RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Finally, Obama is not a Socialist at all. He's a Progressive Democrat. There's a difference.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

     


    He might have run on a progressive platform, but actions speak louder than words.  He is not as progressive as his campaign would have you believe.  That is what makes the socialist accusations so hilarious.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dude, any Democrat running for any office is labeled a MArxist or Socialist, because it has a negative connotation in this country.  

    I think he's very progressive. I am not even sure what you're last sentence means.

    Bush spent as much money as any president I've ever seen and the Republicans didn't say a word about it for 8 years.

    It's disingenuous.  

    What's happening is, the Republicans want to turn back the clock to the 1950s (and I thought Eisenhower was a good leader/solid president for that period, absolutely), which is ridiculous.  

    Meanwhile, the Democrats have done a better job being the more modern, more inclusive party which is why they're winning those kinds of elections.

    People want progress, they don't want a regression. Why do you think Obama was elected to begin with? All the younger people came out to vote, while Babe shopped at Walmart, thumped his Bible and got all angry with his old white male self all over again.

    FoxNews, right wing radio has basically brainwashed a part of the population to just regurgitate the same scare rehtoric constantly.  It's quite scary.

    [/QUOTE]

    Progress toward what? I think this is what is being debated. Forget for a second about classifications, parties, etc. what is it obama is building toward,what progress?

    obama was elected because of the dumbkoff that came before him and the fact he is black. He also promised the moon and people bought it all. The environment was perfectly set for him as people had grown tired of the old guard. 

    my point of view and you can disagree all you want, is that he is building toward a future where the federal govt has much more control over our daily lives and the individual sacrificed for the collective. Is it good? I don't think so. What made this country strong was individual ingenuity, acting for their and society's interest, supported by the govt in a hands off way protected by the bill of rights and constitution. You can argue we still have this and maybe we do a bit, but not sure how you can argue it is not being purposely chipped away. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:


    We already have been paying for it. A big reason for skyrockerting costs is people like you and me paying for the uninsured when they are rushed into a hospital. No one asks someone who is unconscious what their insurance is.  they just do their thing. It's been like this forever.

    The whole point of his experiment is to see if it can kill a coupled birds with one stone. Reduce costs long term, get people covered.  

    Why do we have car insurance but we're not forced to have health insurance? That never, ever made sense. The insurance company will get your car a new front end, but you're a in a coma with no insurance. That does not make sense.

    If it doesn't work, repeal and try something else.  But, the issue is so complex, no one here is intelligent or well versed enough in the complexities to pretend it will or won't work. CHrist, even doctors and medical people disagree on it.

    Not one human on this board or on the planet knows it if will work or not.  Other countries have done it and there aren't many issues to speak of. Sweden, England, Spain, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Australia, France, The Netherlands, etc, etc. Plenty of countries have turned some of the coverages over to a gov't function.

    I know Canadians who scoff at the notion that their healthcare got worse. It's a myth. You would know since you live there.

    Finally, I had no idea that's what pcmIV was trying to say.

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right here too, Rusty.  Americans actually overpay for health care thanks to the screwed up private system that currently exists.  And you're right about the cost shifting that occurs.  We all pay higher rates because the uninsured get care (often more expensive care because it ends up being administered in emergency situations)--and the unpaid costs get shifted to those who have coverage. Obamacare is an attempt to create a universal coverage model while still preserving private-sector insurance.  It is basically Romneycare, but with the addition of the exchanges to create a more accessible and competitive marketplace for the individual purchaser.  Of course, there is also some expansion of subsidies for the poor and incentives/disincentives designed to keep employers in the insurance game.

    Unfortunately (and I do blame Obama for not being a forceful enough leader during the design phase), the design of the plan was mangled by Congress and the states were given too much power to essentially sabotage the plan by not participating in parts of it. Then Obama and his administration dropped the ball on implementation of the exchange website.  Maybe in the end it will all work out, but unfortunately it's got off to a very rough start.

    Ultimately, whether we try something like Obamacare or go to a more direct government-funded approach, the healthcare issue is only going to be solved by more funding from those who can afford it and by some aggressive action to control healthcare costs (which is likely to mean more government involvement).  

    As you point out, other countries have tackled this issue with more success than the US.  I've been in Canada for three years now and have found the healthcare system generally good.  There are challenges with cost here too (though the per capita cost of care in Canada is much lower than in the US) and there are some quality issues, but generally the regular care I've received here is actually better than what I got in the states.  The one thing I'm not quite as confident about is whether the specialty care would be as good as what one can get in the states.  The US (at least in places like Boston) does have the best high-tech, state-of-the-art care available in the world (actually, I'm still alive only because I received some of that care at Mass General a decade ago when I nearly died from a severe illness).  The cost of that care, though, is through the roof (my care was hundreds of thousands, maybe even into the millions--fortunately I had great insurance, so I never even saw the full cost).  Ultimately, we are going to have to make some difficult choices about how much care is worth providing and at what cost.  Maybe unlimited care isn't really a feasible or sustainable option.  Some rationing may become necessary.  That's going to be tough for people to accept, but as a society we need to determine exactly how much of our national wealth we can spend on generating miracles to keep very sick people alive, particularly when there's little hope for good quality of life for the patient after the treatment.  

    On an aside, Canadians generally view their government healthcare system as good and are quite proud of it.  Most Canadians get very annoyed with the distorted portrayal of the Canadian system painted by the American right wing. While there are things Canadians complain about--and no Canadian will tell you the system is perfect--the general feeling is that things work pretty well.  And beleive me, there's great comfort in knowing you can continue to rely on access to decent care, even if you lose your job or get too sick to work.  

     

     

     

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Teddy Roosevelt's Republican Party is long gone.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Just when you thought Rusty was being as stupid as he could possibly be, he does stupider.

    TR was so mainstream Republican that he ran on the Bull Moose Party ticket in 1912. LMAO@U You're a moron.

    [/QUOTE]

    Because all the work he put into keeping corruption at bay, had it hijacked by Taft as a puppet. Hence, why he formed the Progressive Bull Moose Party so he could run and keep the country back on the track he brilliantly created after the disastrous Guilded Age.

    What does that have to do with Roosevelt wanting to carry on Lincoln's party in his two terms in the early 1900s?

    I own easily 3-4 bios or Roosevelt, DVDs, etc, so forget trying to win this one, too, moron.

    You've been outdebated and it;s beyond clear you're out of your league, Diapers. ANother bludgeoning for you.  I have so many on you, I've lost count.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You lose you dum bass. You fashion it Teddy R's Republican Party, when in fact he was a Maverick Republican. You're hopelessly stupid.

    Try using Lincoln next time and you won't look like such an imbecile.

     

    Now go sleep it off, drunkard.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lincoln was Roosevelt's idol, moron.  He was not a maverick at all. He just wasn't a corporate, corrupt stooge like so many of the previous presidents in the Guilded Age who were greased by the Carnegies, Vanderbilts, JP Morgans, et al.

    Learn.

    Learn to read. Learn facts.

    Yes, Roosevelt was my favorite president of all time because he was a progressive Republican  like Lincoln and a phenomenal leader on principle. Lincoln is a close second, George Washington, 3rd.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Moron. The Republican party was the Republican party. Roosevelt was the one forced to run on a different ticket. You are so dumb it should be a crime.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    He's wrong. The NAZIs hated Communists/Socialists. Hitler had them rounded up or murdered. These are facts that cannot be disputed.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course they did moron. They were on opposite ends of the spectrum, but both were AUTHORITARIAN.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    WHo cares if each was a dictator and led Totalitaran regimes as Fascists? That doesn't enter into the point of political party and philopsphy, dummy.

    Admit it, you're an idiot on this topic. Sadly. Shenanigan, who I know is a military person who I have a ton of respect for is also 100% wrong.

    PatsLifer is clearly a Tea Partier as are you, otherwise you wouldn't get so defensive as you make a fool of yourself.

    I remember when the Tea Party morons had that photo of Hitler, then Obama in the middle and then Lenin to the right. Those idiots can't even understand basic 20th Century history and they made fools of themselves putting Obama to the right of a right wing Hitler and Hitler to the left of Obama.

    Abslolute morons:

    [/QUOTE]

    I am not a TP. I am chiming in because u are wrong Russ. The TP and Nazi party aren't even in the geography. That was my only point. For as much grief as you give babe, he is right here. tP are constitutionalists, the nazi are fascist. Big difference.

    [/QUOTE]

    False.  Hitler was a conservative, on the right. Go back one page and look at what I posted.  You're afraid to respond to it, and I can see why.

    Babe also dodged it, but responded and quoted all my other posts.

    As for my premise of the Tea Party being more conservative than the VERY conservative nature of the current Republican Party, it is factually correct and the truth.

    You don't have to agree with me that I feel it's a racist-tinged party, but I feel it is because it came into play when Obama was elected.  And yes, a traditional conservative Absolute Monarchy comes off more liberal and to the left of what the Tea PArty is.

    The Tea Party is filled with loonies or irrational thinking conservatives.

    It was formed by Republicans and they are apparently more conservative than the turds leading up the current Republican Party.  Hence, why they are one stop, to the right, away from the most conservative and extreme movement ever (the NAZIs).

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I am not afraid to respond to any of your posts. I may have missed it.

    yes, the TP is more conservative than the current repubs because the repub party has shifted more left Over the last decade. It's all context. 

    [/QUOTE]

    SHifted more left?!! Are you insane?  The entire party has been hijacked by the Christian religious right!  It's clearluy shifted more right. John McCain is appalled.  Old school Republicans like Bill Weld is probably mortified.  

    It's not all context at all and you're not even using the right word there. Context? I think you mean "relative".

    It is a well known fact that Christian religious groups have been growing and donating more and more to the Republican Party for the past 30 years. It started to get going in the 1980s and then really took of last decade to see all these religious thinking puppets running for office.

    Christ, Palin was a potential McCain heart attack away from being the leader of the free world. Insane!  She's a cuckoo!  A religious freak who looks to the Bible before a history book.

    I've already explained this above:  This started to see its roots after LBJ signed off on the Civil Rights Bill in the mid 1960s.

    All the racists in the South, dropped their Dixiecrat cards and joined the Republican Party. Since then, it's slowly been corrupted by the power of the Christian Church in this country, most notably the Baptists and their psycho religion.

    Bachmann, Santorum, Palin, etc? Are you kidding me? That party is infested with morons like that. They all run to the Bible, discount science, fact and logic and have these creepy bug eyes and smiles. It's creepy.

    The laundry list of things they say, too, which make me wonder if they attended college is just unreal.

    Bachmann had like 5 or so during last year's primaries. It's embarrassing.  The founding fathers including "separation of church and state" into the Constitution for a reason. They were smart people. They knew crap like this could happen, so they put it in there. It's not a mistake. Lawyers don't make mistakes with words.

    Bush was a little too over the top referencing what God would do, too. Make no mistake, the big money starte in the 1980s and carried into the 1990s and here we are. 

    Christ, even Reagan would probably be uncomfortable with the way it is now.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sure. People who believe in the bible and religion are crazy. You forgot we have a society that was built on these beliefs. I guess the 98% of the people all over the world that believe in a god are crazy too? 

    Seperation between chur h and state exists so we didn't end up like Europe in the 1500's where the church controlled everything. Or like what we see in the Middle East today. There itsa difference in the church running the state, and staying your Christian beliefs, beliefs that helped build this country, serve as your compass. I would rather have a moral Christian who has a clean life making decisions than someone the opposite. Decision making requires facts and faith.

    Science, facts..you mean like global warming? Seems like the dem gore made a ton of money off that propaganda. 

    You rattle off crazy repubs, not dems and still maintain you are independent? I notice you didn't mention pelosi, Reid nor Feinstein. All imbeciles and lunatics too. Yes, they are good Americans and support and uphold the constitution..,ha...feinstein said not too long ago, "mr and mrs America, turn your guns in." She doesn't want to uphold the 2nd amendment, and pelosi with her comments about the media, NSA, and "you have to sign the obamacare bill to find out what's in it",...lunatics all of them.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    He's wrong. The NAZIs hated Communists/Socialists. Hitler had them rounded up or murdered. These are facts that cannot be disputed.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course they did moron. They were on opposite ends of the spectrum, but both were AUTHORITARIAN.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    WHo cares if each was a dictator and led Totalitaran regimes as Fascists? That doesn't enter into the point of political party and philopsphy, dummy.

    Admit it, you're an idiot on this topic. Sadly. Shenanigan, who I know is a military person who I have a ton of respect for is also 100% wrong.

    PatsLifer is clearly a Tea Partier as are you, otherwise you wouldn't get so defensive as you make a fool of yourself.

    I remember when the Tea Party morons had that photo of Hitler, then Obama in the middle and then Lenin to the right. Those idiots can't even understand basic 20th Century history and they made fools of themselves putting Obama to the right of a right wing Hitler and Hitler to the left of Obama.

    Abslolute morons:

    [/QUOTE]

    I am not a TP. I am chiming in because u are wrong Russ. The TP and Nazi party aren't even in the geography. That was my only point. For as much grief as you give babe, he is right here. tP are constitutionalists, the nazi are fascist. Big difference.

    [/QUOTE]

    False.  Hitler was a conservative, on the right. Go back one page and look at what I posted.  You're afraid to respond to it, and I can see why.

    Babe also dodged it, but responded and quoted all my other posts.

    As for my premise of the Tea Party being more conservative than the VERY conservative nature of the current Republican Party, it is factually correct and the truth.

    You don't have to agree with me that I feel it's a racist-tinged party, but I feel it is because it came into play when Obama was elected.  And yes, a traditional conservative Absolute Monarchy comes off more liberal and to the left of what the Tea PArty is.

    The Tea Party is filled with loonies or irrational thinking conservatives.

    It was formed by Republicans and they are apparently more conservative than the turds leading up the current Republican Party.  Hence, why they are one stop, to the right, away from the most conservative and extreme movement ever (the NAZIs).

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I am not afraid to respond to any of your posts. I may have missed it.

    yes, the TP is more conservative than the current repubs because the repub party has shifted more left Over the last decade. It's all context. 

    [/QUOTE]

    SHifted more left?!! Are you insane?  The entire party has been hijacked by the Christian religious right!  It's clearluy shifted more right. John McCain is appalled.  Old school Republicans like Bill Weld is probably mortified.  

    It's not all context at all and you're not even using the right word there. Context? I think you mean "relative".

    It is a well known fact that Christian religious groups have been growing and donating more and more to the Republican Party for the past 30 years. It started to get going in the 1980s and then really took of last decade to see all these religious thinking puppets running for office.

    Christ, Palin was a potential McCain heart attack away from being the leader of the free world. Insane!  She's a cuckoo!  A religious freak who looks to the Bible before a history book.

    I've already explained this above:  This started to see its roots after LBJ signed off on the Civil Rights Bill in the mid 1960s.

    All the racists in the South, dropped their Dixiecrat cards and joined the Republican Party. Since then, it's slowly been corrupted by the power of the Christian Church in this country, most notably the Baptists and their psycho religion.

    Bachmann, Santorum, Palin, etc? Are you kidding me? That party is infested with morons like that. They all run to the Bible, discount science, fact and logic and have these creepy bug eyes and smiles. It's creepy.

    The laundry list of things they say, too, which make me wonder if they attended college is just unreal.

    Bachmann had like 5 or so during last year's primaries. It's embarrassing.  The founding fathers including "separation of church and state" into the Constitution for a reason. They were smart people. They knew crap like this could happen, so they put it in there. It's not a mistake. Lawyers don't make mistakes with words.

    Bush was a little too over the top referencing what God would do, too. Make no mistake, the big money starte in the 1980s and carried into the 1990s and here we are. 

    Christ, even Reagan would probably be uncomfortable with the way it is now.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sure. People who believe in the bible and religion are crazy. You forgot we have a society that was built on these beliefs. I guess the 98% of the people all over the world that believe in a god are crazy too? 

    Seperation between chur h and state exists so we didn't end up like Europe in the 1500's where the church controlled everything. Or like what we see in the Middle East today. There itsa difference in the church running the state, and staying your Christian beliefs, beliefs that helped build this country, serve as your compass. I would rather have a moral Christian who has a clean life making decisions than someone the opposite. Decision making requires facts and faith.

    Science, facts..you mean like global warming? Seems like the dem gore made a ton of money off that propaganda. 

    You rattle off crazy repubs, not dems and still maintain you are independent? I notice you didn't mention pelosi, Reid nor Feinstein. All imbeciles and lunatics too. Yes, they are good Americans and support and uphold the constitution..,ha...feinstein said not too long ago, "mr and mrs America, turn your guns in." She doesn't want to uphold the 2nd amendment, and pelosi with her comments about the media, NSA, and "you have to sign the obamacare bill to find out what's in it",...lunatics all of them.

    [/QUOTE]

    The church did not control everything in the 1500's. Where did you get that from? The protestants forfeited virtually all the Roman Catholic properties they could get their hands on. I would say the English Civil War which led to a very conservative christian (Puritan) dictatorship or the horrors of the 30 year war in Germany was more relevant towards religious toleration than the 1500's. Freedom of religion was put in the constitution against the wishes of a lot of christians. Some of our most important founding fathers were not christians (I did not say they were atheists though some may secretly have been). Christianity has not had a negative influence overrall in our history. It contributed to the abolition movement as well as defending slavery. It contributed to the civil rights movement as well as to segregation. In my lifetime the country has generally moved slowly towards the left while remaining center right. What is the center now would have been considered the far left 40 years ago.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Fascism was a term to describe Mussolini's emergence in the 1920s and his Totalitarianist regime. It doesn't mean anything other than beinig a dictator.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong. Fascism means more than that imbecile. You are so stupid it's painful.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So after all of this right wing left wing dribble about Hitler

    the difference between Stalin and Hitler was that in Stalins world no one but the state owned anything and in Hitlers world the State told and controlled what business did and both told individuals what to do. they both were atheists. Wow what a difference

     

    So when was the constitution between Stalin and Hitler? How?

    And just sayingHitlers party was named the National Socialit's party so parse your history anyway you want. there was virtually no difference between the two politically in results, and even their personal biographies. Oh yeah, they both killed millions of Jews. so what if Hitler and Stalin hated one another, The end result of their policies was exactly the same. they were just 2 sick male animals protecting their territory and really a lot less to do with politics

    So ohole is a hell of a lot closer to Hitler than the tea party is as ohole believes in telling everyone what to do and regulating everything that moves. TP is much more libertarian

    And speaking of oholes religion, his supposed sect is way outside mainstream Christianityhe believes in collective salvation, the rest of main stream Christianity believes in individual salvation , of course since black liberation theology was started by Somalian socialists that fits right in with his pathology

    and you can use any directional pathos you like, ohole is not anybody that should be president and the harm he is doing is incalculable. and incompetent to boot , please refer to obamacare

    [/QUOTE]

    No, what I underlined above is you playing semantics but saying the same thing. You're trying to come off intelligent on the topic and you're losing your edge. I like you, Seawolf, but you're wrong here.

    You're defensive because my premise about how extremely conservative the Tea Party is, aligns closely on the political spectrum with the most extreme conservative movement of all time, NAZIsm.

    Can you name one Soviet business from 1917-1991? No, neither can I.  Why? Communism. There was no Soviet corporations. I can't even name one now. Why? Because they're basically still Communist. Same with N.Korea or China.  Get it?

    Meanwhile, I can name  dozen high profile German corporations.  

    Hitler never managed German companies from his perch. Ever.  If anything his militaristic and industrial based policies made them even more wealthy than ever.

    The NAZIS were in no way Socialists. They had them murdered and arrested.  

    I posted numerous Hitler quotes on the page before this one to prove to you and the others that he hated Marxism/Socialism, too, but you aren't countering those. I know why.  

    Communism is nothing more than Socialism on steroids.  

    Why would Hitler align with all the other conservative dictators, and them with him, if he was  Socialist?

    That makes no sense. Hence, he wasn't a Socialist. How many times do I have to bludgeon your little group on this topic?

    I've just given you a free history lesson and broken down the differrences in these terms, which apparently confuse some Americans.

    YOu seem to be confusing the fact Stalin and HItler were dictators and crazy power loons, but you can't understand the differences between Capitalism flowing in full force in Germany under Hitler and Communism in the Soviet Union.

    Finally, Obama is not a Socialist at all. He's a Progressive Democrat. There's a difference.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Even though I always disagree with you about Brady (who is great) you are right about Hitler and Communism. National Socialism and the Communists despised each other.

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no debate on this. The Nazis and Commies detested each other. This is common knowledge.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Teddy Roosevelt's Republican Party is long gone.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Just when you thought Rusty was being as stupid as he could possibly be, he does stupider.

    TR was so mainstream Republican that he ran on the Bull Moose Party ticket in 1912. LMAO@U You're a moron.

    [/QUOTE]

    Because all the work he put into keeping corruption at bay, had it hijacked by Taft as a puppet. Hence, why he formed the Progressive Bull Moose Party so he could run and keep the country back on the track he brilliantly created after the disastrous Guilded Age.

    What does that have to do with Roosevelt wanting to carry on Lincoln's party in his two terms in the early 1900s?

    I own easily 3-4 bios or Roosevelt, DVDs, etc, so forget trying to win this one, too, moron.

    You've been outdebated and it;s beyond clear you're out of your league, Diapers. ANother bludgeoning for you.  I have so many on you, I've lost count.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You lose you dum bass. You fashion it Teddy R's Republican Party, when in fact he was a Maverick Republican. You're hopelessly stupid.

    Try using Lincoln next time and you won't look like such an imbecile.

     

    Now go sleep it off, drunkard.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lincoln was Roosevelt's idol, moron.  He was not a maverick at all. He just wasn't a corporate, corrupt stooge like so many of the previous presidents in the Guilded Age who were greased by the Carnegies, Vanderbilts, JP Morgans, et al.

    Learn.

    Learn to read. Learn facts.

    Yes, Roosevelt was my favorite president of all time because he was a progressive Republican  like Lincoln and a phenomenal leader on principle. Lincoln is a close second, George Washington, 3rd.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Moron. The Republican party was the Republican party. Roosevelt was the one forced to run on a different ticket. You are so dumb it should be a crime.

    [/QUOTE]

    He wasn't forced at all. At the time, he wanted to be like Washington and serve two terms only to make it seem like he wasn't a king like Washington stood on when stepping down.

    He did, then was appalled at all the stuff he did for almost 8 years with Taft either being on the take or being dumb/indifferent from 1909-1912.

    IN fact, their previous friendly relationship was completely fractured.  TeddY ran for president in 1912 on principle.   The money backed Taft for re-election but Roosevelt thought he could win.

    The whole reason why registered Independent was because I was raised to vote for the person, not the party.

    That's what Roosevelt was doing back then.  If the party becomes corrupt and is taken over by special interests, you can't very well stand behind it, can you?

    I know more about these periods in history than you could ever dream, Diapers. Ever dream.

    Roosevelt wasn't "forced" to do anything.

    [/QUOTE]


    Of course he was forced imbecile. If he could have had the Republican nomination he wouldn't have went 3rd party and handed a win to the Democrats. F'n DUH!

    Go to bed, drunk.

     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Fascism was a term to describe Mussolini's emergence in the 1920s and his Totalitarianist regime. It doesn't mean anything other than beinig a dictator.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wrong. Fascism means more than that imbecile. You are so stupid it's painful.

    [/QUOTE]

    What more does it mean then? Every time you claim I am stupid after not providing the board with a proper counter to show it, it makes it seem like you are insecure and backpedaling, which you are.

    lmao

    [/QUOTE]

    If fascism simply meant being a dictator Stalin and Moao would have been referred to as fascists dumbkoff.


    Fascism generally has to do with militaristic nationalism and a natural social hierarchy as well as totalitarianism.

    Never a need to backpedal from a fool like you.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So after all of this right wing left wing dribble about Hitler

    the difference between Stalin and Hitler was that in Stalins world no one but the state owned anything and in Hitlers world the State told and controlled what business did and both told individuals what to do. they both were atheists. Wow what a difference

     

    So when was the constitution between Stalin and Hitler? How?

    And just sayingHitlers party was named the National Socialit's party so parse your history anyway you want. there was virtually no difference between the two politically in results, and even their personal biographies. Oh yeah, they both killed millions of Jews. so what if Hitler and Stalin hated one another, The end result of their policies was exactly the same. they were just 2 sick male animals protecting their territory and really a lot less to do with politics

    So ohole is a hell of a lot closer to Hitler than the tea party is as ohole believes in telling everyone what to do and regulating everything that moves. TP is much more libertarian

    And speaking of oholes religion, his supposed sect is way outside mainstream Christianityhe believes in collective salvation, the rest of main stream Christianity believes in individual salvation , of course since black liberation theology was started by Somalian socialists that fits right in with his pathology

    and you can use any directional pathos you like, ohole is not anybody that should be president and the harm he is doing is incalculable. and incompetent to boot , please refer to obamacare

    [/QUOTE]

    No, what I underlined above is you playing semantics but saying the same thing. You're trying to come off intelligent on the topic and you're losing your edge. I like you, Seawolf, but you're wrong here.

    You're defensive because my premise about how extremely conservative the Tea Party is, aligns closely on the political spectrum with the most extreme conservative movement of all time, NAZIsm.

    Can you name one Soviet business from 1917-1991? No, neither can I.  Why? Communism. There was no Soviet corporations. I can't even name one now. Why? Because they're basically still Communist. Same with N.Korea or China.  Get it?

    Meanwhile, I can name  dozen high profile German corporations.  

    Hitler never managed German companies from his perch. Ever.  If anything his militaristic and industrial based policies made them even more wealthy than ever.

    The NAZIS were in no way Socialists. They had them murdered and arrested.  

    I posted numerous Hitler quotes on the page before this one to prove to you and the others that he hated Marxism/Socialism, too, but you aren't countering those. I know why.  

    Communism is nothing more than Socialism on steroids.  

    Why would Hitler align with all the other conservative dictators, and them with him, if he was  Socialist?

    That makes no sense. Hence, he wasn't a Socialist. How many times do I have to bludgeon your little group on this topic?

    I've just given you a free history lesson and broken down the differrences in these terms, which apparently confuse some Americans.

    YOu seem to be confusing the fact Stalin and HItler were dictators and crazy power loons, but you can't understand the differences between Capitalism flowing in full force in Germany under Hitler and Communism in the Soviet Union.

    Finally, Obama is not a Socialist at all. He's a Progressive Democrat. There's a difference.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Even though I always disagree with you about Brady (who is great) you are right about Hitler and Communism. National Socialism and the Communists despised each other.

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no debate on this. The Nazis and Commies detested each other. This is common knowledge.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not like the Socialist party despising the Labor party in Britian or the Socialists and Communists in 1930's Spain who loathed each other. Hitler, like Franco in Spain, was right wing. No one who voted in the 1932 elections in Germany had any doubt which side of the spectrum Hitler was on. The parties that supported democracy knew that Hitler was a right wing menace and that the communists were a left wing menace. Hitler was never considered a liberal or left leaning by anybody in Germany. I'm not sure if there is a more right wing party in the history of democracy than the Nazi party. Pinochet in Chile considered himself a champion of the poor who was known to despise the middle class and their pretensions of democracy. Pinochet was never considered a liberal or left leaning by any of his supporters or detractors.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So after all of this right wing left wing dribble about Hitler

    the difference between Stalin and Hitler was that in Stalins world no one but the state owned anything and in Hitlers world the State told and controlled what business did and both told individuals what to do. they both were atheists. Wow what a difference

     

    So when was the constitution between Stalin and Hitler? How?

    And just sayingHitlers party was named the National Socialit's party so parse your history anyway you want. there was virtually no difference between the two politically in results, and even their personal biographies. Oh yeah, they both killed millions of Jews. so what if Hitler and Stalin hated one another, The end result of their policies was exactly the same. they were just 2 sick male animals protecting their territory and really a lot less to do with politics

    So ohole is a hell of a lot closer to Hitler than the tea party is as ohole believes in telling everyone what to do and regulating everything that moves. TP is much more libertarian

    And speaking of oholes religion, his supposed sect is way outside mainstream Christianityhe believes in collective salvation, the rest of main stream Christianity believes in individual salvation , of course since black liberation theology was started by Somalian socialists that fits right in with his pathology

    and you can use any directional pathos you like, ohole is not anybody that should be president and the harm he is doing is incalculable. and incompetent to boot , please refer to obamacare

    [/QUOTE]

    No, what I underlined above is you playing semantics but saying the same thing. You're trying to come off intelligent on the topic and you're losing your edge. I like you, Seawolf, but you're wrong here.

    You're defensive because my premise about how extremely conservative the Tea Party is, aligns closely on the political spectrum with the most extreme conservative movement of all time, NAZIsm.

    Can you name one Soviet business from 1917-1991? No, neither can I.  Why? Communism. There was no Soviet corporations. I can't even name one now. Why? Because they're basically still Communist. Same with N.Korea or China.  Get it?

    Meanwhile, I can name  dozen high profile German corporations.  

    Hitler never managed German companies from his perch. Ever.  If anything his militaristic and industrial based policies made them even more wealthy than ever.

    The NAZIS were in no way Socialists. They had them murdered and arrested.  

    I posted numerous Hitler quotes on the page before this one to prove to you and the others that he hated Marxism/Socialism, too, but you aren't countering those. I know why.  

    Communism is nothing more than Socialism on steroids.  

    Why would Hitler align with all the other conservative dictators, and them with him, if he was  Socialist?

    That makes no sense. Hence, he wasn't a Socialist. How many times do I have to bludgeon your little group on this topic?

    I've just given you a free history lesson and broken down the differrences in these terms, which apparently confuse some Americans.

    YOu seem to be confusing the fact Stalin and HItler were dictators and crazy power loons, but you can't understand the differences between Capitalism flowing in full force in Germany under Hitler and Communism in the Soviet Union.

    Finally, Obama is not a Socialist at all. He's a Progressive Democrat. There's a difference.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Even though I always disagree with you about Brady (who is great) you are right about Hitler and Communism. National Socialism and the Communists despised each other.

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no debate on this. The Nazis and Commies detested each other. This is common knowledge.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yet, the Germans and Russians had relatives who were connected (England, too) .   Hmm. 

    So, what changed?

    Two things:

    1. Communism in Russia 

    2. Hitler in Germany as an answer to that Socialist/Communist movement

    You're so uneducated on this and try to weasel away by editing people's posts down to frame things to deflect, but it won't work.

    I know more about the chronological parts of this history than you could ever dream of learning at your age. Ever dream of, Diapers.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What the hell is your problem fool?

    What am I deflecting? I'm agreeing that the Nazis and Commies reviled each other. I have never said otherwise. You're insane.


    I pluck specifics from a post so the point doesn't get lost in the soup. I have spent huge chunks of my life studying history dumbkoff. I'll pit my knowledge against yours and come out on top - every time.

     

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Teddy Roosevelt's Republican Party is long gone.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Just when you thought Rusty was being as stupid as he could possibly be, he does stupider.

    TR was so mainstream Republican that he ran on the Bull Moose Party ticket in 1912. LMAO@U You're a moron.

    [/QUOTE]

    Because all the work he put into keeping corruption at bay, had it hijacked by Taft as a puppet. Hence, why he formed the Progressive Bull Moose Party so he could run and keep the country back on the track he brilliantly created after the disastrous Guilded Age.

    What does that have to do with Roosevelt wanting to carry on Lincoln's party in his two terms in the early 1900s?

    I own easily 3-4 bios or Roosevelt, DVDs, etc, so forget trying to win this one, too, moron.

    You've been outdebated and it;s beyond clear you're out of your league, Diapers. ANother bludgeoning for you.  I have so many on you, I've lost count.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You lose you dum bass. You fashion it Teddy R's Republican Party, when in fact he was a Maverick Republican. You're hopelessly stupid.

    Try using Lincoln next time and you won't look like such an imbecile.

     

    Now go sleep it off, drunkard.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lincoln was Roosevelt's idol, moron.  He was not a maverick at all. He just wasn't a corporate, corrupt stooge like so many of the previous presidents in the Guilded Age who were greased by the Carnegies, Vanderbilts, JP Morgans, et al.

    Learn.

    Learn to read. Learn facts.

    Yes, Roosevelt was my favorite president of all time because he was a progressive Republican  like Lincoln and a phenomenal leader on principle. Lincoln is a close second, George Washington, 3rd.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Moron. The Republican party was the Republican party. Roosevelt was the one forced to run on a different ticket. You are so dumb it should be a crime.

    [/QUOTE]

    He wasn't forced at all. At the time, he wanted to be like Washington and serve two terms only to make it seem like he wasn't a king like Washington stood on when stepping down.

    He did, then was appalled at all the stuff he did for almost 8 years with Taft either being on the take or being dumb/indifferent from 1909-1912.

    IN fact, their previous friendly relationship was completely fractured.  TeddY ran for president in 1912 on principle.   The money backed Taft for re-election but Roosevelt thought he could win.

    The whole reason why registered Independent was because I was raised to vote for the person, not the party.

    That's what Roosevelt was doing back then.  If the party becomes corrupt and is taken over by special interests, you can't very well stand behind it, can you?

    I know more about these periods in history than you could ever dream, Diapers. Ever dream.

    Roosevelt wasn't "forced" to do anything.

    [/QUOTE]


    Of course he was forced imbecile. If he could have had the Republican nomination he wouldn't have went 3rd party and handed a win to the Democrats. F'n DUH!

    Go to bed, drunk.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's not true. He stepped down in 1908 so he never would have had the Republican nomination with an incumbent in Taft seeking re-election.  Taft woud have had to have resigned for what you're saying to be true.   LOL

    Two Republicans aren't going to be nominated, dummy.

    You should get into a new institution.  Magnolia Manor is clearly not very well run. lmao

    [/QUOTE]


    Wrong moron. Roosevelt did challenge Taft for the Republican nomination in 1912, and seeing that he was losing at the convention went out and started the Bull Moose Party (Progressive Party).

    You lose again, because you're an imbecile.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: RIP NELSON MANDELA..is OBAMA the new MANDELA?

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seawolfxs' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    So after all of this right wing left wing dribble about Hitler

    the difference between Stalin and Hitler was that in Stalins world no one but the state owned anything and in Hitlers world the State told and controlled what business did and both told individuals what to do. they both were atheists. Wow what a difference

     

    So when was the constitution between Stalin and Hitler? How?

    And just sayingHitlers party was named the National Socialit's party so parse your history anyway you want. there was virtually no difference between the two politically in results, and even their personal biographies. Oh yeah, they both killed millions of Jews. so what if Hitler and Stalin hated one another, The end result of their policies was exactly the same. they were just 2 sick male animals protecting their territory and really a lot less to do with politics

    So ohole is a hell of a lot closer to Hitler than the tea party is as ohole believes in telling everyone what to do and regulating everything that moves. TP is much more libertarian

    And speaking of oholes religion, his supposed sect is way outside mainstream Christianityhe believes in collective salvation, the rest of main stream Christianity believes in individual salvation , of course since black liberation theology was started by Somalian socialists that fits right in with his pathology

    and you can use any directional pathos you like, ohole is not anybody that should be president and the harm he is doing is incalculable. and incompetent to boot , please refer to obamacare

    [/QUOTE]

    No, what I underlined above is you playing semantics but saying the same thing. You're trying to come off intelligent on the topic and you're losing your edge. I like you, Seawolf, but you're wrong here.

    You're defensive because my premise about how extremely conservative the Tea Party is, aligns closely on the political spectrum with the most extreme conservative movement of all time, NAZIsm.

    Can you name one Soviet business from 1917-1991? No, neither can I.  Why? Communism. There was no Soviet corporations. I can't even name one now. Why? Because they're basically still Communist. Same with N.Korea or China.  Get it?

    Meanwhile, I can name  dozen high profile German corporations.  

    Hitler never managed German companies from his perch. Ever.  If anything his militaristic and industrial based policies made them even more wealthy than ever.

    The NAZIS were in no way Socialists. They had them murdered and arrested.  

    I posted numerous Hitler quotes on the page before this one to prove to you and the others that he hated Marxism/Socialism, too, but you aren't countering those. I know why.  

    Communism is nothing more than Socialism on steroids.  

    Why would Hitler align with all the other conservative dictators, and them with him, if he was  Socialist?

    That makes no sense. Hence, he wasn't a Socialist. How many times do I have to bludgeon your little group on this topic?

    I've just given you a free history lesson and broken down the differrences in these terms, which apparently confuse some Americans.

    YOu seem to be confusing the fact Stalin and HItler were dictators and crazy power loons, but you can't understand the differences between Capitalism flowing in full force in Germany under Hitler and Communism in the Soviet Union.

    Finally, Obama is not a Socialist at all. He's a Progressive Democrat. There's a difference.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Even though I always disagree with you about Brady (who is great) you are right about Hitler and Communism. National Socialism and the Communists despised each other.

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no debate on this. The Nazis and Commies detested each other. This is common knowledge.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yet, the Germans and Russians had relatives who were connected (England, too) .   Hmm. 

    So, what changed?

    Two things:

    1. Communism in Russia 

    2. Hitler in Germany as an answer to that Socialist/Communist movement

    You're so uneducated on this and try to weasel away by editing people's posts down to frame things to deflect, but it won't work.

    I know more about the chronological parts of this history than you could ever dream of learning at your age. Ever dream of, Diapers.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What the hell is your problem fool?

    What am I deflecting? I'm agreeing that the Nazis and Commies reviled each other. I have never said otherwise. You're insane.


    I pluck specifics from a post so the point doesn't get lost in the soup. I have spent huge chunks of my life studying history dumbkoff. I'll pit my knowledge against yours and come out on top - every time.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You said Hitler and Stalin are on the same side of the political spectrum earlier.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    NEVER said that imbecile. I said they are on the same authoritarian axis of the political compass.

    You're a drunken fool. That is making you even dumber than usual.

     

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share