the Aussie soldier? No. However, that said, They Are No Longer In Iraq. Where are they? They’ve slipped away and gone home. Took early leave, as it were, eh?

I place the absence of the redoubtable Aussie soldier’s absence to the fact that the collective Aussie is proving more perfidious than those who bore them, namely, the Isles. Period.

>>Australian blood has been shed for American imperialist fantasies for too long, and to spit on that is just... obscene.<<

Do you speak of American Imperialist designs that took us into WWII? Or, mebbe, you refer to our Imperialist schemes that included the colonization of Vietnam? I remind that we sent our boys and girls to ‘nam because we had signed the SEATO Treaty. That treaty was one to which Australia put her signature. I submit that

SEATO more directly served Australia than it did us. Yet we paid the most in monie$, material, blood, and everything else that either mattered or cost.

>>Good day to you sir, you do not deserve the freedom you have.<<

What’s THAT!?

I suggest you take your biases and put them back in your pocket – and, rather, read carefully. [/respectfully]

[Dr. Shane]

I think the tone in this thread is getting a little too hot. I think we need to be considerate of each other and our differing viewpoints. Why not take a breather and let some things rest? We are Christians first and citizens of our respective nations second. Let's try not to forget we are brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.

Just a suggestion.

[jasd]

Shane, would you take offense if I told you to

go fly a kite?

When is it that an Aussie and an Oregonian cannot speak in terms other than that accompanied by the

limp wrist. Milk? lemon? One lump or two?[/lisp]

I'm always considerate of Bravus.

What's THAT!? :-o

[carolaa]

I'm beginning to have some insights.

Glad for these exchanges.

(see, Bravus - there's hope....)

[Dr. Shane]

When someone offends me I realize that they are perhaps spiritually sick or just having a bad day. I pray, "God save me from being angry" and try to show them the same kindness and courtesy that I would gladly show a sick friend. Though I may not like their symptoms (what they do) and how they affect me, they, like myself, are in need of a loving relationship with the lovely Jesus. If they are offending people (like me) without provocation, their relationship with the Lord of lords must be strained and they are in need of my prayers and compassion.

[carolaa]

Do you agree with Obama on that issue?

Here's an apropos question:

Let's say a militant group is going from the US into Mexico and killing Mexican civiilians and Mexican troops. What if the US did not do anything about it? Would you support Mexico's right to come across our borders and get those people?

And if they did go across our border to get them, would that mean they are students of Hitler or agree with his thinking?

By the way, this did happen between the US and Mexico about 1865, when our Navaho were raiding in Mexico and then returning to the US. What happened in that instance?

No, I do not agree with Obama on this point. That is one of my frustrations with this election, that there is not more difference in foreign policy between the 2 main candidates. U.S. leadership in the world is a subject near to my heart, of more importance and interest than the current election, actually. I see us acting like bullies, arrogant and greedy, with the rest of the world watching and waiting for us to go down. They can see what we cannot - the precipitously falling dollar, the escalating national debt, the over-extended military. They are smart enough to know it can't last much longer - some are worried and some can hardly wait.

To answer your hypothetical question, I think the appropriate thing to do would be for Mexico to police its borders better and keep trying diplomatic efforts. It would not be appropriate for them to enter another country without permission. The only time I can see an exception to that is when civilians are in a critical situation - such as Rwanda, Myanmar, perhaps Zimbabwe, Congo, Darfur, etc., and their own government isn't doing anything about it, or they are exacerbating the problem. But we haven't done much for those countries. We're too tied up with Iraq's oil.

I would support covert operations, as well, where Mexican undercover intelligence agents would come over and take care of the problem the old fashioned way.

Hitler was different than your posed scenario, because he was trying to build up his empire, not trying to protect his country. We are basically into empire building, as well, except we are more underhanded about it, simply forming puppet governments behind the scenes instead of actually physically taking over the land. It's somewhat easier that way, while the results are pretty much the same - world dominance.

[jasd]

>>When someone offends me I realize that they are perhaps spiritually sick or just having a bad day.<<

Well, you see, Shane – I don’t perceive Bravus – as being ‘spiritually sick or having a bad day’ - neither am I. I see him as having run into a buzzsaw – and not liking it.

>>I pray, "God save me from being angry" and try to show them the same kindness and courtesy that I would gladly show a sick friend.<<

Good grief, Shane, who’s taken ill? Outside of shot kidneys, multiple scars on the old ticker, every bone and connecting tissue groaning and on fire, etc – I’m fine – no sickness on this end, spiritual or otherwise.

>>Though I may not like their symptoms (what they do) and how they affect me, they, like myself, are in need of a loving relationship with the lovely Jesus.<<

Are you saying that Bravus is in need of a “loving relationship with lovely Jesus”?

>>If they are offending people (like me) without provocation, their relationship with the Lord of lords must be strained and they are in need of my prayers and compassion.<<

Again, I am not offended. Is it you or is it me – who sounds discombobulated? That is more ‘circular reasoning’ than I can possibly get a hook into...

[jasd]

>>People forget that the hallmark of the Bush administration in the months prior to September 11 was the rapid and dramatic rolling back of regulation on various industries including finance. The current housing and banking crisis is a direct result of that deregulation,<<

Actually, this present downward spiraling cascade had its inception in The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Yes, passage of this Act was democratic-socialism in action. This act forbade ‘redlining’; that is, the practice of lending institutions protecting their fundaments by lending only to those having the proven wherewithall to service their loans or having sufficient collateral to cover any outstanding debt incurred. Subsequently, reform legislation made it possible for such as credit unions to lend 75% more than law previously allowed them.

Let’s give credit where due – Carter (D) was Prez in 1977. He had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House (oh yes, a stacked liberal judiciary also).

As far as ‘deregulation’ – one must remember that ‘regulations’ re this practice of risky lending – enforced that risky practice. Deregulation would have returned a degree of control to the lending houses. You may not have known but

Acorn (remember them?) was but one of the interested ‘groups’ that worked to ensure ease of access to mortgage lending – for those who had no business incurring the kind of debt represented by a 30-year home mortgage.

Following the easing of access to mortgage lending, ‘yuppies’ bought more house than their salaries dictated, and assorted other speculators, smelling easy profits, entered the market.

Eventually, the numbers of those who could not meet mortgage obligations climbed – as well, those who were speculating in an ever increase in housing prices.

“...more than 32 percent of lower-income borrowers struggle to pay bills on time, and about 27 percent spend more than 40 percent of their income servicing debt.”

Indeed, we have been and are now committed to socializing losses – beginning, with the housing market, moving next to socializing the losses of medium and large lending institutions, the Big 3 Auto manufacturers, the airline industry (not necessarily in that order) –and one might continue enumerating upcoming socialization of losses.

>>...and so is the tens or hundreds of billions of taxpayer money that will go into bailing out Fannie and Freddie. So I think it makes sense to get some *sensible, moderate* regulation back onto various industries to avoid that.<<

“I would say that for the last 200 years, America’s elected politicians and scoundrels have built up US$5 trillion in debt In the last few weekends, some un-elected officials added another $5 trillion to America’s national debt.” –Jim Rogers

Deregulate the regulators.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Are you saying that Bravus is in need of a “loving relationship with lovely Jesus”?

I am saying we all are. Christians can disagree with each other and agree to disagree. What I see in this thread is going beyond that. Some members need to step back, get off the defensive and the offensive. Take a chill pill as we use to say in high school.

Quote:

I don’t perceive Bravus – as being ‘spiritually sick or having a bad day’.

Doesn't matter if he is spiritually sick or having a bad day. If someone offends us we need to treat them as if they are spiritually sick or having a bad day. We can't change other people. We can only change the man in the mirror.

Some people are big enough to step up to the plate and make the tone of this forum more civil. Others want to play the role of a victim or an attack dog and one would be hard pressed to distinguish their tactics from non-Christians. Selfishness, self-centeredness and a hundred forms of vanity make us incapable of walking in the other man's shoes and seeing the world from his view. Altruism allows us to take the high road. Give others a break. Step back. Live and let live. Agree to disagree.

[Neil D]

>>When someone offends me I realize that they are perhaps spiritually sick or just having a bad day.<<

Well, you see, Shane – I don’t perceive Bravus – as being ‘spiritually sick or having a bad day’ - neither am I. I see him as having run into a buzzsaw – and not liking it.

Be glad that I am not Moderator...I would kick your b*** off this board for 30 days for what you said to Bravus.

Besides insulting a fellow Adventist, and insulting a fellow military ally, your posts are not reflective of America nor Americans... and they don't belong here...

....and neither does your attitude.

So, before you go half cocked and rake me over the coals, or go to Stan weeping and complaining, you'd better take a few days break... And start picking and choosing your posts again...

....of course, you could do a lot to repair the damage you have done between Oz and America by appologizing to Bravus..but I know...that is asking too much from you...isnt it?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Do you agree with Obama on that issue?

Here's an apropos question:

Let's say a militant group is going from the US into Mexico and killing Mexican civiilians and Mexican troops. What if the US did not do anything about it? Would you support Mexico's right to come across our borders and get those people?

And if they did go across our border to get them, would that mean they are students of Hitler or agree with his thinking?

By the way, this did happen between the US and Mexico about 1865, when our Navaho were raiding in Mexico and then returning to the US. What happened in that instance?

No, I do not agree with Obama on this point. That is one of my frustrations with this election, that there is not more difference in foreign policy between the 2 main candidates. U.S. leadership in the world is a subject near to my heart, of more importance and interest than the current election, actually. I see us acting like bullies, arrogant and greedy, with the rest of the world watching and waiting for us to go down.....

I believe that if the US was permitting continuing attacks to be made on Mexicans and on Mexican military, and Mexico could do nothing else to stop it, they or any other nation would have not only the right but the duty to their citizens to go across the border and stop the attacks.

A nation has a right to defend its people against those kinds of attacks.

When you say Mexico could justifiably send people across secretly to take action, you are acknowledging this right.

In the case of the Navaho, what do you think should have been done?

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Are you saying that Bravus is in need of a “loving relationship with lovely Jesus”?

>>I am saying we all are. Christians can disagree with each other and agree to disagree. What I see in this thread is going beyond that. Some members need to step back, get off the defensive and the offensive. Take a chill pill as we use to say in high school.<<

I think you make too much of Bravus’ pique. It appears you are being presumptuous.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I don’t perceive Bravus – as being ‘spiritually sick or having a bad day’.

>>Doesn't matter if he is spiritually sick or having a bad day. If someone offends us we need to treat them as if they are spiritually sick or having a bad day.<<

Mebbe, someone offended you, Shane; no one offended me, and if you are making the case that Bravus is offended, I say, have him reread, very carefully - or tell me himself - that he is offended. Besides,

what is with this elliptical language of “spiritually sick”? I’m beginning to perceive that it is neither Bravus nor myself who is the one having a “bad day”. Well, mebbe, Bravus...

>>We can't change other people. We can only change the man in the mirror.<<

Who’s trying to change whom? This thread is simply the vehicle for interesting and vigorous exchange; nothing more, nothing less... The “man in my mirror” is satisfactorily guileless – and I perceive – rather contributory.

>>Some people are big enough to step up to the plate and make the tone of this forum more civil.<<

The only person I see on this thread that is currently less than civil is the one being much too hubristic and presumptuous.

>>Others want to play the role of a victim or an attack dog and one would be hard pressed to distinguish their tactics from non-Christians. Selfishness, self-centeredness and a hundred forms of vanity make us incapable of walking in the other man's shoes and seeing the world from his view.<<

Wow, by valid inferrence, I am now offended; not by Bravus, mind you - but by your very self. What nauseating arrogance!

Victim? Attack dog? Is there a lipstick insinuation in the punchline...?

Their tactics? Which? The victim or the attack dog?

Vanity and incapacity? Shane, listen to yourself!

Shouldn’t this be on the Bible and Theology board. Just listen to yourself!

>>Altruism allows us to take the high road. Give others a break. Step back. Live and let live. Agree to disagree.<<

Shane, read. Read, very carefully. Am I, by your standards, required to parse as well as proffer?

Just listen to yourself! You’ve taken a thing that, given Bravus’ historicity, is a thing of but a moment – and are attempting to water and freshen it into a thing that reflects yourself more than it does reality.

Just agree to disagree with me.

[John317]

Time on this thread for everyone to step back and take a breather, then return only if we can stop all negative personal references . Remember we can exchange all views on the topics and we should be able to do that without personal attacks. Argue from evidence and reason. And most of all, relax and have fun! Lots of it!

Play nice, everyone.

Oh, and it is ok to say America is wrong and it's ok to say other countries are wrong. But please don't call a whole group of people degrading names and otherwise disrespect everyone in a political party.

Democrats are good people generally and so are Republicans and Independents and Greens and Libertarians.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Well, you see, Shane – I don’t perceive Bravus – as being ‘spiritually sick or having a bad day’ - neither am I. I see him as having run into a buzzsaw – and not liking it.

>>Be glad that I am not Moderator...I would kick your b*** off this board for 30 days for what you said to Bravus.<<

Please, Neil D, b***? You need a spell-checker; besides, what, specifically, do you reference?

>>Besides insulting a fellow Adventist,<<

Neil D, I can hardly think of anyone else these boards who have been, generally, more insulting. Witness: the current contretemps re Ichy. Anyway, should an Adventist have taken issue with what I, indeed, did say – that Adventist is much too much insecure in his or her own skin. Moreover, if you’ll recall,

I am neither ‘Adventist’ nor Xtian.

>>...and insulting a fellow military ally,<<

So, I ask you, “Where are these vaunted allies?”

>>...your posts are not reflective of America nor Americans... and they don't belong here...<<

Funny, I’ve often thought the same re yourself.

>>....and neither does your attitude.<<

Funny, I’ve often thought the same re yourself. I daresay that you, unremittingly, display more ‘attitude’ than even I.

>>So, before you go half cocked and rake me over the coals, or go to Stan weeping and complaining, you'd better take a few days break...<<

I wouldn’t rake you over the coals for this post. I think it apropos for this format. “Go to Stan”? “Weeping and complaining”? “I’d better”...?

Umm, Neil D, do have any oxygen bottles laying around? Pure oxy usually proves efficacious.

>>And start picking and choosing your posts again...<<

Please, Neil D, allow me a direct observation – I think you’re more about suck-up than rationality re this post and this issue... Now, don’t get all bent out of shape but allow me the honesty of my observation; that’s how you’re coming across...

>>....of course, you could do a lot to repair the damage you have done between Oz and America by appologizing to Bravus.<<

Thanks, but I seriously doubt that Australia really gives a fig about any damage I might be able to do re serious inter-governmental relationships. I thank you for the vote of confidence.

I ask again, “Where, indeed, are our Australallies?”

>>...but I know...that is asking too much from you...isnt it?<<

Apologize, for what? Show me that I am wrong, and I will readily concede the point. I think I've shown that I do apologize where I am wrong. (Don’t you just hate the egregious snark?)