PDA

View Full Version : Hillary: "I Always Prayed"



SecaucusFats
01-21-2005, 12:37 PM
Holy Hillary: I Always Prayed
NewsMax.com | 1/21/05 | Carl Limbacher

Borrowing a page from President Bush, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton told a Boston audience this week that prayer has always played a meaningful role in her life - though accounts from her days as a student radical suggest that's probably not true.

"I've always been a praying person," Clinton told a crowd of more than 500, including many religious leaders, at Boston's Fairmont Copley Plaza. According to the Boston Globe, the newly religious former first lady "invoked God more than half a dozen times" as she urged society to accommodate religious people who "live out their faith in the public square."

Though she was raised as a Methodist, Clinton's open embrace of God, along with her insistence that she's "always been a praying person," has to come as a shock to those who remember her college days.

Back then, Clinton was far more likely to be seen reading not the Bible but the writings of Marx and Mao - and had close associations with unabashed Communists, to whom the mere mention of religion was heresy.

One was Robert Treuhaft, who, as noted in the late Barbara Olson's Hillary biography, "Hell to Pay," had "dedicated his entire legal career to advancing the agenda of the Soviet Communist Party."

In 1972 Treuhaft offered the future senator a summer internship at the Universiy of California's Berkeley campus. Clinton accepted, immersing herself in Truehaft's brand of radical Stalinism. When she returned, she was, according to Olson, "a budding Leninist."

If Sen. Clinton was "a praying person" back then, she must have kept it well concealed from her radical mentors.
**************************************************

SF

cheesemouse
01-21-2005, 12:58 PM
YOUR AN IDIOT......

eg8r
01-21-2005, 01:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheese's reply to SF:</font><hr> YOUR AN IDIOT...... <hr /></blockquote>
Why?

eg8r

nAz
01-21-2005, 01:16 PM
ahh not even close to the next election and News Max is already trying to kill off Hillary. I am amazed how do they know what is her heart? ah never mind.

highsea
01-21-2005, 01:52 PM
I would support Hillary right up to the Dem nomination. I think most republicans would also. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Then the carnage would begin. Lol.

She can spend the next 4 years trying to change her image, but it won't fly. Pretending you are moderate didn't work for Kerry and and it won't work for Hillary. If the Dems plan to mount a serious challenge in '08, they need to get away from the radical fringe they currently pander to. Nothing else will work.

Unfortunately for the Dems, they are out of moderate southern Governors. But surely they have learned their lesson that a /northeastern/blue state/uber-liberal/ Senator is not a good choice. Especially one with a 20+ year ultra-liberal congressional record like Kerry has. Might as well run Teddy Kennedy.

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh would be a good choice, but I don't think he has the support from the extreme left that is so exalted by the Democratic Party these days. Plus, Governors traditionally do better than Senators in a Presidential race. They don't come in with all the congressional baggage.

I will bet any money on this though, if they can't come up with someone that is NOT from the Northeast, they will take another ass-whooping.

Which is why I am perfectly willing to support Hillary for the '08 Democratic nomination. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
_________________________________________

nAz
01-21-2005, 02:16 PM
Three and a half million votes difference is hardly an ass-whooping dude, but i was shocked that Dems lost more ground in the Congress and the Senate wft? I do agree with you the south will never vote for a northern liberal or moderate.
By the time 2007 rolls around i think the right will wound her enough that it will kill any chances of her winning, which like you say is probably the best thing for them.

Gayle in MD
01-21-2005, 02:42 PM
Don't worry, by the time election time is here again, we will have reaped all the "Benefits" of this republican nightmare, and nobody will be voting republican. But oh, that's right, they'll still be blaming Clinton, LOL.
While watching the Inauguration Speach, what did one Iranian kid say, "Mommy, Mommy, quick, help me bury my toys, Bush is marching with freedom again."

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
01-21-2005, 02:55 PM
We don't need no "stinking" Republican support...
Hillery's gonna whup some southern a$$, come 2008
and she won't need her King James, to lean on.
You're gonna support Hillery???...what are you,
one a dem "switch-hitters" I been reading about?
Maybe you'ld be interested in buying a franchise
for the new line of stores I'm opening up
"Best-Bi"
Have a good weekend, Casey...lol

Cueless Joey
01-21-2005, 02:57 PM
Maybe Bill converted her?
Bill was pictured carrying a holy bible with her coming out of the church one time during his term.
I believe that was a few days after the Lewinsky scandal.

highsea
01-21-2005, 03:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> We don't need no "stinking" Republican support...what are you, one a dem "switch-hitters" I been reading about?...lol <hr /></blockquote>
God forbid!! Haha, the only thing the Dems could do to hurt the Reps is for all those liberal freakos to become Republicans.

That would really screw us over... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

wolfdancer
01-21-2005, 03:21 PM
Let's ussume that the story is on point. Many students are attracted to different, or even radical, ideas, ideologies
...it's part of the maturing process. How can you soundly denounce communism, until you have studied it, or your last
name is McCarthy?
Do you honestly believe from her life these past twenty years, that she is now a communist? Or does the "liberal" tag have deep and darker meanings for you?
By the way, I read your replies re: the Sf Gate column..
"Brilliant"!! I'd guess you were captain of your school's debating team, the way you put the guy down.

SecaucusFats
01-21-2005, 04:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Let's ussume that the story is on point. Many students are attracted to different, or even radical, ideas, ideologies
...it's part of the maturing process. How can you soundly denounce communism, until you have studied it, or your last
name is McCarthy?

<font color="blue">As an ideology, the word communism is a synonym for Marxism and its various derivatives (most notably Marxism-Leninism).

A complete study of Communist ideology should include the many works which show the evil side of Communism. Therefore while I have read the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin,Trotsky,Mao Tse Tung, Che Guevara, and Fidel Castro; I have also read "The Black Book of Communism", and many other books and articles which expose the evil nature of Communism.

I seriously doubt Senator Clinton ever read, let alone gave any credence to the anti-Communist body of works.

Do you believe that "Hillary-care" (her failed health plan) was not socialist in nature? When Hillary said "It takes a village (the state) to raise a child." she was rewording classic Marxist-Leninist doctrine on the subject of child care. Do you remember the way Hillary voiced her support for returning the little Cuban child Elian to a life as an oppressed drone within a ruthless Communist dictatorship?

Marxism proposes the materialist conception of history; there are stages of economic development: slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and communism. These stages are advanced through a dialectical process, refining society as history progresses. This, of course, is driven by class struggle. Communism is the final stage as it (in theory) results in one class.

Communism is a branch of the global socialist movement. It differentiates itself from other branches of the socialist movement through various things - such as, for example, the desire to establish a communist system after the socialist one, and their commitment to revolutionary strategies for overthrowing capitalism.

Oh and by the way my name is not Joe McCarthy. </font color>


Do you honestly believe from her life these past twenty years, that she is now a communist? Or does the "liberal" tag have deep and darker meanings for you?
<font color="blue">
I honestly believe that Hillary is a Socialist with strong Marxist leanings. I'm also quite sure that Hillary is aware that building socialism is the essential precursor to communism.

Are you aware that decades ago in response to what it saw as a threat from the growing socialist movement the Democratic party adopted the Socialist Party platform as its own?

As far a liberals in general, I think they are about as useful as teats on a bull. </font color>

By the way, I read your replies re: the Sf Gate column..
"Brilliant"!! I'd guess you were captain of your school's debating team, the way you put the guy down. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> Well I guess I'm not PC enough for you but then.. "Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn!" </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

<font color="blue">SF </font color>

wolfdancer
01-21-2005, 06:36 PM
Frankly Mr Fats, I'm damn impressed with your knowledge on the topic.(By the way, the line is "Frankly, my dear, i don't give a damn"
I wasn't aware that the Democrats adopted the Socialist Party platform ever? but, it would be interesting to see the date, and the platform. As you know in the 30's our economic system appeared to be failing, labor was oppressed,the NAZI movement was in progress,and Communism appealed to many.
It has proved a failure though, and even if Hillery were the "Manchurian Candidate", there is no way she could reestablish it's presence.
We already have many socialistic platforms in place
welfare, medicare, social security...state funded schools.
Without some help, it takes decades to rise out of poverty, and "the rich'll get richer, and the poor get poorer"

We have a two party system, and everyone is free to decide which party fits their own personal ideology....It seems though, that anybody that doesn't agree with the hard-core Republicans here, is subject to personal attack. I only respect the postings of Highsea, who defends his position with facts and logic...not the schoolboy crap that some of the radical right-wingers are posting here.
It's a big country, room enough for two political parties, and thank God that the power changes every so often, to keep the country from going off in just one direction.

SecaucusFats
01-21-2005, 09:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Frankly Mr Fats, I'm damn impressed with your knowledge on the topic.(By the way, the line is "Frankly, my dear, i don't give a damn"
I wasn't aware that the Democrats adopted the Socialist Party platform ever? but, it would be interesting to see the date, and the platform. As you know in the 30's our economic system appeared to be failing, labor was oppressed,the NAZI movement was in progress,and Communism appealed to many.

<font color="blue">In the mid-20th century the basic character of the Democratic appeal began to change, first slowly and then rapidly. One of the primary motivators for this change was the growth of the Socialist Party, by co-opting much of the Socialist agenda the party was able to draw many more voters, particularly within the urban immigrant class. In the 1930s and 1940s the Democrats became a party of vigorous government intervention in the economy and in the social realm, willing to regulate and redistribute wealth. The urban political machines had brought to the party a commitment to social welfare legislation in order to help their immigrant constituents. At first resisted by Southern Democrats and the other limited-government advocates of the party’s traditional wing, the new look began to win out in the late 1920s. The Great Depression after 1929 and the coming to power of Franklin D. Roosevelt, with his New Deal, solidified and expanded this new commitment.

Increasingly, under Democratic leadership, the government expanded its role in social welfare and economic regulation. Given the economic situation, this proved to be electorally attractive. Traditional Democrats surged to the polls, new voters joined, and the party won over groups, such as the blacks, who had been Republicans for generations—at first haltingly, then enthusiastically and overwhelmingly. The result was the New Deal coalition that dominated the country for more than 30 years. More people than ever before identified themselves as Democrats. Roosevelt became an even more powerful symbol than Jackson had been, winning four successive terms. In addition, Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition of southern populists and northern liberals laid the base for the Democrats to control Congress in all but four of the 48 years between 1933 and 1981.
</font color>

It has proved a failure though, and even if Hillery were the "Manchurian Candidate", there is no way she could reestablish it's presence.

<font color="blue">Hillary would have plenty of help from Nancy Pelosi / the "Progressive Caucus", and their friends in the Democratic Socialists.
</font color> Link (http://handguncontrolinc.org/pelosi1.htm)

We already have many socialistic platforms in place welfare, medicare, social security...state funded schools.

Without some help, it takes decades to rise out of poverty, and "the rich'll get richer, and the poor get poorer"

<font color="blue">In his article "Socialism is Evil" Walter E. Williams ( a conservative writer) wrote:

"The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution.

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation."
************************************************

My family came here from Cuba, with one suitcase apiece. All our money, our home, our cars, our furniture and appliances had been confiscated in the name of the 'people's socialist revolution'. We never expected, asked for, or would have accepted any welfare or the like. My mom and dad busted their butts working double shifts and saving what money they could. We were poor but eventually we made it up into the middle class.
That is why I don't buy into "the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer", to me it is a hackneyed cliche repeated like a mantra by slackers and losers.
</font color>
We have a two party system, and everyone is free to decide which party fits their own personal ideology....
<font color="blue">I have no problem with that. </font color>

It seems though, that anybody that doesn't agree with the hard-core Republicans here, is subject to personal attack.

<font color="blue">I try to avoid personal attacks whenever possible, but when I am attacked I refuse to "turn the other cheek".

Being Latino and Cuban I am both blessed and cursed with a hot blooded nature. While I admire the sang-froid displayed by some here (most notably Highsea)it would be totally out of character for me.

LOL, if you are ever in a social setting with a bunch of Cubans you would think OMG-Katie bar the door!-- they are all arguing and getting ready to kill each other! But they could just be shooting the breeze about any old thing. And if they are talking about baseball you would think they are going to start a riot! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Cubans are by turn loud, bold, proud, strong willed, and yes,often obnoxious and arrogant, that is our nature. </font color>

I only respect the postings of Highsea, who defends his position with facts and logic...not the schoolboy crap that some of the radical right-wingers are posting here.
It's a big country, room enough for two political parties, and thank God that the power changes every so often, to keep the country from going off in just one direction.

<font color="blue">I too believe that power changes help maintain a balance by keeping extremists elements within both parties in check.

If the Democrats (and that's a big if) can sucessfully return to more centrist views, rein in the radical leftist wing of their party, and end their association with radical socialist organizations,they would do much better at the polls. But I don't see this happening. Rather than reaching out to the ordinary folks they instead alienate them further by calling them Jesus freaks, idiots, rednecks, homophobes and the like. Its the old "You draw more flies with honey than vinegar" thing.
</font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

SF

cheesemouse
01-21-2005, 10:20 PM
PLAGIARIST.......the following section of Fatso's post is directly lifted from Encarta® Online Encyclopedia and he trys to make it appear as his words.....this guy is pathetic...a pathetic IDIOT....Sad but true... /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif



[ QUOTE ]
In the mid-20th century the basic character of the Democratic appeal began to change, first slowly and then rapidly. One of the primary motivators for this change was the growth of the Socialist Party, by co-opting much of the Socialist agenda the party was able to draw many more voters, particularly within the urban immigrant class. In the 1930s and 1940s the Democrats became a party of vigorous government intervention in the economy and in the social realm, willing to regulate and redistribute wealth. The urban political machines had brought to the party a commitment to social welfare legislation in order to help their immigrant constituents. At first resisted by Southern Democrats and the other limited-government advocates of the party’s traditional wing, the new look began to win out in the late 1920s. The Great Depression after 1929 and the coming to power of Franklin D. Roosevelt, with his New Deal, solidified and expanded this new commitment.

Increasingly, under Democratic leadership, the government expanded its role in social welfare and economic regulation. Given the economic situation, this proved to be electorally attractive. Traditional Democrats surged to the polls, new voters joined, and the party won over groups, such as the blacks, who had been Republicans for generations—at first haltingly, then enthusiastically and overwhelmingly. The result was the New Deal coalition that dominated the country for more than 30 years. More people than ever before identified themselves as Democrats. Roosevelt became an even more powerful symbol than Jackson had been, winning four successive terms. In addition, Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition of southern populists and northern liberals laid the base for the Democrats to control Congress in all but four of the 48 years between 1933 and 1981.
<hr /></blockquote>

nAz
01-21-2005, 10:28 PM
Ouch!!
maybe he should edit this and use some quotations. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

SecaucusFats
01-22-2005, 01:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> PLAGIARIST.......the following section of Fatso's post is directly lifted from Encarta® Online Encyclopedia and he trys to make it appear as his words.....this guy is pathetic...a pathetic IDIOT....Sad but true... /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

<font color="blue">Yes I cut and pasted it, and yes I neglected to properly attribute the source and I apologize for the error. BTW, I often cut and paste as an expedient method of providing data.

Do you have anything of a substantive nature to say about the topic of the thread, or are you strictly limiting yourself to directing ad hominem attacks at me?

BTW, I am in awe of your prodigious talent as evidenced by your droll and witty use of the words idiot and pathetic, they really put the 'snap' in your snappy comments. You are obviously a gifted intellectual. However, once a word is used too often it tends to go stale. In order to help you maximize your sniping pleasure here are some synonyms for idiot.

Idiot: fool, ass, damn fool, donkey, imbecile, jackass, jerk, nincompoop, ninny, tomfool , jester, motley, cretin, feeb, half-wit, imbecile, moron, simpleton, zany, dunce, dullard, dullhead, dumbbell, dummkopf, dummy, ignoramus, moron, simpleton, stupid

BTW, if you are ever out my way (NJ, just the other side of the Lincoln Tunnel from NYC) please feel free to PM me so that I can give you the address of a local drinking establishment were you can meet me and call me whatever you like right to my face (I just hope you have good dental insurance). Of course, I doubt that you are man enough to want to go 'mano a mano' with the Fat Man. I figure that you, being a Cheesemouse, are very much like other 'pendejo' rodents who scurry away at the first sign of danger, preferring instead to lurk in the safety of darkness.

SF
</font color>

SecaucusFats
01-22-2005, 02:10 AM
Oh and BTW, I often get e-mails from friends that have things I find funny or interesting and I post them to share with others. You got a problem with that? (Not that I actually give a good rat's azz about what you think.)

Oh and here is where you can find me:

The Wild Rover Pub
Corner of 71st and Park Avenue
Guttenberg NJ Tel # 201-662-WILD
If I'm not there ask the bartender to call me and I'll be there in 5 minutes.

Now, in case you can't come out here, why don't you post the location where I can meet you?

SF

SnakebyteXX
01-22-2005, 08:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I often get e-mails from friends that have things I find funny or interesting and I post them to share with others. You got a problem with that? <hr /></blockquote>

SF,

I enjoy reading your posts - even if I may disagree with some of what you're posting. Please allow me to say that I think it's unexceptible and unworthy of you or the forum contributor that you're upset with to get personal about anything that's posted here. This forum has too few posters as it is. I'd hate to see it come to the point of losing anyone over hurt feelings - much less over threats of physical violence.

Life is too short for any of us to let BS personal attacks posted in an anonymous forum get under our skin.

I'm hoping that you're a bigger man than that (pun intended).

Snake

cheesemouse
01-22-2005, 09:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr> Oh and BTW, I often get e-mails from friends that have things I find funny or interesting and I post them to share with others. You got a problem with that? (Not that I actually give a good rat's azz about what you think.)

Oh and here is where you can find me:

The Wild Rover Pub
Corner of 71st and Park Avenue
Guttenberg NJ Tel # 201-662-WILD
If I'm not there ask the bartender to call me and I'll be there in 5 minutes.

Now, in case you can't come out here, why don't you post the location where I can meet you?

SF <hr /></blockquote>

Well, now your true nature shines thru. You seem to believe in FREE SPEECH for yourself but not others. I would like to remind you that your liberties end where my nose begins. Why is it that your vitriol verbal attacks on liberals, democrats, left-wing, and progressive thought in general should go unchallenged???

Back when we were kids one of the first social lessons of the play ground taught was "sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you". Notice the quotes on that last sentence. I found putting the quotes up quit easy.

Now, as far as your physical challenge to me, don't you think that was just a bit childish? In this day and age of the Internet if we all rose to the bait of caveman or brown shirts tatics the debate would not be advanced very far now would it? If the threat of physical force is one of your first responses to any challenge to your ideas then you are doomed to failure: see the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". I prefer to continue living in a free society so I reject your offer. In defence of my manhood that you elude too, I didn't break five arms, a shoulder blade, all the toes of both feet, a jaw, both hands and the nose a couple times favoring the flight side of human nature. My instincts are alive and well but experience has taught me to control them when I can. I choose to debate you with words and not with your choose of weapons. I will continue use my own words and others words, and when I use others words I will acknownledge or indicate so.

As far as ad hominem attacks,"what's good for goose is good for the gander". Just another schoolyard lesson.

Being that you're adept at google searches try typing in "twelve steps" you may find some useful information. Like I said "help is available".

And finally, being that you have resorted to lowering the debate level and anticipating your response, I place you in the fit file for futher feedback ( notice the cute alliteration )...have a couple on me..."when you laugh like hell at some damn fools song and your thoughts foam up like the froth on beer your drunk by goosh your drunk...boozy schucks"

Qtec
01-22-2005, 10:01 AM
SF, I think if you met any of the guys here on the board, in a bar, he last thing you would talk about is Politics. I,m sure all the regulars are good people. Yes, even eg8r and Wally /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif and the rest of the Bushites! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Although we all have our differences, we have all two things in common- we all play pool and we like to argue- but for FUN.
Do you really think anybody here takes anything personally? I certainly dont.

Make peace, not war.

Q

SecaucusFats
01-22-2005, 10:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SecaucusFats:</font><hr> Oh and BTW, I often get e-mails from friends that have things I find funny or interesting and I post them to share with others. You got a problem with that? (Not that I actually give a good rat's azz about what you think.)

Oh and here is where you can find me:

The Wild Rover Pub
Corner of 71st and Park Avenue
Guttenberg NJ Tel # 201-662-WILD
If I'm not there ask the bartender to call me and I'll be there in 5 minutes.

Now, in case you can't come out here, why don't you post the location where I can meet you?

SF <hr /></blockquote>

Well, now your true nature shines thru. You seem to believe in FREE SPEECH for yourself but not others. I would like to remind you that your liberties end where my nose begins. Why is it that your vitriol verbal attacks on liberals, democrats, left-wing, and progressive thought in general should go unchallenged???

<font color="blue">You are free to disagree with me, but try responding to the substance of what is being discussed. You have as of late taken it upon yourself to trail me around the board responding to everything I post with nothing more than calling me an idiot. I can therefore logically conclude that you are a hypocrite. You only value free speech when it accords with your own views, a trait that is shared by many leftists. </font color>

Back when we were kids one of the first social lessons of the play ground taught was "sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you". Notice the quotes on that last sentence. I found putting the quotes up quit easy.

<font color="blue">That's all well and good, for grade school children in white bread neighborhoods. I grew up in a tough blue collar neighborhood where words could get you your posterior handed to you. In any case you and I are no longer children so you'd do well to adopt a modicum of civility when responding to me, or to anyone else for that matter. </font color>

Now, as far as your physical challenge to me, don't you think that was just a bit childish? In this day and age of the Internet if we all rose to the bait of caveman or brown shirts tatics the debate would not be advanced very far now would it? If the threat of physical force is one of your first responses to any challenge to your ideas then you are doomed to failure: see the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". I prefer to continue living in a free society so I reject your offer. In defence of my manhood that you elude too, I didn't break five arms, a shoulder blade, all the toes of both feet, a jaw, both hands and the nose a couple times favoring the flight side of human nature. My instincts are alive and well but experience has taught me to control them when I can. I choose to debate you with words and not with your choose of weapons. I will continue use my own words and others words, and when I use others words I will acknownledge or indicate so.

<font color="blue">
Don't you think that stalking someone around a message board responding with nothing other than a terse "idiot" is childish?

Oh man, the Nazi reference is just so typical of your ilk. Talk about pathetic /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
</font color>

As far as ad hominem attacks,"what's good for goose is good for the gander". Just another schoolyard lesson.

Being that you're adept at google searches try typing in "twelve steps" you may find some useful information. Like I said "help is available".

<font color="blue"> You're a class act Cheese. Now I'm an alcoholic Nazi. Yeah that's right I every night I go to the beer garden in my SS outfit and and sing songs of the Reich. </font color>

And finally, being that you have resorted to lowering the debate level and anticipating your response, I place you in the fit file for futher feedback ( notice the cute alliteration )...have a couple on me..."when you laugh like hell at some damn fools song and your thoughts foam up like the froth on beer your drunk by goosh your drunk...boozy schucks"

<font color="blue">Do whatever gets your rocks off Cheese. Now excuse me while I play some Wagner and go polish my jackboots in preparation for tonight's beer and schnapps orgy with my fellow Nazi bar box players. </font color>



<hr /></blockquote>


<font color="blue">SF </font color>

SecaucusFats
01-22-2005, 11:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SnakebyteXX:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I often get e-mails from friends that have things I find funny or interesting and I post them to share with others. You got a problem with that? <hr /></blockquote>

SF,

I enjoy reading your posts - even if I may disagree with some of what you're posting. Please allow me to say that I think it's unexceptible and unworthy of you or the forum contributor that you're upset with to get personal about anything that's posted here.

<font color="blue">You are right. Thanks for the advice, I shall try to be more thick skinned. Heck I'll go down to the local "botanica" (voodoo shop) buy some voodoo dolls and a supply of pins and stick a pin or two in a doll when the need arises. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

This forum has too few posters as it is. I'd hate to see it come to the point of losing anyone over hurt feelings - much less over threats of physical violence.

Life is too short for any of us to let BS personal attacks posted in an anonymous forum get under our skin.

I'm hoping that you're a bigger man than that (pun intended).

<font color="blue">Snake I promise right here and right now that I will never again let someone get under my skin to the point where I lose it like that. If I ever go back on my word you can call me on it and I will stop posting here. Again thanks for the advice. </font color>

Snake <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">SF </font color>

SecaucusFats
01-22-2005, 11:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> SF, I think if you met any of the guys here on the board, in a bar, he last thing you would talk about is Politics. I,m sure all the regulars are good people. Yes, even eg8r and Wally /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif and the rest of the Bushites! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Although we all have our differences, we have all two things in common- we all play pool and we like to argue- but for FUN.
Do you really think anybody here takes anything personally? I certainly dont.

Make peace, not war.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Thanks Q. See my response to Snakebyte.

I will limit my butt kicking to the confines of a pool table, although I'm sure that there are more than a few here who could give me a spot and still clean my clock at the table. (My SS uniform and my goose stepping around the table may prove to be an effective shark tactic though.) /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif</font color>

<font color="blue">SF </font color>

nAz
01-22-2005, 12:10 PM
Hey SF glad to see your backing off from them fighting words, /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif they were unnecessary. I to like reading some of your post it reminds me how brainwashed and how married some poeple are to their party. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif
I hope you and cheese will keep the debate going in a civilize way.
BTW cheese great catch keep calling em the way see em /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Qtec
01-22-2005, 12:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
(My SS uniform and my goose stepping around the table may prove to be an effective shark tactic though.)
<hr /></blockquote> HaHaHa. That would work.
Imagine the local hustler who is playing on the next table explaining to his backer why he lost.
"Like I,m shootin for the money man, you know, and out of the corner of my eye, i swear, I see this Cuban...nazi uniform...jackboots....goose-stepping......". /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Elaine
01-22-2005, 01:09 PM
I enjoy and agree with your views! It takes some brains to call someone an "idiot" when they are not mentally able to defend themselves (sarcasm). Cheesmouth is typical of most liberals. When are they going to take responsibility and stop looking to others to bail them out.
Elaine

cheesemouse
01-22-2005, 02:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Elaine:</font><hr> I enjoy and agree with your views! <font color="red"> That's interesting, how do you determine what his views are, may I ask??? </font color> It takes some brains to call someone an "idiot" when they are not mentally able to defend themselves (sarcasm). <font color="red"> Keen observation </font color> Cheesmouth is typical of most liberals. When are they going to take responsibility and stop looking to others to bail them out. <font color="red"> Interesting comment coming from a transpant from the Socialist Republic of England. Welcome to America where we exercise true freedom of speech; get use to it. And by the way, if I am a typical liberal than your transplanted conservatism won't hold water as this typical liberal has only given to his country. I have never been on the dole and never will be....can you say the same? </font color>
Elaine <hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
01-22-2005, 02:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Don't worry, by the time election time is here again, we will have reaped all the "Benefits" of this republican nightmare,
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle,
Aside from the fact that you wouldn't have anything to complain about on this board, can you honestly say that your life would be better had Bush not been re-elected?
(Try being a little less emotional and a bit more logical before you try to answer that question.) How would your life be different if John and John were in office?

PQQLK9
01-23-2005, 03:48 AM
What did the lady do?

We keep getting e-mailed "jokes" vilifying Hillary Clinton, so often and over so long a period that it begins to look like an organized campaign.

We're no big admirer of hers, but we can't recall when a senator from New York attracted such apparent hatred from the right -- not even in the days of Bobby Kennedy.

Could somebody remind us just what Hillary did that is so despicable? Other than stand by her husband in his descents into sleaze, that is.

It seems the Family Values folks despise her for remaining married, and the fundamentalist disciples of Christ's message of forgiveness can't forgive her for forgiving Bill.

Doug Robarchek
Doug Robarchek: (704) 358-5233; drobarchek@charlotteobserver.com
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/weird_news/10687003.htm

pooltchr
01-23-2005, 05:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote PQQLK9:</font><hr> What did the lady do?


<hr /></blockquote>

Lying under oath, and witholding evidence in a criminal investigation are the first two things that come to mind...

Chopstick
01-23-2005, 07:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote PQQLK9:</font><hr> What did the lady do?

Could somebody remind us just what Hillary did that is so despicable? Other than stand by her husband in his descents into sleaze, that is. <hr /></blockquote>

I never paid any attention to politics. One time my friends took me to the emergency room. I was blind in one eye and they thought I was having a stroke. The nurse asked me who is the president. My friend responded he wouldn't know about that. You need to ask him something he knows.

Hillary Clinton came to my attention during the Whitewater thing. I don't know what Whitewater was all about but it seems a lot of folks were mad about it. Apparently she testified in court that she had no business dealings with this company. Then they produced a document with her signature on it addressed to that company discussing business with them. So, she's cold busted for perjury and according to Gayle that's a felony and they let her walk because Bill says he's gonna pardon her. I guess they caught her lieing more than once which I believe because she is a lawyer. So, she gets to be senator and Martha Stewart goes to jail.

Next thing I see Hillary on TV pounding the podium that Bush is a liar. What!!! A confirmed perjurer, should be convicted felon, is calling somebody else a liar. She is the who started this whole thing that is driving Gayle nuts. Of course that was probably a short drive to begin with. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Has anyone noticed how vicious the Democrats have gotten over the last few years? I think a lot of that is coming from her. It would be interesting to trace down Gayle's sources. I'd be willing to bet you would find some connection back to Hillary. She garners a lot of sympathy because of Bill's escapades but if you peel back the covers on the Clintons I think you'll find that Bill is the nice one in that pair. I have never heard or heard of Hillary Clinton saying anything nice to or about anyone. I think she's getting back what she's been putting out.

nAz
01-23-2005, 02:04 PM
lol that is a lot of Bull Sh!t she had nothing to do with any of it. btw how much millions of tax payer monies was spent by the right trying to prove it?

pooltchr
01-23-2005, 02:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> lol that is a lot of Bull Sh!t she had nothing to do with any of it. btw how much millions of tax payer monies was spent by the right trying to prove it? <hr /></blockquote>

How do you explain the fact that the documents she swore did not exist under oath turned up in the private wing of the White House?

nAz
01-23-2005, 02:24 PM
that is easy, it was a vast right wing conspiracy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

what was the finale out come of the whole investigation, officialy?

wolfdancer
01-23-2005, 10:26 PM
I honestly believe that it will be the long term effects, brought about by the policies of this administration,
that may dictate, whether Gayle would have been better off
if we had not reelected GWB.
This is not emotional, no name calling, I just don't like the man, nor his agenda.
I'm also surprised that, you have elected to be "political"
and risk alienating future customers/students

pooltchr
01-24-2005, 05:58 AM
I don't think my politics have anything to do with teaching. Right here on this forum, two of my friends are Ross and Nick...both of them have quite different political views from me, yet we are able to separate politics from the rest of our lives. If someone is so shallow as to believe that my political views impact the way I teach, I can't help that. I also like Dale Earnhart JR, so I guess all the Jeff Gordon fans would need to find someone else to work with if your theory holds true.
Steve

Gayle in MD
01-24-2005, 08:57 AM
Your comments about me are par for the course around here. I find it interesting that because a woman has strong convictions, she is automatically branded as nuts, emotional, a liar, you name it.

You have a right to your opinion regarding politics, and regarding me. Your personal assasinations toward me, however, only show your own weaknesses, IMO.

It is, btw, men who harbour just such insecurities and chauvinistic leanings who target women like Martha Stewart and Hilliary Clinton. It's nothing new really, and I don't imagine it will ever change. Bimbos have always been less threatening to such men, and therefore escape the personal attacks.

Back to the subject, Whitewater was just another Republican attempt to use politics of personal destruction, which is certainly their forte, and has been since Nixon was forced out of the whitehouse by his own many felonies.

Had there been any proof against Hilliary which would have stood up in court, she would surely have been prosecuted. The Clintons were victimized by the republican right throughout their tenure in the whitehouse, ridiculous accusations which included even murder, and I dare say millions and millions were spent to assasinate their characters, but it is interesting how you republicans have forgotten that when Larry Flynt stepped in to expose republicans for the same, shall we say, male extra curricular activities, the republican resignations were flying like confetti on V Day.

Before the present republican right gained momentum, men, both political, and men of the press, had a good ol' boy philosphy, you didn't squeal about a man's sex life, that is why presidents like Jefferson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and many others, were never crucified in the public arena for their mistresses. Jimmy Carter, a democrat, and Ronald Reagen, a republican, were probably the only two men ever in the whitehouse since Truman, with nothing to hide.

All that changed, however, once this more, shall we say, unscrupulous right, while thumping their bibles, decided to take politics of personal destruction to a whole new low level.

I also find it interesting that many republicans here accuse Kerry of being a phoney, when certainly the most theatrical display of cheap phoney political drama occurred when Little Bushy jumped out of the hellicopter in a flight suit, with his groin straps in place, and announced, "Mission Accomlished" to troops whose service would be extended over and over again.

Aside from the fact that he has never seen combat, and had his Daddy pull strings to get him into a safe cushy spot during Vietnam, he looked absolutely ridiculous as he stradled the straps, bow legged, and hobbled to the podium. Never before have I seen such political choreography, generally reserved for Broadway.

Now, as we are beginning to hear the murmurs of Iran from our illustrious Vice President Cheney, and the world is reeling from an inauguration speach during wartime, not a mention of our present war, but fraught with insinuations of war to come, the other countries, more suitable for attack than Iraq ever was, are surely gearing up for the Bush Freedom On The March campaign.

This man is a diplomatic mess, and the right, which believes in "American Power" and the determination and supposed necessity to use it at every opportunity, warrented or not, has made our world a very dangerous place, and changed the complexion of dilomatic responsibility and American restraint to our great dieadvantage.

What made Kennedy a great President was his determination to use restraint and diplomacy ultimately in order to save lives and avoid war during the Cuban Missle Crises. Thank God we didn't have George Bush in office then.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
01-24-2005, 08:31 PM
I think some folks take religion, and politics, a lot more serious then NASCAR, or any sports. It's one thing to vote Republican, or Democrat....it becomes personal, when you try
to castigate the other persons choices.
I'd take my lessons, or buy my supplies from someone more tolerant of my beliefs...say,like Fast Larry
Dale Earnhart Jr.??????? over Jeff Gordon?????
Jeff could give him the 7 ball, in driving
In a 500 mi race, Jeff could stop for lunch, and be waiting at the finish line for Dale to finish

pooltchr
01-25-2005, 05:32 AM
I have my personal beliefs and understand that others may not agree. I have no problem pointing out flaws if I see them, but am certainly not of the mindset that mine is the only way. Discussions on this board have made me see some things differently. There are some on here who make statements that they can not back up.

Little E can give Jeff 3 on the wire in a race to 7...pool or driving! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Steve

Chopstick
01-25-2005, 08:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>
what was the finale out come of the whole investigation, officialy? <hr /></blockquote>

A rich well connected criminal went free. That's not so unusual.

eg8r
01-25-2005, 09:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It seems though, that anybody that doesn't agree with the hard-core Republicans here, is subject to personal attack. <hr /></blockquote> Yeah, it is only the hard-core Reps. You hard core dems are quiet as a mouse. By the way, where is the emoticon for gagging? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

eg8r
01-25-2005, 09:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
SF, I think if you met any of the guys here on the board, in a bar, he last thing you would talk about is Politics. <hr /></blockquote> There are more pressing matters at the bar/ph.

eg8r

wolfdancer
01-25-2005, 11:32 AM
I just reflex gag automatically, Mr.eg8r, when I read the one-sided tripe that you routinely post, no icon necessary to remind me. Over on the Yahoo Financial Message Boards, there is an "Ignore" feature you can check...then you won't even see the crap that rankles you
If we had that option here...you, Fats, and every other person, that needs to resort to personal attacks, to try to get their prejudicial viewpoints across....would be on my delete button.
Don't bother to reply, unless you will be trying to impress
the other storm troopers....I'm through reading anything by you...or fats.

eg8r
01-25-2005, 12:19 PM
Seems you take things a bit personally, but I really don't care of added options on your Financial Message board.

By stating if said option was available here, and I see you responded to me, this would lead one to believe you don't have the self-control to ignore what you don't like, maybe there could be a software gimmick to help do this for you.

Since your reply comes across as a bit personal, I guess you need a bit of help understanding what I was posting. Aww never mind, you would not understand anyways.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't bother to reply, unless you will be trying to impress
the other storm troopers....I'm through reading anything by you...or fats.
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, and that will be tough to believe. Remember, we don't have your trusty "ignore" button. Should by the grace of God you choose to put forth all effort to restrain yourself from posting a reply that is your right. My goodness for the betterment of yourself it would be great to see you exercise it. At the same token, thanks for understanding my rights and not asking me to refrain from doing as I please. Shucks, you could not even do that.

eg8r &lt;~~~having a good time with a disgruntled member

Chopstick
01-25-2005, 12:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
What made Kennedy a great President was his determination to use restraint and diplomacy ultimately in order to save lives and avoid war during the Cuban Missle Crises. Thank God we didn't have George Bush in office then.

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">
Thursday, October 25, 1962
U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson confronts the Soviets at the U.N. but they refuse to answer. American military forces are instructed to set <font color="red">DEFCON 2</font color> - the highest ever in U.S. history.

Review of the movement of ships toward the quarantine line and potential US responses.

Friday, October 26, 1962
EX-COMM receives a letter from Khrushchev stating that the Soviets would remove their missiles if President Kennedy publicly guarantees the U.S. will not invade Cuba. </font color>

<font color="green"> You mean this diplomacy. I'll go along with that. </font color>

<font color="red"> Free SF! </font color>

wolfdancer
01-25-2005, 01:02 PM
Cheese, give her a break!...as an immigrant, she may be having trouble with the language...and the culture
In the U.K. it's considered poor form, to make disparaging remarks about the "Royals".....and she may not realise yet, that we can not only vote out our inbreeds, it's ok to comment on their screw-ups.

highsea
01-25-2005, 01:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chopstick:</font><hr> <font color="green"> You mean this diplomacy. I'll go along with that. </font color>

<font color="red"> Free SF! </font color><hr /></blockquote>Lol. Yep, that was gunboat diplomacy at it's finest. The USN intercepted the Soviet vessels [carrying Soviet nuclear missiles] at sea. We fired a few warning shots, and were prepared to sink them if they tried to break the blockade. The standoff lasted several hours before the Soviet vessels turned back. Soviet forces in Cuba were authorized for nuclear release if the US invaded the island, and Kennedy made a public declaration over the radio that the US was willing to use nuclear weapons on the USSR if we were attacked.

That was the closest the world has ever come to a nuclear war. At Defcon 2, the launch countdown (holds) were in minutes, not hours. Very dangerous situation. All our subs were ready to rock and roll, and the bombers were in the air on continuous rotation. It was the highest state of military alert the US has ever been at. Had Kennedy not been willing to escalate the threat to the highest levels, the USSR would have had medium range ballistic missiles in place that were cabable of wiping out the nation's capital.

The crisis highlighted the difficulty of communication between Washington and the Kremlin. Messages had to be cabled back and forth between embassies, which was too slow for the tactical situation. Kennedy finally resorted to broadcasting his messages to Krushchev over the radio. After the USSR agreed to withdraw, and the crisis had passed, it was decided to install the "red phones" so instant communication could be guaranteed in the future.
_______________________________________

wolfdancer
01-25-2005, 02:03 PM
Highsea, I've always wondered if Russia had a two point plan
If we didn't "object", place the missiles there....but they had
to know that we couldn't allow that.
Maybe the real plan was to have the Turkish misslies, directed at Russia...removed????
In that case, the Soviets may have acheived their "real" goal
As it happened when the crisis occurred, I was crewing on a yacht in Falmouth, Mass. We had just come out of the yards...new stainless steel rigging, new nylon sails, new crystals for the radio( it was the 60's)...for the planned..next day...inland waterways trip to Fla. the ship was to be available for leasing (with yours truly as the one-man crew, sailor extraodinaire, and loyal drinking companion)...the Family would fly back north for the holiday season.
We needed to top off the fuel tank for the auxillary, and fill the ice chest the next morning....it was that night when the crisis began.
The Fla waterways were restricted, the trip was cancelled, the ship went to drydock,..... and my yachting days were over.
We came very close to a war that neither country may ever have recovered from.....

wolfdancer
01-25-2005, 02:07 PM
eg8r, you're so right!!!!! If I stop reading your inane diatribe, I'll miss out on the cathartic value of your posts

highsea
01-25-2005, 02:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Highsea, I've always wondered if Russia had a two point plan
If we didn't "object", place the missiles there....but they had
to know that we couldn't allow that.
Maybe the real plan was to have the Turkish misslies, directed at Russia...removed????
In that case, the Soviets may have acheived their "real" goal<hr /></blockquote>No doubt that US missiles in Turkey and Italy were part of the equation for Khruschev. Their existence was part of his reasons to try to put missiles in Cuba to start with.

While this concession was not made public by Kennedy, it is possible that there was a backroom deal to remove the missiles in Italy and Turkey. At the time there were 15 Jupiter MRBM's in Turkey, and 30 in Italy. These were all removed in 1963.

The Jupiter was a short lived program, they were only in service for 2 years. The Navy didn't want the missile because it was liquid fueled, and so it was no good for sub launching. As far as our deterrent, the removal of the Jupiters had no real effect, because the Polaris missile was already in service with our sub fleet, so land based IRBM's were redundant.

How much of this Khruschev knew is open to speculation. But the missiles in Turkey and Italy were easy ones for us to compromise on, because we didn't really need them anyway. Of course the Soviets did the same thing we did, which was move their missiles to sub platforms. Much better politically, and way more difficult to target in a first strike scenario.

And so it goes...
_____________________________________

eg8r
01-25-2005, 02:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
eg8r, you're so right!!!!! If I stop reading your inane diatribe, I'll miss out on the cathartic value of your posts <hr /></blockquote> LOL, I knew it. You are back. While it took a while and probably a thesaurus, I am happy you fell through. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
01-25-2005, 09:36 PM
The final outcome was that after spending a fortune they had nothing on the Clinton's except for the indescretion on the Presidents part with Lewinsky. Although some here are saying otherwise, the truth is that that was the final outcome.

I might add that Susan McDoogle went to jail for a good bit of time IIRC, about a year and a half, and was not only threatened, according to her own statements, but also her family's safety threatened, by Starr, and his group, if she didn't come up with something worthy of their search for smut on the Clintons.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-25-2005, 10:12 PM
I wonder, did you know there were two letters? The second one was threatening War, President Kennedy chose to ignore that one, and respond only to the conciliatory one.

Also, there was a moment when (McNamara, IIRC,) was urging him to drop a warning boom on top of a soviet sub on it's way to Cuba. Kennedy refused, saying that he wouldn't risk starting a War by dropping a warning on a Russian sub at a volital time.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-25-2005, 10:20 PM
Tap Tap Tap! It is a shame that there exists here a small group who relish personal attacks against fellow posters. IMO it really takes away from the enjoyment of posting and reading here, and is immature and un-necessary.

Gayle in Md.

highsea
01-26-2005, 12:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I wonder, did you know there were two letters? The second one was threatening War, President Kennedy chose to ignore that one, and respond only to the conciliatory one. <hr /></blockquote>That's not really accurate. On 10/22/62, Kennedy announced to the world the discovery of the missiles in Cuba, and his decision to place a Naval blockade on Cuba.

Kennedy's Speech on Cuba 10/22/62 (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kencuba.htm)

Kennedy sent a letter to Khrushchev the same day as the speech, and Khrushchev responded by threatening war in a letter on October 24th.

Letter from Kennedy 10/22/62 (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kenlet.htm)

Reply from Khrushchev 10/24/62 (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nikita.htm)

The crisis continued to build rapidly, and there were shots fired on both sides. A U-2 Spy Plane was shot down over Cuba. US Warships ships intercepted Russian ships bound for Cuba with missiles aboard. There was also a cat and mouse game with Soviet subs going on at the same time.

On the 26th and 27th, Kennedy recieved two letters from Khrushchev. The first letter asked for a guarantee that the US would not invade Cuba. In return, Russia would remove the missiles. This letter came in the form of a cable to the US Embassy.

First Letter from Khrushchev to Kennedy 10/26/62 (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nikita2.htm)

The next day, Kennedy received the second letter, only it was also demanding that the US remove the missiles in Turkey.

Second letter from Khrushchev to Kennedy 10/27/62 (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nikita3.htm)

Kennedy chose to ignore the second letter, and agree to the terms of the first one. In his reply to Khrushchev, he made no mention of the missiles in Turkey.

Kennedy's reply to the first letter 10/27/62 (scroll down) (http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/sitroom/letters.html#26)

On the 28th, Khrushchev agreed to remove the missiles in Cuba in exchange for the US guarantee that there would be no invasion.

Letter from Khrushchev to Kennedy 10/28/62 (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nikita4.htm)

Kennedy's initial decision to blockade Cuba was the right thing to do, but it can hardly be called "diplomacy" by any standards. It escalated the situation to the brink of nuclear war overnight. The favorable outcome of the crisis was due to the fact that Kennedy refused to back down to Khrushchev, even in the face of nuclear war.

This is not diplomacy, Gayle, it is called "realpolitik". Aka, the politics of power.
____________________________________________

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 12:37 AM
I think he handled the situation with intelligent restraint, considering what might have happened. IMO the decision to answer only one of the letters, the one which allowed us to avoid war, was correct, and IMO falls along the lines of a diplomatic decision. There were two letters, one which he chose to ignore.

I heard someone say the other night how Reagen managed to have the Berlin Wall dismantled without firing a shot.

My point is, many times there other means of acheiving peace without resorting to war. War should always be a last resort, under imminent threat, IMO. Going to war on questionable intelligence, or should I say, using intelligence as your sole justification for a threat, is not what would seem to be a reasonable criterion.

I saw a documentary recently, and heard recordings which were made in the Oval Office during the debate between Kennedy and the rest. It was compelling. Kennedy got very angry with McNamarra over his suggestion the he drop a warning on the sub.

"I'm not going to risk starting a war by sending a warning"

Gayle in Md.

highsea
01-26-2005, 01:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I think he handled the situation with intelligent restraint, considering what might have happened. IMO the decision to answer only one of the letters, the one which allowed us to avoid war, was correct, and IMO falls along the lines of a diplomatic decision. There were two letters, one which he chose to ignore.<hr /></blockquote>Considering what might have happened in a situation that he created. The suggestion to respond to the first letter actually came from Bobby Kennedy, who had made a backroom deal with the Soviet Ambassador the night before to remove the US missiles in Turkey.

You seem determined to ignore the fact that it was Kennedy's declaration 5 days previous that sparked the crisis in the first place. To handle the situation "diplomatically", he could have gone to Khrushchev privately and offered to trade the missiles in Turkey for the ones in Cuba. The missiles in Turkey were of no strategic use to the US anyway, and Khrushchev would have taken the deal.

By the time Khrushchev backed down, we had lost a U-2 and it's pilot in Cuba. Soviet forces in Cuba had authorization for nuclear launch. US planes were making low level flights over Cuban installations, and getting shot up on each pass. Another U-2 had strayed into Soviet airspace, and Soviet fighters attempted to intercept it and shoot it down. A squadron of USAF F102's from Alaska was scrambled to intercept, and they were armed with nuclear tipped missiles. We were damn lucky that the U-2 managed to escape Soviet airspace before the two groups met. There were 24 USAF Bombers, armed with nuclear weapons, that were airborne.

It was taking 7 hours for communications to pass between the sides one way. When you are that close to the brink, one small mistake by some low level commander can set off a chain reaction that can't be stopped. Events were unfolding faster than a single set of messages could be passed back and forth between the two sides. The fact that we avoided war was as much due to luck as anything else. Luck that the Soviet forces in Cuba did not interpret our flyovers as part of an invasion. Luck that the Soviet and American jets did not meet up and start shooting at each other.

Never before or since did the US and the USSR come so close to nuclear war, and your evaluation is that Kennedy used "intelligent restraint". Sorry, but I don't agree with your assessment. As I said earlier, it was realpolitik, not diplomacy, that defined the crisis.
__________________________________

eg8r
01-26-2005, 06:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Tap Tap Tap! It is a shame that there exists here a small group who relish personal attacks against fellow posters. IMO it really takes away from the enjoyment of posting and reading here, and is immature and un-necessary. <hr /></blockquote> Yes, you much prefer personal attacks on the President and his administration. They are not here to defend themselves, so you feel quite comfortable in your actions.

I would just love to see you trying to reply back and forth with Condi. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

SnakebyteXX
01-26-2005, 07:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Never before or since did the US and the USSR come so close to nuclear war, and your evaluation is that Kennedy used "intelligent restraint". Sorry, but I don't agree with your assessment. As I said earlier, it was realpolitik, not diplomacy, that defined the crisis.
<hr /></blockquote>

ALTERED STATESMAN

John F Kennedy (1917 – 1963)

In contrast to the grey establishment figures of the Eisenhower years, John F Kennedy represented everything the USA of 1960 aspired to: youth, vigour, dynamism and a sense that the American dream was in reach again. However, the image was a sham: Kennedy was concealing a secret which could prevent him from becoming president.

For more than ten years he had been suffering from Addison’s disease – the failure of the adrenal glands and the inability to produce the stress hormone cortisol, so vital to the body’s defences. Without a reserve of cortisol, a stressful situation or accident could bring about his physical collapse. When Kennedy’s rival for the presidency, India Edwards, unearthed his secret and made his Addison’s disease public, JFK denied the allegations and the matter was dropped.

Ironically, one of the side effects of Addison’s, namely a bronzed glow, was to prove a huge advantage. In TV debates JFK outshone his Republican rival Nixon with his characteristic healthy tan and radiant smile, and went on to win the presidency. But Kennedy’s ascent to the top was fuelled by daily doses of hydrocortisone (synthetic cortisol).

This new energy-boosting wonder drug was readily available by the end of the 50s. With cortisone stashed in safety deposit boxes all over the US during his campaign trail, and its prescription by three independent physicians, it is possible that JFK was taking well over the recommended dose. Mental side effects could include increased anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia and an increased libido – perhaps responsible for JFK’s insatiable sex drive.

Another serious condition plagued Kennedy. Born with one leg shorter than the other, he suffered from chronic back pain which required rocking chairs and heating devices, but most importantly injections of powerful painkilling drugs. Max Jacobsen a.k.a. Doctor Feelgood began to supply JFK with amphetamines (speed) which he claimed were vitamins, hormones and enzymes.

By the time JFK discovered the true content of his injections, it was too late: he was hooked. When, on October 15th 1962, US spy planes witnessed Russian nuclear missiles being constructed on Cuba, the future of the western security lay with a compulsive risk taker dependent on both steroids and amphetamines. Even during this dangerous game of nuclear brinkmanship Dr Feelgood was supposed to have visited Kennedy. Fortunately, despite JFK’s increasing recklessness, Kruschev stepped down and war was averted.

When an assassin’s bullet ended Kennedy’s life, his secret medical history played a decisive role. On that fateful day in the limo it was the back brace that held him in an upright position even after the first bullet struck so that the second bullet entered his head and ended his life.

DiscoveryChannel link (http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/alteredstatesmen/feature1.shtml)

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 08:11 AM
I don't agree with your assessment. There were Two letters, as I said. Yes, it was Bobby's idea, the President had the final say in what we did.

Cuba had missiles pointed at us, IMO, that is why it is referred to as the "Cuban Missile Crises" I would say, Kennedy was masterful in the way he handled the situation.

I was eighteen at the time, it was very scarry. I remember it well.

Gayle in Md.

highsea
01-26-2005, 11:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I don't agree with your assessment. There were Two letters, as I said. Yes, it was Bobby's idea, the President had the final say in what we did.

Cuba had missiles pointed at us, IMO, that is why it is referred to as the "Cuban Missile Crises" I would say, Kennedy was masterful in the way he handled the situation.

I was eighteen at the time, it was very scarry. I remember it well.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>It doesn't matter what you agree with or not. It's a matter of historical fact. It's called the Cuban Missile Crisis, because that's what Kennedy made of it. The missiles in Cuba were not assembled at the time, and Kennedy was fully aware of this. The launch facilities were under construction, and months away from being functional. The missiles had no warheads on them. The only functional nukes that the Soviets did have in Cuba were battlefield tactical weapons, and Kennedy knew nothing about these.

Kennedy had plenty of opportunities to protest the missiles being put in place. When they were discovered one week prior to the blockade, he could have notified the Soviet Ambassador or the UN. He did neither. Instead, he maintained secrecy in the buildup, and ordered the Naval Blockade, which is an <font color="red">act of war</font color>. He certainly did not go to the UN first.

The previous year, he had authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion, also an <font color="red">act of war</font color>. When it was clear that it was failing, he refused to allow US Air Support for the operation. Instead he just abandoned the 1300 Cuban exiles that he sent there to start the uprising that never came.

In neither instance did Kennedy attempt to get UN approval, or even notify our allies until after the fact. Both actions were <font color="red">acts of war</font color> on a sovereign nation.

I think it's interesting how your ideology colors your judgement. You call Kennedy a great statesman, and you vilify Bush. Yet Bush made several attempts to avoid the war in Iraq before he gave the approval to invade, and Kennedy did everything in secret and never made a single attempt to reach a diplomatic solution before he attacked Cuba.

It doesn't surprise me. I don't expect consistency from you. Your hatred of Bush overshadows everything you write here.
_____________________________________________

nAz
01-26-2005, 02:10 PM
hey HS I did not know all this about JFK. i thought he was a great Prez.
unlike W he actually had Images of the launchers, real proof of what was happening there.It was not a bunch of circumstanced evidence. Regardless of what you may think, that was a "real crisis" In a situation with that kind of evidence I could not imagine anyone waiting to go to the U.N.

BTW I remember reading that the Cubans had nuclear tip torpedos at the time that would have devastated any kind naval assault on that Island, I was really surprise to hear about that. do you know anything about,like how bad that could have been?

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 02:14 PM
I dare say, HighSea, your hatred of ME promotes every one of your responses to anything I post. My original post WAS accurate AS it was written. There were two letters, Kennedy chose to ignore one. I don't recall using the word "Statesman" nor have I ever stated a hatred for Bush.

I just watched a documentary about this a few weeks ago. Your assessment of the situation is very different from mine. You believe your information, and I'll believe mine. I don't include personal attacks on you when we have different opinions.

Have a nice day.

Gayle in Md.

SnakebyteXX
01-26-2005, 02:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I dare say, HighSea, your hatred of ME <font color="blue">promotes </font color> every one of your responses to anything I post. <hr /></blockquote>

Permeates?

nAz
01-26-2005, 02:27 PM
Gayle I do not think H.S. hates you, please do not let it get personal I think he is just stating his opinions and the facts that he see as being accurate. whethers they are or not it is up to you to decide and disprove them.. Don't fall into that classic conservative trap of getting personal and losing site of the issues

PS H.S. does not seem to be your typical die hard blinded red stator, he has a functional brain and can sometimes reason things out. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

highsea
01-26-2005, 02:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I dare say, HighSea, your hatred of ME promotes every one of your responses to anything I post.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Usually I ignore your posts, but you brought the CMC into the discussion. You left me with the impression that everything you know about the subject, you learned from Oliver Stone. I don't know anything about you, and I don't want to. Your posts mostly strike me as irrational, but that's just my opinion.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> My original post WAS accurate AS it was written. There were two letters, Kennedy chose to ignore one. I don't recall using the word "Statesman" nor have I ever stated a hatred for Bush.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not interested in word games. This was your original comment:

<font color="blue">"What made Kennedy a great President was his determination to use restraint and diplomacy ultimately in order to save lives and avoid war during the Cuban Missle Crises."</font color>

Now the truth, as I have shown, is that Kennedy made no attempt at a restraint or diplomatic solution. He blockaded Cuba without warning, sparking the crisis.

Kennedy was a lot of things, but he was not diplomatic. Bay of Pigs, CMC, Vietnam.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>I just watched a documentary about this a few weeks ago. Your assessment of the situation is very different from mine. You believe your information, and I'll believe mine. <hr /></blockquote>I did not quote any documantaries or any other interpretation. I posted the actual letters between Khrushchev and Kennedy in chronological order. As I said, it's a matter of historical record. Something tells me that you have not even bothered to read them, or you might have said "Gee, highsea, thanks for clearing that up". Your comment about the second letter threatening war was not true, and I was correcting you.

As far as your denial about hating Bush, that doesn't even deserve a response.

You have a nice day too.
________________________________________________

highsea
01-26-2005, 03:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>...BTW I remember reading that the Cubans had nuclear tip torpedos at the time that would have devastated any kind naval assault on that Island, I was really surprise to hear about that. do you know anything about,like how bad that could have been? <hr /></blockquote>I don't know the exact mix of weapons they had. I do know they had 60 tactical nuclear weapons. Most of these would have been in the form of mines and rockets. They were in the process of assembling the missile launchers and some MiG's when Kennedy imposed the blockade.

There is no doubt that an invasion would have been catastrophic. Our assessment of the troop strength at the time was 10,000 Soviet troops and 100,000 Cubans. The actual numbers (which we learned later) were 43,000 Soviets and 270,000 Cubans.

Castro had stationed the tactical nukes along the shore to repel the invasion. Our invasion plan was for 1,080 air sorties and 180,000 troops. We would have been very surprised by the level of resistance, since there were 3 times as many defenders as we were expecting, and they were armed with battlefield nukes.

The Soviet Generals had a standing order from Khrushchev that if he couldn't be reached, they had authority to use the nuclear weapons. So if Kennedy had invaded, they would have used them, and the US would have had no choice but to retaliate with nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union.

The invasion of Cuba would have been crushed, and we would be at war with the USSR. You can work out the consequences of that...
______________________________________________

highsea
01-26-2005, 03:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> hey HS I did not know all this about JFK. i thought he was a great Prez.
unlike W he actually had Images of the launchers, real proof of what was happening there.It was not a bunch of circumstanced evidence. Regardless of what you may think, that was a "real crisis" In a situation with that kind of evidence I could not imagine anyone waiting to go to the U.N. <hr /></blockquote>nAz, I am curious. How would you compare the CMC with the situation with North Korea?

Fact: NorK has stated publicly that they have nuclear weapons.
Fact: They have missiles that can hit our forces in South Korea, Okinawa, the West Coast of the US. We have pictures of the installations, and they have launched missiles over Japan.
Fact: They have publicly threatened Japan and the US with military strikes.

Questions:
1. Should the US impose a Naval Blockade on North Korea?
2. Would taking the issue to the UN be a mistake?
3. If the US blockades North Korea, what should our response be if China then threatens nuclear war over North Korea?
__________________________________________________ ______

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 04:03 PM
I read both of the letters. Are you saying, you don't think they were different, or that it wouldn't have mattered which letter he responded to?

My statements referred only to the issue of his responding to only one letter, and ignoring the other. I wasn't addressing the entire history of developments leading up to the CMC.

You have made some rather broad statements, on the other hand, such as "Kennedy was not diplomatic"....I don't agree.

When I don't agree, I also don't attack you, as you do me....as in...

"I don't know anything about you, and I don't want to. Your posts strike me as irrational..." etc.

You make it clear you don't like me. That's fine, I got it. I have always enjoyed your posts, and as intelligent and well read as you are, HighSea, you obviously get angry when my opinion is different than yours.

Gayle in Md.

highsea
01-26-2005, 04:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I read both of the letters. Are you saying, you don't think they were different, or that it wouldn't have mattered which letter he responded to?<hr /></blockquote> No. I pointed out the difference early in the thread. Your description was incorrect. The letter from Khruschev threatening war was not the letter Kennedy ignored. The second letter only mentioned the US missiles in Turkey. I don't understand why you cannot grasp this.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>My statements referred only to the issue of his responding to only one letter, and ignoring the other. I wasn't addressing the entire history of developments leading up to the CMC.<hr /></blockquote>And in doing so, you misrepresent the actual event. Taking the last letter and using it as evidence of Kennedy's diplomacy ignores the entire cause of the crisis. You sugarcoat Kennedy's responsibility for the crisis, and overlook his role in the events that led up to it.

You introduced the CMC into the thread as a comparison of Kennedy's diplomacy vs. Bush's. But that dog don't hunt.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>You have made some rather broad statements, on the other hand, such as "Kennedy was not diplomatic"....I don't agree.<hr /></blockquote>And I have provided reasons for my statement. Again, Bay of Pigs, CMC, Vietnam. These are the defining events of Kennedy's short term as President, wrt Foreign Policy. None of them are shining examples of diplomacy.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>When I don't agree, I also don't attack you, as you do me....as in...

"I don't know anything about you, and I don't want to. Your posts strike me as irrational..." etc.<hr /></blockquote>No, you just make remarks about my "hatred of you promotes my posts", whatever that means.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>You make it clear you don't like me. That's fine, I got it. I have always enjoyed your posts, and as intelligent and well read as you are, HighSea, you obviously get angry when my opinion is different than yours.<hr /></blockquote>I don't like or dislike you. I take offense at the way you have portrayed US servicemen in the past, and the way you portray the President of the US and his administration. "Little Bushy and the pack of liars", or whatever. Your posts are repetitive, and you are intolerant of anyone who has an opinion that you do not share. It's difficult to find threads where you do not engage in some sort of derogatory language or remarks. In other words, you practice "hate speech".

What's not to like?
_________________________________________________

glholzer
01-26-2005, 05:05 PM
Hey all,

A new 52yo ex-liberal here, well once I got an education in '82.

SF - you the man !!!!

To back up my fellows that know the score and in an effort to convert some lefties to the truth we were all denied in the self interested public schools, I post a a real scholars take on the matter.

Economic Liberty and the Constitution by Jacob G. Hornberger, January 2003

The tremendous legal battle between the advocates of economic liberty and free markets and the advocates of socialism and statism that took place in the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1930s should be placed within a historical context. Our American ancestors subscribed to a philosophy of government that is totally different from that to which most Americans subscribe today. That difference in philosophy produced a society very different from the one in which we currently live. For example, Americans in 1890 lived without income taxation, Social Security, food stamps, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, gun control, drug laws, immigration controls, and a Federal Reserve System. Moreover, there were virtually no public (i.e., govern-ment) schools, economic regulations, or occupational-licensure laws. There was no U.S. involvement in foreign wars.

The reason for this was, again, philosophical. Americans once believed that the role of government should not include taking care of people. They believed that people should be free to keep their own money and decide for themselves what to do with it. They believed that economic enterprise should be free from government control. They also believed that the U.S. government should refrain from interfering in the affairs of other nations or involving itself in foreign wars. The basic idea was that instead of spending time, resources, and lives trying to fix the problems of other nations, Americans (and the rest of the world) would be better off if the United States would produce a model society with respect to freedom, peace, and prosperity and then let anyone in the world who left their own country come here to live, if they wished to do so. No matter how much a person might disagree with the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and ancestors, no one can deny one basic truth: Although it lasted for only 150 years, they did create the most unusual society in history — and the freest one.


The Socialist Tide

Keep in mind that when the Constitution brought the federal government into existence in 1787, the Founders did not have a tremendous resource of information with respect to free-market economics. There was, of course, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations but, as most people know, Smith’s views were not exactly pure free-market. Through the 1800s, people were able to read and study the free-market views of the classical economists, such as John Stuart Mill and David Ricardo. But one of the major theoretical problems with classical economics was its erroneous view of the concept of value, a perspective that was rooted in Smith’s Wealth of Nations. It was commonly believed that the value of any item was based on how much labor went into producing it; that economic error ultimately contributed to one of the most momentous events in history — the embrace of socialism worldwide, including here in the United States.

When Karl Marx wrote in the 1800s that capitalism was bad because it involved the theft of worker’s labor, his argument was quite logical in the context of the labor theory of value. If the value of an item is based on how much labor goes into producing it, then for the capitalist or owner to withhold any money is to withhold something that rightfully belongs to the laborer. Since theft is wrong, Marx argued, so were capital and capitalism. While the simultaneous formulation of the subjective theory of value by Carl Menger, William Stanley, and Eugene Walrus in the late 1800s showed the errors and fallacies of the labor theory of value, the discovery failed to significantly slow the socialist tide all over the world. The influence of Marxism and socialism began slowly but they ultimately took control over the hearts and minds of people all over the world.

Not surprisingly, however, the fight for socialism was much more difficult in the United States, given its well-entrenched free-market system and its heritage of economic liberty. The early stages of the fight were reflected in social legislation in the late 1800s to protect the workers from "capitalist exploitation," but the courts were declaring much of it unconstitutional. What the socialists ignored, of course, was that compared with living standards in other countries, both current and in the past, American workers were infinitely better off, which is why the United States continued to attract penniless immigrants from all over the world. As difficult as life was in the early days of the United States, people and their families at least had a chance to survive.

Moreover, Americans were discovering that as a society progressed in the saving of money from one generation to another, the rising level of capital accumulation was raising standards of living for everyone, especially for those whose fathers and grandfathers had struggled in poverty. It wasn’t legislation that took the American children out of the factories but instead ever-increasing levels of capital. Thus, in the late 1800s, the battle in the United States was between the growing tide of socialists and collectivists and the advocates of economic liberty and free markets.

In 1913, the socialists scored a big double victory. They achieved the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enabling the passage of the graduated income tax, which had been one of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. That same year saw the creation of a government central bank, the Federal Reserve System, which would ultimately lead to the demise and destruction of America’s gold standard. It too had been one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.

In 1917, the United States abandoned its noninterventionist heritage and entered into World War I, with the objective of finally and forever straightening out Europe’s endless conflicts. Thousands of American men were sacrificed in "the war to end all wars" and "the war to make the world safe for democracy."

America’s intervention into World War I, as acknowledged by nearly everyone then and now, was a colossal and destructive failure, not least because it contributed to the circumstances that ultimately gave rise to Adolf Hitler and Soviet communism.

But the upside was that the failure of World War I convinced most Americans to return to the original vision of their nation’s Founders: Devote your efforts to building the model free, peaceful, and prosperous society and don’t send your boys to die in foreign wars.


The Great Depression

During the 1920s, the Federal Reserve System continued the cranking of its printing presses, flooding the American economy with paper money, creating the false aura of economic prosperity that inflation always produces. It’s not a coincidence that the decade was called "the roaring ’20s."

As the decade was approaching its end, however, the monetary chickens were coming home to roost. People began going to their banks and demanding gold in exchange for their paper money, as they were entitled to do under the gold standard. In fact, that was the primary reason our Founders had made gold and silver coin the official medium of exchange — to protect people’s assets from the threat of government inflationary confiscation.

In the late 1920s, realizing that they had overprinted paper money, Federal Reserve officials became frightened at the gold demands and began tightening up the money supply by withdrawing paper money from circulation. The problem is that they overdid it. They tightened up too much. The result of their financial manipulation was the famous stock-market crash in 1929, which led to the Great Depression.

Given the tremendous suffering that took place in the 1930s, including suicides, U.S. officials felt that they had no choice but to lie to the American people about the real cause of the Great Depression. If the American people had learned that the federal government had caused the crisis, the potential for violence, even revolution, was too great.

So the official explanation became: "America’s free enterprise system has failed [as Marx had predicted] and government regulation is needed to save free enterprise." The lie was so effective that even today there are many Americans who believe it.

Franklin Roosevelt assumed the presidency in 1933. It is impossible to overstate the significance of his New Deal for America because, while there had been movement in a socialist economic direction prior to his presidency, FDR made the famous Marxian principle "From each according to ability, to each according to need" the official economic doctrine of the United States, under the false notion, of course, of "saving America’s free-enterprise system."

During the New Deal, for the first time in the history of our nation the primary purpose of government became taking money from a person who owned it (primarily through the income tax) and giving it to a person who the government felt needed it more (through various welfare programs). Its most famous manifestation, of course, was Social Security, a socialist program that had originated in Germany in the late 1800s.

But that was just one of a host of socialist programs that FDR and his Congress enacted. There were also farm subsidies, welfare for the poor, public housing, debt-relief acts, bank-deposit insurance, and many, many more. To paraphrase Frédéric Bastiat, the 19th-century free-market advocate, FDR converted the U.S. government into a fiction by which one group of people could live at the expense of another group.

That wasn’t all. There were also massive regulatory programs, such as the National Industrial Recovery Act, which called for the cartelization of American business, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Under the NIRA, each industry was directed to organize into cartels, with the power to set prices, wages, output, and other conditions for operating and producing. No business was permitted to opt out. Everyone was expected, out of a patriotic fervor, to prominently display his "Blue Eagle" in his store to signify his full support of the president’s program. Most businessmen were too scared to resist FDR and the federal government. Meanwhile, the SEC was supposed to protect Americans from stock-market crashes and fraudulent stock manipulators.

But there was at least one big problem with the whole mess: Not only did it fly in the face of 150 years of the American heritage of economic liberty and free enterprise, FDR’s New Deal was quite similar in principle to what was going on in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy in the 1930s, as the leaders of those nations were doing their best to pull their countries out of their own economic crisis.

What Americans have never been taught in their public schools is that during the early and mid 1930s, the German chancellor, Adolf Hitler, was both admired and respected by Western political leaders. Why? Because of how he supposedly pulled Germany out of the Depression with the same types of economic policies that Western leaders were using: massive government spending; government programs to help the needy, such as Social Security and national health care; government-business partnerships; cartels; government regulation of business; and extremely large amounts of military spending.

Do you notice any similarities between Hitler’s economic policies and those of Roosevelt? Here’s how John Toland puts it in his biography Adolf Hitler:

"Hitler had genuine admiration for the decisive manner in which the President had taken over the reins of government. ‘I have sympathy for Mr. Roosevelt,’ he told a correspondent for the New York Times two months later, ‘because he marches straight toward his objectives over Congress, lobbies and bureaucracy.’ Hitler went on to note that he was the sole leader in Europe who expressed ‘understanding of the methods and motives of President Roosevelt.’"

In turn, Winston Churchill, in his 1937 book Great Contemporaries, expressed his "admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force, which enabled [Hitler] to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome all the authorities or resistances which barred his path."

There were two big obstacles, however, that Roosevelt faced that Hitler did not have to face, much to FDR’s chagrin: (1) the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; and (2) the U.S. Supreme Court, specifically four justices: George Sutherland, Willis Van Devanter, James McReynolds, and Pierce Butler - who have gone down in Supreme Court history as the "Four Horsemen."

In the midst of the greatest economic crisis this nation had ever seen, a crisis that had been produced by the executive branch of the U.S. government, the "Four Horsemen," along with a fifth justice named Owen J. Roberts, were the only force standing between America’s long heritage of economic liberty and a free-enterprise, capitalist system and the triumph of socialism, collectivism, and statism in America.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

http://www.fff.org/

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 05:06 PM
Hey, It's a free country HighSea. Freedom of speach. Ever heard of it?

FYI, I spent every single weekend of my life from the time I was nine years old, until I got married, entertaining the USO up and down the east coast. In fact, FYI, I was schedualed to go to Germany with Bob Hope's tour right before Jim and I decided to get married. You would probably have to look around a good bit to find anyone who has invested as much personal time and effort as I have over the years supporting our troops.

Why don't you just tell the truth, that there was a post in which the discussion was about war atrocities. And I relayed a story about one atrocity which was related to me by one of our best and oldest friends. Now I was married then, during Nam, and had a bunch of friends who served in VietNam, who came home and told of atrocities which happened there. I am quite sure that I am not the only one here who heard such stories. And when you heard them, you sure knew they were the truth, because usually, those boys were in tears when they told them.

Obviously, when you don't like the truth, you explode over it, because you followed up by sending me a PM, threatening me that you were going to turn me into to some authority, that my friend had witnessed murder, that I should do the "Right" thing. Good God man, there were free fire zones in Nam, ever heard of those? Kill anything that moves. I don't even know who shot the woman, but the bottem line was, that you didn't like the story I told, and sent me not one, but two threatening [private messages. So get off your high horse and tell it like it is. I hadn't ever intended to tell anyone what you did, but you have a lot of nerve to get on here and accuse me of being irrational after what you did.



I don't like George Bush. I don't like his administration, or anything that they are doing. If you don't like what I write, nobody is forcing you to read it. Grow Up!

Chopstick
01-26-2005, 05:59 PM
Hi gl. Welcome to the party. This is a very interesting post. It deserves it's own thread. I can see many different lines of discussion coming from it.

wolfdancer
01-26-2005, 06:10 PM
" To back up my fellows that know the score and in an effort to convert some lefties to the truth we were all denied in the self interested public schools, I post a a real scholars take on the matter."

I'm sure after reading this edjukational post, most liberals will rethink their beliefs. It's not often that a real scholar takes the time to share reel good stuff like this. Up to now we ben, dependen on SF, to dig out the facts....an now he done got himself, a new batman.

Welcome to the CCB Political Think Tank!!!!

Say, isn't there some lunatic, radical, fringe group, message board...somewhere...that would appreciate,
this post? and in return, they would teach you the secret handshake,give you your own decoder ring, and a spiffy tie with which you could identify each other....

highsea
01-26-2005, 06:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>Why don't you just tell the truth, that there was a post in which the discussion was about war atrocities. And I relayed a story about one atrocity which was related to me by one of our best and oldest friends. &lt;snip self-righteous BS&gt; because you followed up by sending me a PM, threatening me that you were going to turn me into to some authority, that my friend had witnessed murder, that I should do the "Right" thing. &lt;snip self-righteous justification&gt; <hr /></blockquote>No Gayle, what you did was post a slanderous hearsay, and tried to disguise it as fact.

You're damn right it pissed me off. If the story you claim to have "personal knowledge" of is true, then by your own admission you are an accessory to murder by covering it up.

No amount of excuses you make can change that fact. I told you I wanted you to remove the slander, or I was willing to report it to the authorities, and you refused. That's when you showed your true stripes, as far as I'm concerned.

If what you posted is true, then it should be investigated, period. I believe you said your friend took part or witnessed US soldiers shoot an old woman and then rape her as she lay dying.

The truth is you can't back up a word of your absurd claims you made in the thread.

Incidentally, I did not threaten you in the PM. When someone claims to have knowledge of a crime, why shouldn't it be reported?

Funny that you go on the attack and drag up an incident from over a year ago when someone disagrees with you today.

Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
____________________________________________

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 07:08 PM
You are a piece of work for sure. The post is there in the archives for all to see. You have totally changed what I said in the post. The woman had been shot, and was raped as she lay dieing. I was never told how she was shot or by whom.
You may not like the fact that atrocities occurred in Nam. But they surely did. Not all soldiers are bad, but not all do the right thing either.

As I said, when you don't like a fact, you attack. The messages you sent to me were outrageous. You are surely naive if you think such things never occur in war.

As I said before, I am sure I am not the only one who sat with friends after that war and listened to the horrible stories.

My true stripes are...you aren't going to dictate to me what I can write about.

SnakebyteXX
01-26-2005, 07:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In the late 1920s, realizing that they had overprinted paper money, Federal Reserve officials became frightened at the gold demands and began tightening up the money supply by withdrawing paper money from circulation. The problem is that they overdid it. They tightened up too much. The result of their financial manipulation was the famous stock-market crash in 1929, which led to the Great Depression.

Given the tremendous suffering that took place in the 1930s, including suicides, U.S. officials felt that they had no choice but to lie to the American people about the real cause of the Great Depression. If the American people had learned that the federal government had caused the crisis, the potential for violence, even revolution, was too great.
<hr /></blockquote>

This is a pretty weak attempt at revisionist history. Perhaps you should do a little research on the massive amount of unrestricted margin stock buying that was going on at that time? Or the number of Americans that were heavily invested in the stock market on credit? Much like the time preceding the recent bursting of the tech stock bubble almost everyone had gotten involved in 'playing the market' to one degree or another. Many people were wiped out when stock prices plummetted and margin calls demanded that the piper be paid.

Those were pre-SEC days and there were few if any regulations in place to prevent stock investors from going so far out on a credit limb that when the time came for a major market correction they were totally unprepared and were completely wiped out.

This was also a time when bank accounts were not federally insured so when banks collapsed individual savings were not protected - they simply evaporated.

Snake

highsea
01-26-2005, 07:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> My true stripes are...you aren't going to dictate to me what I can write about. <hr /></blockquote>Lol. I could give a sh*t about what you write anymore, Gayle. They are nothing more than repetitive, rambling diatribes anyway. Why should I care? Every village has an idiot. If this forum software had an ignore button, I would have used it a year ago.

99.9% of the time I don't even open your posts. Only when they are in a thread that I am watching to I have to suffer through them.

I had no idea you would go off so when I corrected your misstatement about the CMC. I can't say it surprises me, it's pretty much in character for you. You should consider some professional help.

With that, I will leave you with the last word, since that's the only way to get you to shut up.
_________________________________________

glholzer
01-26-2005, 08:10 PM
Snake you're clueless. And I'd believe you as much as I would one of the Clintons.

It was the free wheeling Fed that had too low rates in the twenties that created the bubble to begin with, yes I agree there was wild speculation caused only by the Fed. Reread it please, or come up with more than supposition.

Today's economists are lightyears ahead of those who foolishly followed the power buying interventionism of Keynes, hence the Brits booted his tripe and he found an attentive ear in the FDR admin. The Brits, however pulled out of their recession while FDR's gross interventions made ours last the decade. With the exception of FDR's abilty to sooth the nation with his rhetoric during those devastating times, he single handedly made us nation so much poorer than we otherwise would have been without his tripling the overhead of our Govt on the people's backs.

Arthur Laffer and his Laffer curve has been proven, not just by RWR &amp; GWB, but by your own icon JFK.

Take a real history class pal.

glholzer
01-26-2005, 08:36 PM
A true mental giant????

Not one iota of logical civil repudiation. No wonder the left will NEVER get it. They have too much invested in their lunacy and too much peer pressure. I broke free of it at 30yrs old. BTW, weren't all the 60's nonconformists really conforming to socialism as I once was????

Todays fiscal conservatives and lovers of the Founder's original intent are the true nonconformists.

I was a longhaired 60's war protestor, joined the USCG for 4, and got myself a real edumicashun, from an UofF Econ 101 professor that explained guns and butter, elasticity and Laffer's curve to us. RWR was campaigning at the time and I'd refused to vote previously. Here was the first politician that made sense to me since JFK and by godfrey he did the same thing and gosh darn the economy zoomed ahead just like JFK's, thatv is before LBJ tanked it with huge doses of vote buying giveaways. Even though JFK's daddy Joe bribed the Chicago union/mob bosses to get out the miner's votes in W Virginny with buses and cash inducements, he none the less was economically saavy/honest about it way ahead of his party's time. Though the Dems knew all along socialist vote buying was the ticket to maintaining power, JFK actually thought economic success would be better for the nation. For all his other gaffs and recklessness, I love him for that alone. Not withstanding that as a sixth grader we/I cried fully half the day of his demise.

cheesemouse
01-26-2005, 09:21 PM
glholzer

[ QUOTE ]
Todays fiscal conservatives and lovers of the Founder's original intent are the true nonconformists<hr /></blockquote>

Your use of 'fiscal conservative' is just flat laughable. Were in the hell have you been? Just to bring you up to speed "There are no fiscal conservatives in the Republican party"....they past that torch to good ole Billy Boy.

How did you find this site anyway, I noticed you never have posted on the ccb about anything pool related. Most of us here are pool players who stumbled to this side of the board out of bordom...What is your story?

wolfdancer
01-26-2005, 09:46 PM
I think I got carried away with my reply to your initial post, and apologise for it. So it was old John Maynard, and FDR working in unision to bring about the great depression. The allowable 90% margins, the wild stock speculations on auto and radio companies, the oil boom, unregulated banks, etc...no?...And WWI was a mistake....and the Laffer curve...Reagan's trickle down economics....
was originally mentioned by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the mid 1700's "let them eat cake" (I had to look that up....)
I'm thinking that, by comparision, you are going to make SF
look more like one of his esteemed countrymen, Ernesto "Che" Guevara, then the right winger role he espouses.
I think I'll pass though on your future posts....good luck in "educating the liberal left" me....., I'll go rent "A Clockwork Orange" instead.
Do you think the Laffer curve can come up with the 80 billion?

cheesemouse
01-26-2005, 10:21 PM
wolfdancer,

Back in the 70's I had a hippy bar on the coast of Ore. Every few months this guy would show up who's whole trip in life was selling these books on all kinds of conspiracies plots. He was a good looking young guy and this was free love time in our bar. He couldn't be in the place for more than ten minutes before he would go off on some tangent. Most of my customers were stoned so they would say "WOW, MAN YOUR TRIPPING ME OUT!!!"

The hippy chicks would try and get in his shorts but he would blow it by opening his mouth. I kept telling him to just keep his mouth shut and he could get laid...LOL

I don't know where I'm going here but I think it has something to do with this glholzer dud..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

wolfdancer
01-26-2005, 10:36 PM
I'm slow, an old, an fried some brain cells myself, back then....but I think I get the picture......you don't think...?
nah, it would be too much of a coincidence. But, maybe a Google search for his old Bar owner...........

eg8r
01-27-2005, 05:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I dare say, HighSea, your <font color="red"> hatred </font color>of ME promotes every one of your responses to anything I post...I don't recall using the word "Statesman" nor have I ever stated a<font color="red"> hatred </font color>for Bush.
<hr /></blockquote> Did highsea ever state hatred for Gayle? Gayle, what would lead you to believe highsea has a hatred for you, when he has been much more diplomatic with you compared to how you have posted about Bush.

Nevermind, I understand, highsea is able to defend himself (very well indeed) so you refer to that as <font color="red">hate </font color> . He is able to trump your post with fact (the actual documents/letters instead of someone else's interpretation through a one-sided documentary). On the other hand, since Bush cannot defend himself we should not perceive your posts towards Bush as <font color="red"> hate </font color>. However, should Bush one day show up at our humble little site, and he does defend himself, would you say he hates you also?

eg8r &lt;~~~just having fun with the dirty word <font color="red"> hate</font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
01-27-2005, 05:08 AM
I didn't originally "go Off' on you, simply stated that I don't agree. I think I have a right to take Robert McNamarra's opinion about the letters, and the overall result of the decision of the President, over yours.

You wouldn't let it drop, as usual, since the lofty Hishsea MUST always be right. You can google your way into oblivion for all I care, but don't sit here now and try to deny what you did. "You either delete your post, or I'm going to turn you and your friend into the authorities" Where I come from, that's a threat. Who are you to threaten and dictate, what a person can write?

I guess you think that every soldier who witnesses a civilian being shot in a war is supposed to call for an investigation. You're off your rocker.

Please do just scroll on by my posts, you can't handle a woman who dares to disagree with you without making outrageous threats behind the scenes. And it wasn't over a year ago FYI, wasn't even a year ago, November 30, 04.

When it comes to "Hatespeak" Reference your last post. If you re-read these exchanges between us, you will see, that yours were fraught with personal attacks almost from the start, mine were not.

1666 Posts of your googlemania obsession with being "Right" to my measly 800 or so, I dare say I have more scrolling to do than you will.
Go call Perry Mason.