Disgusting cowardice from UK police over 'Yid' chants

Post Reply New Topic

But conservatives also use spend taxes against the tax payer's interests - even though they play up the liberal agenda card of tax and spend. As I had pointed out, conservatives were all for using tax money for war in Iraq, despite the sizable amount of citizens who had opposed that. That, and corporate bailouts, which people both right and left had opposed (Obama gets a lot of heat for that, but it was Bush who had started that policy - Obama only insisted the corporations pay it back).
As for local governments handling public assistance in place of the federal government - I have no problem with local governments taking part, but in the end the federal government has much more funds and reach. And on top of that, some states are more willing to help the needy than others would, while some don't have the financial means to meet those needs. Case in point - our immediate neighbor to the east, Idaho, has a terrible record for public education. If my forefathers had made the mistake of settling there than in instead of Washington, my autistic eight year old daughter would probably not be given the same special education she receives from our Washington state school system.
As far as the feds are concerned - I have no personal gripe against them. You have to remember, it was the federal government that had built the freeway system so you can travel any where and everywhere. You don't have to worry about an invader coming over the hill, as the national armed services will protect you. If you were black, you could thank the federal government for the right to vote or to hold office, or to eat where you like, or to marry someone of another race. And for me, thanks to the federal government, come January 1st, I'll have health insurance.
That's not to say the states can't lead the way before the federal government - here in Washington, we voted to make pot smoking legal, and legalized gay marriage in a step toward further civil rights.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

If I may interject for Ann - rather than seeing those on assistance as a burden, we see them as fellow Americans in need, and are living up to our ideals by offering a hand up.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I personally don't have a problem with the draft - those so eager to send the children of others off to war might be a little less gungho if there was a chance their kids could be called up to fight.
Regarding FDR and Lincoln - fighting fascism or fighting to save the union sounds like pretty legitimate reasons to draft citizens into the armed forces to me. And it should be recalled, the Axis powers and the Confederacy had no problem with the draft in either of those conflicts.
Regarding the communist party in the Pre-WWII years - yes, it was absolutely undeniable that the communists were responsible for the deaths of millions, both by starvation, and in the gulags, the Soviet answer to the later concentration camps. But I question if that was the reason why Germany's captains of industry feared the communists. I think they were more concerned with their wealth, power, and social prestige suddenly disappearing with a communist electoral victory. In Hitler, they saw someone who was as anti-union, and politically right wing as they were - but who they terrible mistook as someone they could control. It should also be remembered that time, Stalin had decided the enemy was on the left, and so forbade the German communist party from making common cause with the Social Democrats against the Nazis.

The draft hardly meant that the children of the elites fought in Vietnam, at least not unless they wanted to. The real reason for the draft is that it makes our lives easier to take by the liberals who are so narcissistic they think the know what's good for us, when what they are really doing is advancing only their own interests.

As far as the Nazis go, I have no fondness or sympathy for them either. But let's face facts: To beat the Nazis, the liberals allied with the second worst murderer in history to stop the third worst, and gave us a forty-five year cold war to boot. Liberalism caused incalculable suffering by doing so, yet hasn't begun to acknowledge its crimes the way Germans have.

As far as the Confederacy goes, the Civil War was hardly about slavery in anything other than pretext. I say this because life expectancies, literacy rates, infant mortality rates, and all the other indicators of affluence were far lower for both black and white in 1940 than they were in 1860. No, the South's real sin was trying to escape the clutches of liberalism, which was the South's de facto and de jure aim in the war.

Again, the reason almost ALL Germans feared the communists was their wanton murder of between six and ten million innocent Ukrainians. They didn't want the same thing happening to them, and anybody but a liberal can fully understand why.

My and your opinions on the points you just made are so vastly different, I think it best not to continue this particular conversation, lest hurtful words are exchanged.
That, and I am committed to watching the season opener for The Walking Dead tonight.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Exactly. And it is hard to determine if someone is a burden. People contribute in all kinds of different ways. They should not lose their freedom because they don't fit in with the mainstream.

It may now be already a bit offtopic, but I heavily want to negate that. Hitlers party only made it to be the junior partner of an government alliance. It was the conservative party winning the election, that needed a smaller party in alliance to have the needed majority for an government. Because the biggest "enemy" of the conservative party being the leftwing parties from normal democrats/socialists to communistic partie, they allies with the national-socialits, having the oppinion that they could politically control them this way.

Then during this time, there was an attack of an communist against the building you could compare with the white house in the USA. The government of conservatives and their minor Nazi partner, took that as declaration that the leftwing party were against democracy itself and wanted to force on the german folk their will, and so would be enemies of the will of the people.

So they forbid ALL leftwing parties (means closely 50% of the elected parties) and hunted down the politics of those parties as criminals. This included as well the moderate socialist-democratic party, who had the majority of the votings of the normal workers.

So when there was the next election, the party that were allowed to vote were the major conservative party, mainyl representing rich people, factory owners and further royals. Another conservative party, wanting to reinstall the german monarchy. Some other minor conservative parties and so on... The only party left, representing at least for parts worker oppinions, was the national-socialists. And even then, as the only party left, representing voter ideas, they only became again the junior partner of the conservative party. So there was a rise of voting but still lots of workers rather choose to vote noone or other parties, before voting the national-socialists.

The additional bad thing that happened (along with the banning of the socialist parties), was that suddenly the leader of the conservative party died. Leaving the conservatives suddenly splittered and arguing with themselves, allowing Hitler to rule them out suddenly.

Sorry, but an election that was done, after nearly 50% of the further votings have been erased, by banning the parties that were voted for, the election before, is not "winning an democratic election". Its as if you declared the US-democrats to be an criminal syndicate, forbidding them to be voted, hunting down their politicians and leaders, killing them, threating them to leave the country, forcing them into concentration camp and talking afterward about an "democratic election".

When it comes to his "reunion with Austria", after Austria and Germany loosing first worldwar, both countries were forced by the contract of Versaille to massively reduce army forces. Austria were loyal to that contract and so only had an police force, and an massively reduced army force. While germany simply shitted on that contract and were massively raising their army numbers. Out of this situation, the last elected austrian president seeked for political aid, because you are rather f****d up, when you are on one side forbidden to have army forces, and are on the other side threated by an massive army to be overrun. The only reaction from the whole world, was an informal protest by the country of Mexico. So when you are threated by an army you hardly can fight, being forbidden to have forces to fight them, but as well given not help then a piece of paper from the other end of the world and that offers you to "reunite" you to the "german fatherland", or to bomb you into "reuniting" into german fatherland: Thats as well not really an democratic chose.

And to call me a german and tell me to be proud of my german country, is as if you would tell that an irish, and tell him to be proud of his english history and roots. So there is no physical aggression, as there was between Ireland and the UK, but just like Switzerland we are highly proud of being NO germans. ^^

When that person becomes a burden, rather than an asset, to society.

Bill, you can rest assured that if "hurtful" words are exchanged, I won't be party to that exchange. When I have the facts and the moral high ground on my side, there is no need for such childish behavior.

So how do you determine that they are a burden?

If they are on public assistance or locked up--if they are a burden to taxpayers.

If I may interject for Ann - rather than seeing those on assistance as a burden, we see them as fellow Americans in need, and are living up to our ideals by offering a hand up.

Whose ideals? Since the ideals of most Americans is to take care of their own children rather than the children of others, your contention once again begs my question: What, if any, rights would you accord to the taxpayers who work hard rather than free load off of other people's hard work? What makes this argument just precious is that liberals are always accusing Americans of being "divisive", and it's hard to imagine anything more divisive than treating Americans like a bunch of tax cows fit only to be milked for all they are worth.

Okay so if I understand correctly, you are saying that people who receive welfare or disability insurance should instead be housed, fed and assigned labour.

I think this is a terrible idea. Basing freedom on one's ability to earn money is unjust.

Ann, how about the people who are forced to pay for all of this?

Look at it this way: When one person receives something he or she didn't work for, it means somebody else worked for something they didn't receive. Do you really think that is just?

Here is where liberal "justice" leads to:

http://www.france24.com/en/20131014-mai ... -far-right

You can't pick and choose what taxes to pay. Paying tax is part of living in an organized society. There are always going to be people who don't function up to par (for many different reasons.) But I don't think this should be dealt with by imprisoning them.

And again, people contribute to society in ways other than economic.

Ann, exactly who should pick and choose what taxes are to be paid? And who should choose how society is organized?

Nor could what I propose rightly be called "imprisoning" anybody since it would not apply to those who are fully self-supporting and don't hurt other people.

Elected officials.


I have to separate "fully self-supporting" and "don't hurt other people."
Hurting other people is deserving of imprisonment.
But, not being self-supporting isn't grounds for imprisonment.