Hitler? I blame Christians. Martin Luther was a notorious Jew hating Christian wasn't he? And there are still quite a few Lutherans around aren't there?
I understand Germans have banned Nazism. You have to wonder why they haven't banned Lutheranism. Or Christianity.
It is not just Austrians and Germans who need to be watched.
If Jews can be blamed for events 2000 years ago how much more deserving are the Germanic peoples for events of less than a century past.
And the above is no joke. It is sarcasm.
Gabrielle Giffords
Hey Roger--whom I believe I once monikered an asymptote of the left--stick this in your pipe and smoke it.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/112942/
And please see me use explicit eliminationist rhetoric:
I want the memes of the left to be utterly destroyed. In some happy day in the future, what resulted from Rousseau, from Voltaire's idiocy that "property is theft", all that will have no effect in humankind's political discourse from that day of Jubilee and going forward from it.
There is not one thing the left has done which is worth the harm it has done. What started with the tumbrels--because its murders are its only effective reply to human nature--is the greatest tragedy of the 19th, 20th, and now the 21st century. It is a bloody digression from the better path, which trail was only begun to be blazed by such much better persons than you as Joseph Plumb Martin, a warrior--a killer--and a farmer.
There is not one good development in human history with which the left is credited by the popular history writers--less popular now than before, thanks to the internet--which would not have happened better or sooner if the Bourbons had crushed the levelers, and Locke been the guidestar for French instead of Robespierre.
Your political ideas have no net worth.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/112942/
And please see me use explicit eliminationist rhetoric:
I want the memes of the left to be utterly destroyed. In some happy day in the future, what resulted from Rousseau, from Voltaire's idiocy that "property is theft", all that will have no effect in humankind's political discourse from that day of Jubilee and going forward from it.
There is not one thing the left has done which is worth the harm it has done. What started with the tumbrels--because its murders are its only effective reply to human nature--is the greatest tragedy of the 19th, 20th, and now the 21st century. It is a bloody digression from the better path, which trail was only begun to be blazed by such much better persons than you as Joseph Plumb Martin, a warrior--a killer--and a farmer.
There is not one good development in human history with which the left is credited by the popular history writers--less popular now than before, thanks to the internet--which would not have happened better or sooner if the Bourbons had crushed the levelers, and Locke been the guidestar for French instead of Robespierre.
Your political ideas have no net worth.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
Huah, you are very quick to judge arent you? I was simply quoting Wikipedia for the most part. So please put yourself together again.Given your WWII apologetics, I don't believe you.
Politics and wars are complicated and life is not just black and white. Not everybody on the side of your enemy is evil and not everybody on side is good. I thought people had smartened up on these things by now, but I guess you dont. I do object to the notion that the Germans as a people were/are simply evil and I object to them being demonized. I think that this is a very wrong thing to do, because it gets people the wrong idea about how somethiing like WW2 happened and how to prevent it from ever happening again. The fact is that most of the Germans fighting in WW2 were just normal people with families and they thought they were on the right, on the good side. The German Wehrmacht beltbuckle says "Gott mit uns", "God with us".
Again, it is very easy to simply say "they were evil because the Germans as a people are evil and everybody who followed the Nazis was evil too and all that was just the fault of the Germans". The whole matter was a lot more complex and has to be understood in historical context.
Neglecting these facts will invetably lead to this happening again, maybe even in your country.
This is what I was trying to say. Does that make me a WW2 apollogist? I honestly cant say. I honestly dont care either.
Uhm, I dont quite know what you mean with that. The jewish population here is doing pretty well these days. They have a lot of influence and they make use of it.I was under the impression that Austria with the assistance of Germany had solved the Jewish question.
Tdperk is of course trying to twist whatever I say to fit his own agenda, so he can keep spitting hatred towards me for daring to not share his opinion. I have never said anything hateful against jewish people. That would be silly too, because part of my family is jewish (married into, but nevertheless) and I really love these people. This does not change the fact that people on the left tend to use what happened 65 years ago for their own agenda and to supress the local right, when they try to argument against (among other things) the extreme influx of moslem families into my country. I do not quite understand why so many jewish here are siding with the left, since the result of this will be anything as to their liking. The moslems immigrating to my country are no friends to the jewish, nor will they support the jewish cause in any way. So it really is counterproductive. If you think that me saying that makes me in any way antisemite, then what does not?
So it was only an exasperated attacks on the "jews?" I have great quibbles with many Israeli policies, but when I criticize those I say Israeli--I have been known to say Izzies, also frogs, and brits.
What attacks on jews? What of what I said is an attack?
You think that "cry Hitler" is an attack? Geeeze!
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....Well, you're doing wonderful job of getting out from under the Austrian Corporal's umbrella.
Whatever...I don't at this time believe that any apologies are warranted.
The thing is that I am neither on the left, nor on the right. I am in the middle and I am for what I think is the right choice at that moment.With way more justification than any of you have for your/left right nonsense.
Very convenient too. Because my argument places skipjack and diogenes on the same side. Kiss and make up fellers. Can I watch?
We have discussed the drug thing in other threads before and I can tell you Msimon, that while I sometimes go get a agitated about the topic (simply because I see so much suffering because of drugs here), I am not spewing hatred at you like Tdperk does at me.
Thing is that if I knew it worked, I would be all for legalizing drugs and on your side. I do however have more evidence to the contrary than evidence for it (I know, I know, you think you do have more evidence for your cause, I know).
It is also hardly something you can just "try" and then see what happens. Once you do it, it will be very difficult to go back. I would find an experiment like that ruthless. If there was a country where it had worked before, then I might be more easily convinced.
Btw, I am against criminalizing the addicts. Addicts are sick and need treatment, not punishment in some prison (which will only put them deeper into the whole drug mess). I am for severely punishing the orginized crime behind the drugs though. This is what I want to see destroyed. So I am not completely on the other side, just not quite on yours either. Either way, I dont condone drug abuse. I think (and there we are on different sides again) that it destroys the brain and reduces the personal free will and clear judgement.
Well I'm more of the opinion that no topic is off the table.Skipjack wrote:My wife does not think it was and she agrees with me actually.
Msimon, do you think that I was being antisemite here?
If you think I was, then I sincerely apologize. It was not my intention.
As to anti-semitism? Who can tell what is in another man's heart?
There have been Jew haters I mostly agree with and Jew lovers I can't stand.
And you know Marx was nominally Jewish (according to ancestry if not practice). A study of Jewish culture would show that Communism is more or less institutionalized Jewish ghetto behavior. Which may be why it appeals so much to Jews even after the ghettos (as institutions) are long gone in the civilized world. Revenge of the Jews. Heh.
I think you should be able to hate any one you want as long as you don't institutionalize the hate. Or commit violence because of it. The fine old American value of Free Speech. Not very popular in the rest of the world sadly.
Why Are Jews Liberals?
is pretty good on the subject.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Legalizing drugs will do nothing about the drug problem. There is even a possibility that legalizing will make the drug problem worse. There is doubt about that (Portugal) but it is a worry.Thing is that if I knew it worked, I would be all for legalizing drugs and on your side
What is not in doubt is that it will solve the crime problem currently associated with illegal drugs. Just as ending alcohol prohibition in the US did not solve the alcohol problem. What it did was solve the crime problem associated with alcohol prohibition.
If you are looking for a solution to the drug problem all we know for sure is that prohibition is a vector for getting drugs to kids. In the US it is easier for a kid to get an illegal drug than a legal beer.
Now all this is a moot point because IMO (from years of intense study) it is child abuse + genetics that is the main driver for people to take drugs. So far we can't do anything about the genetics and confirmed prohibitionists are loathe to deal with the child abuse problem. So we continue with a program that is not and cannot solve the problems it is supposed to solve.
Ah. Well.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I dont find the Portugal model bad. We have discussed this before, Msimon and I explained to you, that drugs in Portugal are not really legalized. They just do not put drug users into prison (they might have to agree to some sort of treatment though).There is doubt about that (Portugal) but it is a worry.
They still have prison sentences for the organized criminals and smugglers that are behind the drugs (small dealers usually carry less than what is "legal", so they dont get into the system).
I do also find the use of certain "recreational drugs" acceptable if it is under the supervision by a medical doctor. But then it is a treatment and not abuse.
All this is fine with me. But as you say it yourself, outright legalizing drugs might make the drug problem worse.
I agree that the drug crime would go away, but I dont agree that the drug criminals would go away. They will simply change to a different illegal trade. Anyway, can we agree that a model like Portugals is good?
It is not quite what I understand under "legalizing drungs", though.
Alcohol is by far the most dangerous recreational drug around. It is the only recreational drug known to induce violence in some (medical studies not newspaper reports). Ask your local police if they would rather arrest some one jacked up on alcohol or would they prefer arresting pot heads.I do also find the use of certain "recreational drugs" acceptable if it is under the supervision by a medical doctor.
Given all that why aren't you beating the drum loudly for only letting people use alcohol under medical supervision?
Nice bit here on the dangers of alcohol vs other drugs:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... rooms.html
=====================
Seriously dude. When are you going to stop arguing anecdotes and start studying the literature?
You wouldn't do that for a physics problem. Why do it for a social problem?
It depresses me to no end the number of people who are ignorant on the subject and yet have fully formed unwavering opinions. It is enough to drive a man to drink. Or drugs.
And it is not as if I haven't presented numerous links which themselves have links to the literature.
But I have been doing my educational bit for 40 years and as the old folks die off attitudes are changing.
I have changed minds. But very few. What I have done is educate the youth. That education is beginning to bear fruit."A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Roger wrote:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... ent=safariDiogenes wrote:AcesHigh wrote: just like 90% of the threads created by Diogenes in this forum.
Grow up little boy. I am shining a light on what is already out there,.
Its Funny/ironic how so much of this shit is being taken down from the internet.
Really? That's your best shot? A comic novelty?
Gee, I wonder how that compares with "Prairie Fire", a booklet written by Bill Ayers(Left wing Nutjob and extremely close friend and mentor of Barack Obama)
I asked, well, what's going to happen to those people that we can't re-educate; that are die-hard capitalists. And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill. 25 million people.
For those of you who are not familiar with it, you won't believe the levels of violence advocated in all seriousness by the Left wing side of the Spectrum.
So on the one hand, we have a comical representation of the shooting of the symbol of the Democrat party, while on the other hand we have a very prominent Friend and close associate of the President* Seriously advocating the killing and re-education of 25 million people, and trying to convince other people that this is an appropriate thing to do. Yeah, those sound about equal in terms of seriousness.
*
• Ayers and Obama worked together for years on a school reform program called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
• Ayers and Obama also served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a separate charity organization.
• Obama had his political coming-out party in William Ayers' home.
• Ayers mentions Obama by name in a book he wrote in 1997, and mentions that the two are very close neighbors.
• Obama gave a short glowing review of that same Ayers book for the Chicago Tribune.
• Obama and Ayers were both presenters together on a panel about juvenile justice (organized by Michelle Obama).
• Both Obama and Ayers were close friends with the same person, Rashid Kalidi.
• There are also several unverified rumors swirling around that have not been documented: That Ayers may have helped to write part (or all) of Obama's autobiography; that Obama and Ayers shared an office space together for three years, on the same floor of the same building in Chicago; and that Ayers and Obama may have known each other as far back as 1981.
all links to references for each bullet point here.