Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Ľ Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Ľ Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-09-2018, 06:25 AM   #91
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Chuck Schumer called for a military parade in 2104. My my, how about that. Now, maybe heíll be brave enough to lie down in front of a tank since he would have us believe that there no difference between America and China. Oh no, nationalism is coming, tomorrow our kids will be goose-stepping at recess!!

When outrage at mitary parades is this selective, that also means said outrage is fake. They want to draw a straight line from trump to Hitler. The constitution. Is still there. If it survived the last eight years of el deuce, it will survive the next 3.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26893...ign=benshapiro
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Again !!! Another false equivalence example .. posted out of context whatís also funny all I heard the past 8 years were if you supported Obama your were a communist or socialist... but those people who used that labeled with vigor... with out proof are upset with peopleís response To Trumps actions and Words ...that actually have happened
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 06:33 AM   #92
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
in most of theses things...the democrats have set the very low standard...if you are hoping for or expecting Trump to raise the standard...you may be waiting in vain
Canít argue with that .. seems Congress has set the standards low.. to make themselves look good when the pass something. Regardless ifís itís a good bill or a bad one .. ps good morning..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 06:51 AM   #93
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
.. seems Congress has set the standards low.. to make themselves look good when the pass something. Regardless ifís itís a good bill or a bad one .. ps good morning..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
probably why their approval has been in the teens for decades...yet we continue to send the same people back over and over again....and good morning! you must be getting anxious to get the cover off the boat!
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 10:11 AM   #94
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Again !!! Another false equivalence example .. posted out of context whatís also funny all I heard the past 8 years were if you supported Obama your were a communist or socialist... but those people who used that labeled with vigor... with out proof are upset with peopleís response To Trumps actions and Words ...that actually have happened
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"Another false equivalence example .. posted out of context "

In my experience, when someone (1) says I took something out of context, but (2) doesn't tell me what the true context was...that means they have no rebuttal to my point, but they can't bring themselves to admit it.

"are upset with peopleís response To Trumps actions and Words ...that actually have happened"

You keep acting as if everyone on the right defends everything Trump says. It could not be less accurate. He gets all kinds of fair criticism from Republicans who despise him. Sure, he has apologists like Sean Hannity, but there are many conservatives who criticize him when he deserves it. Hell, conservatives are upset he's willing to compromise with democrats on the "dreamers".

Very few conservatives refuse to admit he's a jerk.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 10:32 AM   #95
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 17,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
But they would be paying even more federal taxes if they didn't have the higher deductions. What is being subsidized, is the high taxes of those who have to pay in liberal spending states. It makes it more palatable to taxpayers in states with the high taxes required to pay for programs if they can deduct high property taxes to defray the federal tax burden.
By this logic any deduction by anyone is subsidizing something...that doesn't make a lot of sense. The topic is if blue states contribute more net Federal tax revenue than they consume in Federal funding.

On this point the answer is yes they do.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 10:37 AM   #96
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 17,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Chuck Schumer called for a military parade in 2104. My my, how about that. Now, maybe he’ll be brave enough to lie down in front of a tank since he would have us believe that there no difference between America and China. Oh no, nationalism is coming, tomorrow our kids will be goose-stepping at recess!!
Schumer was talking about a ticker-tape style parade in NYC to honor troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan similar to what was done after Desert Storm.

Not a let's get out the tanks and mobile ICMB's to parade down Constitution Avenue.

Quite a difference.

spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 11:30 AM   #97
Pete F.
Master trŚd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Right...it's good to know that people should not be marginalized by calling them Nazis. Calling Trump a Nazi is a Hitlerian fear tactic. Labeling someone a Communist is fear mongering. Referring to a group as Progressive is Hitleresque fear mongering. Marginalizing half of Americans by depicting them to be heartless capitalist pig Conservatives will lead us down the path of Hitler's Germany. Pointing out Christians as some tyrannical liberty destroying cult drives us into a hysteria which will wind up with concentration camps. Pointing out that Islam is not compatible with our Consitution, though, THAT is the really big and ultimate dehumanization. THAT is the "tried and true method of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement being employed at this moment." After all, as you say, "Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, itís astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking."

Actually, using the internet it is easy to determine that Islam actually is not compatible with our Constitution. Just as Nazism and Communism and Socialism are also not compatible with our Constitution. But that's neither here nor there. We must not fear monger. Even though the Germans did not have the advantage of seeing how Nazism worked throughout the rest of the world, and even though we do have the advantage of seeing how Islam (as well as Nazism and Communism and Socialism) works throughout the rest of the world, we should not use that readily available information to say something that might "marginalize" someone.

But, in the meantime, let us keep calling Trump Hitler. Let us keep saying Conservatives and Christians are the real existential threat. Let us keep shouting them down and keep them from speaking at Universities.
Who called Trump Hitler, this was written in 2010.
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about Christianity?
Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?

Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there.
The war on drugs has failed
The war on abortion failed, it only lasted 100 years and did not eliminate abortion.
I'll admit that being a Republican at a liberal arts college can be dangerous and I have a little experience with that.
But i do believe that if you are young being liberal is not bad, but what happened at a local college with a conservative speaker was disappointing.

Pete
Formerly known as bluefishercat
"Plugs
There are about 4,000,000 of these on the market. Not really, but that's just the way it seems (and some guy just invented 3 more while I was writing this sentence)."
How To Catch Salt Water Fish by Bill Wisner copyright 1955
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 11:48 AM   #98
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Who called Trump Hitler, this was written in 2010.
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about Christianity?
Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?

Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there.
The war on drugs has failed
The war on abortion failed, it only lasted 100 years and did not eliminate abortion.
I'll admit that being a Republican at a liberal arts college can be dangerous and I have a little experience with that.
But i do believe that if you are young being liberal is not bad, but what happened at a local college with a conservative speaker was disappointing.
"Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?"

Tell that to Christian bakers who get sued for having the nerve to want to practice their religion.

"Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there."

It's called reacting to empirical evidence, and advocating for what works over what doesn't work. Hooray, 75% of black babies are now born to fatherless households! And if I say we need to re-establish the importance of the black nuclear family, that makes me a regressive who wants to go back in time? Or does it make me a rational person who knows how to identify and address the root cause of a problem?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 01:17 PM   #99
Pete F.
Master trŚd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?"

Tell that to Christian bakers who get sued for having the nerve to want to practice their religion.

"Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there."

It's called reacting to empirical evidence, and advocating for what works over what doesn't work. Hooray, 75% of black babies are now born to fatherless households! And if I say we need to re-establish the importance of the black nuclear family, that makes me a regressive who wants to go back in time? Or does it make me a rational person who knows how to identify and address the root cause of a problem?
First of all, I can't believe someone wanted a cake from someone that didn't want to make them one, or that a Christian would think they are sinning by making a cake. Two fools only make money for lawyers.
It's not just black babies, it's low income households.
But just eliminating the current system won't cure the problem, the system needs to help and not just be the net that keeps you from dying but has no escape for people without the tools to do so.
Whoopi goldberg had a late nite TV show years ago, I watched her interview one of the Wayans Brothers. They both grew up in the same Projects. They had a great discussion about going back and seeing the same people and why and how they got out of there. They both said it was because their parents worked. Sounds simple doesn't it. Just take the net away, we didn't used to have one.

Pete
Formerly known as bluefishercat
"Plugs
There are about 4,000,000 of these on the market. Not really, but that's just the way it seems (and some guy just invented 3 more while I was writing this sentence)."
How To Catch Salt Water Fish by Bill Wisner copyright 1955
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 02:07 PM   #100
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
First of all, I can't believe someone wanted a cake from someone that didn't want to make them one, or that a Christian would think they are sinning by making a cake. Two fools only make money for lawyers.
It's not just black babies, it's low income households.
But just eliminating the current system won't cure the problem, the system needs to help and not just be the net that keeps you from dying but has no escape for people without the tools to do so.
Whoopi goldberg had a late nite TV show years ago, I watched her interview one of the Wayans Brothers. They both grew up in the same Projects. They had a great discussion about going back and seeing the same people and why and how they got out of there. They both said it was because their parents worked. Sounds simple doesn't it. Just take the net away, we didn't used to have one.
"I can't believe someone wanted a cake from someone that didn't want to make them one"

I can't either, that's a very good point IMO.

"or that a Christian would think they are sinning by making a cake"

I don't agree with that either. But the First Amendment gives them the right to do it. When Obama was POTUS, a tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company in Michigan fired some Muslim drivers who wouldn't haul alcohol on religious grounds. The Obama administration sued the tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company on behalf of the drivers, saying that one cannot be forced to abandon their religious beliefs at work. Why do Muslim truck drivers get that protection and not Christian bakers? That's my question.

"But just eliminating the current system won't cure the problem"

I Agree with that. too. I guess I thought you were saying it's wrong to look back at what worked, and to advocate for returning to what worked. Not all change is productive change, not all change is "progress".

10 years ago, no one would have believed me if I predicted that soon, it would be considered "old fashioned" for me to say that if a man has to go to the bathroom, he should use the men's room. Is that progress? Not to me.

But you made good points.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 02:20 PM   #101
Pete F.
Master trŚd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 2,414
Jim they needed better lawyers and unfortunately that is the way this country currently works. The only country in the world where it is illegal for a business to connect two extension cords, thank a lawyer!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 02:43 PM   #102
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Who called Trump Hitler, this was written in 2010.

You posted it in 2018. I assumed you were trying to apply the article to current events. Does the Godwin effect no longer apply?

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about Christianity?
Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?

How large do you want the Constitution to be? The Constitution limits the power of government. Any government that is unlimited, all-powerful, would be unconstitutional. Christianity is not a form of government. Even in its religious precepts, it admits no governmental authority over those who choose not to practice it. Islam, Nazism, Communism, Socialism, are forms of government which apply to all within their physical domain, and Islam, in theory, aspires to expand its power to include everyone on earth. They are forms of total government power over individuals. They are not compatible with our constitutional principles of individual freedom. Governmental power in our constitutional system rests on the consent of the people. And can only be wielded within the scope of the powers given to it in those enumerations prescribed by the people.

Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there.
The war on drugs has failed
The war on abortion failed, it only lasted 100 years and did not eliminate abortion.

One of the reasons I usually put quotes around what is politically referred to as "Conservatism" is because it is a catch-all phrase, like "Liberal," which is contradictory and basically void of useful meaning. I prefer to use the term classical liberal to describe the point of view of those who wrote the Constitution. The divide, today, between so-called "Conservatives" and "Liberals" is a bit of a sham that hides a great deal of similarity between the two in their acceptance of our current mode of Progressive government. The difference is more in degree and type than in practice. Though, the "Conservatives" still have some links, or pretenses, to Classical Liberal Constitutionalism.

Classical Liberals (Costitutionalists), contrary to your notion of looking at history with a narrow view and picking a time to get back to, actually use the total, broad, scope of history, as the means to form and practice government. The Constitution was formed by those who inspected the totality of history known to them in order to pick the good things and protect against the bad things that existed in the historical record of governments. They formed a government for "now" not one which returned to some past. And they inserted in their Constitution the means to keep it "up to date."

The Founders, and most Classical Liberals, would not make a war on drugs or on abortion. Those types of "wars" are actually Progressive models of governing. The Early Progressives were the ones who tried to restrict or prohibit human behavior. The war on liquor (the Temperance movement) was a Progressive idea. Eugenics, purification of the race, was a Progressive idea. All the major founders of the Progressive movement were arch racists, including Presidents like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Abortion today for the Progressive left has become a positive war to implement it in order to make society more efficient and controllable. It has become a pet project to enforce it and fund it for reasons of control. So the "Conservatives" (Progressive Right) want to use government power to restrict abortion for moral reasons (legislating morality), and the "Liberals" (Progressive Left) want to use government power to expand, enforce, and fund it as a tool of population control, and the Classical Liberals want government out of it all-together.


I'll admit that being a Republican at a liberal arts college can be dangerous and I have a little experience with that.
But i do believe that if you are young being liberal is not bad, but what happened at a local college with a conservative speaker was disappointing.
Being an actual liberal is good whether you are young or old or in between. Who we refer to as "Liberals" today are not liberal. They are the leftist Progressives. They subscribe to Progressive ideology which is authoritarian in nature, not liberal.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 03:22 PM   #103
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
First of all, I can't believe someone wanted a cake from someone that didn't want to make them one, or that a Christian would think they are sinning by making a cake. Two fools only make money for lawyers.

It's ironic that you can't believe someone believed something. At any rate, Here is a more rational and constitutional summation: www.gopusa.com/?p=38782?omhide=true

the system needs to help and not just be the net that keeps you from dying but has no escape for people without the tools to do so.
What is the system that will do what you want it to do--or believe will do what you want?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 03:55 PM   #104
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
By this logic any deduction by anyone is subsidizing something...that doesn't make a lot of sense.

If there is a certain amount of money government says it must collect in taxes in order to operate, and it collects less from someone because of a deduction, it must make up that amount and get it from someone who can't make that deduction.

And, if the deduction makes it more feasible for a state to raise your taxes because they will be defrayed to the extent that you save in federal tax because of the deduction, then the state is subsidized the amount that your deduction saves you and makes it easier to pay your state tax.


The topic is if blue states contribute more net Federal tax revenue than they consume in Federal funding.

On this point the answer is yes they do.
That's your topic, not mine. The subject is obviously more complex and less meaningful than your "topic" makes it out to be--in many ways. Social Security and transfer payments and food stamps, blah, blah, are "entitlements." The states have no say in whether recipients are "entitled." These transfer payments are to people, not to states. And if those people move to other states, they take their entitlements with them. And states switch from red to blue or blue to red from election to election. Having more "entitled" persons living in states is not as economically useful to states as having wage earners. States can't directly collect taxes on the entitlement payments. And wage earners can spend more taxable money as well as be directly taxed on their wages. And, if it were so profitable to have federal transfer entitlement holders, the blue states should make it more attractive to draw them to their states. I don't know of any efforts to attract more federal welfare recipients to blue states.

Who contributes more to the federal coffers has no special relevant meaning. Is it something to boast about? Is it some sort of bragging rights? It seems what is more important is what amount states force their inhabitants to "contribute." I'd rather brag on living in a state that took less of my money than living in one that took more. But if you're proud of paying more state and federal taxes, then by all means, make that your meaningful topic.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 04:15 PM   #105
Pete F.
Master trŚd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Being an actual liberal is good whether you are young or old or in between. Who we refer to as "Liberals" today are not liberal. They are the leftist Progressives. They subscribe to Progressive ideology which is authoritarian in nature, not liberal.
Where do Libertarians fit in this equation?
How is Islam any different from any other religion, or Catholicism for that matter which has it's own state and sole leader on earth. When I was a kid some people were concerned about electing a Papist as president. That was JFK. There are sects in many religions that I have no use for and that most of the practitioners of the more mainstream parts would disavow. People twist the Koran, Bible, Torah to fit their views.
Who fought the Crusades, brought Christianity to the rest of the World, willingly and unwillingly and lots of other things in the name of their God. I think it is a case of let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Pete
Formerly known as bluefishercat
"Plugs
There are about 4,000,000 of these on the market. Not really, but that's just the way it seems (and some guy just invented 3 more while I was writing this sentence)."
How To Catch Salt Water Fish by Bill Wisner copyright 1955
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 05:08 PM   #106
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Where do Libertarians fit in this equation?

They may, as a group, be closest to classical liberals. But there are different kinds of Libertarians. That's why I like the Classical Liberal label. It is more specific and identifiable.

How is Islam any different from any other religion, or Catholicism for that matter which has it's own state and sole leader on earth. When I was a kid some people were concerned about electing a Papist as president. That was JFK. There are sects in many religions that I have no use for and that most of the practitioners of the more mainstream parts would disavow. People twist the Koran, Bible, Torah to fit their views.

Islam is not just a religion. It is a system of government. A form of theocracy. Christianity does not have a secular component. Some actual forms of government may make Christianity its government accepted and controlled religion. But make no mistake, the actual civil government will not be the church. And, as you say, secular leaders may twist or usurp a religion for their own ends. But Christianity, as exemplified by Christ, is not connected to earthly governments. (The current Catholic Pope may be a bit of an exception. He has that South American Liberation theology streak in him). Islam, as exemplified by Mohammad, and by its scriptures in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah, is not only a religion, it is the earthly government. By its own code and teaching and example of its founder, Islam cannot be subservient to a secular constitution other than its own koranic and Mohammadin system. It must rule everybody, Muslim or otherwise. And the "otherwise" is allowed only in limited circumstances. And that is not twisting the Koran to fit a view. It would be twisting the Koran (as some try to do) to make it say otherwise.

Who fought the Crusades, brought Christianity to the rest of the World, willingly and unwillingly and lots of other things in the name of their God. I think it is a case of let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Christ did not fight the Crusades. Early Christianity spread not by power, but by preaching and sacrifice, and was purely voluntary, as well as being a great danger for converts. Islam, in Mohammad's beginning Mecca phase, is where he tried for years the peaceful preaching method, but had managed to convert only about 150 people. In Medina, he changed to his warrior phase. Under conquest, Jihad of the Sword, he imposed Islam on a vast empire of people. And the messages he received from God created a system that was not only religious, but was a code for secular rule as well.

So the foundation and precepts of each religion is different. Christ founded a religion based on voluntary faith, Mohammad founded a theocracy founded on force. That is the fundamental difference and foundation of each. That is why Christianity is not incompatible with our Constitution, and Islam is.

The crusades were not about an establishment of actual Christianity, but of returning the lands which were originally Christian but conquered by Muslims back into the hands of Christians. In that force rather than preaching was used, it was a corruption and not really Christian. But Christianity went through a great period of reformation to restore it back to true Christian roots. And that is, in essence (though corrupted by some) the Christianity of today. And why it is a religion, not a theocracy.

We have, for whatever reasons, been fed the line that Islam is just another religion. It is so very, very, and as you mentioned in an earlier post, easy to verify that it is not. That it is a very strict and harsh theocracy. Very few serious and honest Muslim clerics/scholars would admit to some Islamic compatibility with western democracy, much less to the American Constitution.

Last edited by detbuch; 02-09-2018 at 05:26 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2018, 06:26 PM   #107
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Where do Libertarians fit in this equation?
How is Islam any different from any other religion, or Catholicism for that matter which has it's own state and sole leader on earth. When I was a kid some people were concerned about electing a Papist as president. That was JFK. There are sects in many religions that I have no use for and that most of the practitioners of the more mainstream parts would disavow. People twist the Koran, Bible, Torah to fit their views.
Who fought the Crusades, brought Christianity to the rest of the World, willingly and unwillingly and lots of other things in the name of their God. I think it is a case of let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
"How is Islam any different from any other religion, or Catholicism"

Well. let's see. For starters, there aren't large numbers of Catholics who want to slaughter everyone who isn't Catholic, so there's that.

How many Muslim hospitals, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and adoption agencies are you aware of?

Catholicism also doesn't brutalize women, doesn't force them to dress like ninjas and mutilate their genitalia.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2018, 07:18 PM   #108
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Here is what scares me, and it is nothing new, in fact it predates Trump by quite a bit . . .

The sad thing about Godwinís Law is that legitimate comparisons can be drawn between 1930ís Germany and . . . today.

Thatís not the same thing as saying that our government is led by Nazis or that our leaders are rounding up the undesirables to be systematically exterminated.

It simply means that the same types of trends that blinded Germans to the potential of Adolf Hitler can be found within . . . society today.



By playing upon their fears, Hitler persuaded the German people to grant him unprecedented power and the long downhill slide to their well documented destruction began.

So where are the parallels . . . ?

One of the most telling similarities between Nazi Germany and modern [South Africa] . . . is the practice of marginalizing and dehumanizing a targeted group of people who are blamed for the ills of our nation.

In Germany it was the Jews who bore the brunt of this treatment as German society methodically marked them for destruction, first by innuendo, next by legal sanction and finally by the direct action of rounding them up and exterminating them.

Other groups including gypsies, communists, homosexuals and those with permanent disabilities were labeled as being a danger to the Fatherland and likewise targeted for elimination.

We must remember that the process by which the Final Solution was implemented was as gradual as it was deliberate.

Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, itís astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.

Never has information been so easy to come by, and yet the tried and true methods of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement are being employed at this moment.

********************
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com