Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-25-2011, 06:08 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 17,097
Default Another Example of me dealing with Euro-Liberals

on both the subject of the Second World War...AND the subject of Barack Obama

Pope Benedict gave a speech at The German Parliament today, he talked about the Rise of the Nazi party under Adolf Hitler and told them they had to recognise right from wrong ahahahahahahaha

Oh the irony ... as an ex-member of Hitler Youth, though, I suppose he should know? ... ;)

EVERY Male his age would have been a member of the Hitler Youth...you cant really blame a teenager for doing that. He would have had no choice regardless. If I was you I would be more concerned that 100 members of Todays German Parliament boycotted his speech...what are they?? Sympathetic to the Nazi Party or something???

Yep ... indeed ... would have been a brave, or foolish family (and there were some) not to have had their child in Hitler Youth. Bertolt Brecht's 'Fear and Misery of the Third Reich' is a really interesting and arresting contemporary docume...nt of the conditions in Germany in the few years just before the 2nd World War. Nobody could really deny the stranglehold Hitler's Nazis had on the country ... or his desire to wage war and build an empire. They certainly could never have been blind to the treatment of the Jews.

I guess it depends on the substance of his speech ... I suspect there are distinct echoes in the German economy of the conditions that helped Hitler's National Socialists' rise to power ... not sure they're entirely comfortable being reminded of that, particularly if it also ignores the Catholic Church's anti-semitic attitude during that time. I personally think the Pope is totally out of touch, both with the real world and the Catholic Church - he seems to want to take the church back 150 years.

Actually, they could have been blind to both. Hitler was a nationalist, but it wasnt until after the war that he started truely mistreating Jews...and this was because he put out a European Call for all ethnic Germans to return, and of cour...se...they all did, and they ended up noweher near Germany because of the sheer volume. This led to Hitler having to displace Jewish settlers, so these Ethnic Germans could have a home where he promised...before you know it...you have a population problem...and there is only a certain amount of shunting around of people before you have to somehow remove a few to fit those you want in. A teenager living in poverty in central Germany would not have that sort of insight. Hitlers Empire also is slightly different. Adolf made them a promise of prosperity. If you have lived in and a charismatic leader arises and promises you that all will be well, it gives you hope. Hope that perhaps your nation after the defeat of the first Great War, can be proud of itself again, and the fever is catching. Again, a Teenage boy is the right age to walk right into that with gusto. This is also where you get the division between Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Alot of people in the Nazi Party were NEVER happy about Hitler, and here is another thing. If Hitler had listened to them, he could have won, infact, he could have almost done what he did, and avoided war. Ludwig Beck, one of the best Post Modern Military Strategists, Head of the German Army, He was a Nazi that could have won the war for Adolf...but Hitler never listened to him, and when things got bad, Beck was driven to try and forceably replace Adolf. So I think its unfair to say that in a political sense, even card carrying Nazis were all alright with what was going on. Remember the party and some of its members were around before Hitler kinda took it over. I suspect the reason for the German Boycott was because a lot of the politicians are too young to remember the war, and did exactly what you did..."what does a Hitler Youth person have to say about the moral right and wrong" I think you are also correct about the European Union echos of the 1920s depression, is too close for comfort with germany, who wants again finds itself in a position of leadership in Europe. Certainly Benedict wants to rewind the clock on Rome, but he also is decidedly unenforcing. I mean...He was the head of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. He had the right and the power to exercise and make an example out of those peadophile priests...and the old Rome would have burned them at the stake...what did Benedict actually do?? Nothing at all. I think he DREAMS of turning the clock back...but I dont think he actually has the aggressive nature...he is far more passive-aggressive...and thats not what Old Rome was about. Rome was Imperial, it was not political. Its leaders didnt conspire...they dictated. Finally, Adolf wasnt a Socialist...he simply used the party to get him into power before turning on them. night of the long knives lol

That's almost entirely incorrect. Hitler's laws against the Jews started barely weeks after he took power in Germany, in 1933 many years before the war. His speeches prior to the National Socialist party's later successes contained direct c...riticism of the Jews involvement in society, while at the same time proposing an Empirical ambition. The concentration camps the Jews were systematically sent to were opened also in the early 1930s long before the war started also. Any kind of amnesia the German people might have had regarding Hitler's attitude towards the Jews is entirely self-imposed and selective. His anti-semitism was also clearly stated in 'Mein Kampf', and in his speeches from very early in his political career. So, no, they absolutely could not have been blind or deaf to Hitler's attitude to the Jews - nor could they have been blind as to what was happening to the Jews. That they chose to accept it is caused entirely by their own collective amnesia, and tacit acceptance of the oppression of the Jews. Hitler didn't necessarily want the 'Ethnic' Germans to return to Germany he wanted the places where the ethnic Germans lived to return to Germany, which is why he annexed lands bordering Germany to effectively 'liberate' the ethnic Germans back to their German Fatherland. It did not cause a population problem at all. Hitler wanted to build a German Empire modelled on the British Empire of Queen Victoria. His 'removal of the Jews had absolutely nothing to do with the re-patriation of ethnic Germans, but a lot more to do with his rampant hatred of the Jews at all levels in society.

There was no 'division between Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party' they were mutually dependant - the party was nothing without Hitler and Hitler would have been nothing without the party. Hitler's ambitions towards ultimate power were present from the early 1920s, fermented in the trenches and the treatment of Germany after the 1st World War. The idea that a lot of people 'disliked' Hitler in the Nazi party is also entirely without foundation. It was Hitler that was giving them their moment of *power*, and we both know that there is a significant truth in the Orwellian idea of the corrupting influence of power. Ludwig Beck was against Hitler taking over the army and wanted Chamberlain to attack Germany if it invaded Czechoslovakia, but instead Chamberlain ignored him. Hitler removed Beck from office and replaced him. Beck later became part of the conspiracy against Hitler, Beck was ordered to commit suicide but succeeded only in severely injuring himself, and a sergeant was ordered to finish him off. So, no, Beck was hardly a post-modern strategist, but rather a pragmatic realist whi understood the danger ofr allowing any army to be controlled by a politician with powerful ambitions and little military understanding. Hitler carried on true to his own type and merely replaced him with someone who would do what he was asked to do. To say he could have won the war for Hitler is an overstatement, as he was removed from his army position before the war even started.

Sorry but I don't think it is unfair to say that the great majority of the german people let alone those loyal card-carrying party members were happy to accept the excesses of Hitler and his Nazi party's treatment of the Jews. While they had power and were comfortable at the expenbse of the public and vicious oppression of the Jews from the earaly 1930s, they saw no need to object to what was happening. By the time they thought they ought to the violence was so clearly obvious that any objection they might have made would certainly be met by violence. They had naively sleep-walked into deliberate and violent state-sponsored anti-semitism on an industrial scale. Hitler didn't turn on his own party he ruled in the same way every dictator did, he made sure that everybody arround him wanted to please him alone; with the knowledge that if they didn't they would be removed without question. to that end he frequently ruled in a chaotic way by giving several people similar projects to do so that they would compete with each other for his 'favours' ... he ruled by divide and conquer, based on fear.

My intial comments in my first post were deliberately facetious - hence the 'smiley'. Benedict's hands are, however, somewhat 'bloodied' by his own inaction regarding abuse cases within the Catholic church. His actions in the Hitler Youth, I think, have nothing to do with his speech or politicians reactions to it. But rather the fact that taking a stand at the German parliament to talk about Hitler at a time when the world's economic conditions might end up being somewhat similar to the conditions that saw Hitler's rise to power, is perhaps a little too close. There is an almost unwritten rule within German politics that the 'H' word is not to be heard. Benedict does however appear to somewhat entirely miss the point of Hitler's rise, which was based on hatred, and naked ambition, and not on economic power. Hitler was never any kind of economist - he was a dictator and a rhetorician, who expected other people to impliment his ideas and desires, so that he would take the credit for their success and could blame somebody else for their failure.

Benedict might be a theological thinker, but he lives in the past, and seems unable accept the world as it is now - he would rather the Catholic church close the shutters, roll down the blinds and lock its theological doors to what's really going on in the world; rather than face up to real world problems and real debate within his own church.See More

Tell me something. Have you ever read Tony Blairs autobiography...? I think your views of Germany between 1920 and 1940 are rivisionistic. For example, your wrong about two things for certain. Hitler didnt remove seniors in the Army who dis...sagreed with him. So removal without question simply isnt true. Neither is your interpretation of night of the long knives. When the SA got so big it was a threat to Adolf himself, he turned against it....and you probably are confusing concentration and labour camps as one and the same thing. Perhaps we should move onto a less heated topic and ask what you think of the Palestinian plea to the United Nations for Statehood and our own countries silence regarding the answer. You cant assume that people living at the time of an event can forcast the future...unless you want to be held responsible for the spending spree of labour that led us into calamity when the banks got unsteady. You wrongly assume a lot of things about the average German...even at the time...You also probably havent witness, or dealt with Nationalism or The Right Wing in a way that would allow you to see that I imagine all the Hitler Youth children had a copy of Mein Kampf...and the vast majority probably never even read it. people who jump on bandwagons might be militant...but they are very rarely well informed...heck...half the liberals of today are militant about stupid things for the sheer sake of being liberal about something...anything...to give them a cause...thats why things like the gypsies at Dale Farm is such a big thing....OOOOO any excuse to break the humdrum mould and be a part of something. Life in this country and indeed in the western world is become so sterile that people are, frankly, bored enough to support a cause for the sake of feeling like they are doing something to make a difference....they dont engage brain...I mean the Campaign for Nuclear Dissarmament and the Stop the War cooilition are too of the biggest examples of this. Can you imagine what would happen if the Government actually did either overnight?? I dont think its a lack of education, coz I know right clever people involved with stupid campaigns...that would result in real danger to the population if they were ever to be successful...but anything for a cause....and THAT is exactly what happened with the last Ellection of the US President...an unqualified and unheard of minor statesman who was a powerful speaker, and played a powerful racial cause. We are in such hard times, we are desperate...and we arent anywhere near the level of poverty that the Great Depression brought. Im not saying all your facts are untrue...im just saying, being caught up in hype doesnt lead one to logical ends. Germany was blinded by furvour, and a hope in a dangerous promise. We oughta perhaps also talk about the Church of England if we are going to talk about blood on the hands of Clergy...
I dont believe Beck was removed from power, I think he resigned. IF you get removed from power, you dont get to hang around to think up ideas of a coup...and Ludwig Beck didnt want England to attack Germany...what he wanted was for Hitler t...o move slower, so that it was more acceptable, or the guise appeared more acceptable. THAT is military Stratergy...AS IS suggesting that when Hitler had pushed the British off the Continent...Adolf might think of invading England...Let me tell you...you dont need to be a military strategist to know that the biggest mistake of the war from the German view was not conqureing England when the doors were wide open. But to say that and present that is to be a Military Strategist and THAT is what Beck was...and its balls to say that Hitler and the Nazi party were absolutely synonmous...because when the Coup happened with Beck...he had no intention of dissolving the party. He simply wanted to wipe out Adolf...because far from giving them their moment of power...Adolf was in danger of blowing their big opportunity...and thats exactly what he did...and there were those in the party who knew that, and planned for Hitler only to reign as long as he was successful. They were plotting against him BEFORE the outbreak of the war...so its no where near as simple as you make out. there was always decension in the ranks...particularly from the military...and they were extremely well founded, as the outcome showed. Adolf Hitler was a disastor...and some in his party knew he had that tendancy from the mid 1930s.

Sorry, but Hitler absolutely did remove people from positions of power who disagreed with him or didn't act quickly enough, and he did it frequently, throughout his leadership. What better way to command unquestioning loyalty from others if... the perceived 'disloyal' person is removed quickly. It's the politics of fear. One of the methods he used was to just give authorities and powers to someone else without actually saying what he was doing, leaving the 'disloyal' one isolated, powerless and away from Hitler himself. Regarding Beck though: did he fall, or was he pushed ... it's a moot point really. It's almost certain that Hitler demanded his resignation as Hitler could no longer rely on his support. Beck was against the invasion of Czechoslovakia because he expected it to lead to direct conflict with France and Britain, at a time when Beck said the German army was not ready for an all-out war. Beck was concerned that if Hitler went too early, they'd lose before the empire had even got started. After the disagreement between Beck and Hitler, instead of giving him a lower ranking command post Hitler 'retired' Beck; so, yes, Hitler did get rid of him ... it was something Hitler was to carry on doing throughout his leadership. Or more accurately got other people to get rid of them, as a test of loyalty. He surrounded himself with people who would do what he said, and would not accept dissention - those who did not do his bidding were removed or effectively cut off. Beck still had many friends in the Army and probably would have been a person who it was known could be trusted not to go straight to Hitler on first hearing of any disagreement with their Leader. It's hardly surprising at all that he got involved in a conspiracy to get rid of hitler late on in the war. It think you're adding a modern ideological slant to the political situation in Germany in the early 1930s. Hitler ruled by the typical dictatorial concept of divide and conquer: if you can divide your loyal collleagues amongst themeselves and pitch them against each other on similar tasks set in such a way as to please Hitler himself. In an atmosphere of distrust and fear, any leader can remain for an awful long time, because the people around him will almost always close ranks as well as 'snitch' on anyone they perceive as not being totally loyal. The ultimate downfall was the disorganisation of the Nazis themselves, which is hardly surprising given Hitlers somewhat narcisistic tendencies and his own disorganisation. It looked great on the surface: all the flags and the military precision in the rallies, and the carefully stage-managed speeches, but under the surface it was a mess.

Before Hitler came along the Nazis were just another extreme party that was going nowhere, in it Hitler saw his chance, he began moulding the party after what he wanted, he encouraged the imagery that was necessary to elevate it from a nothing party in one election to winning in the next election. In reality though, it was all smoke and mirrors, style over substance, there was no really strong organisation underneath it, because the party was based entirely round Hitler's rhetorical vision. The Nazi party that gained power was different from the one that Hitler joined, because of the activities of Hitler himself. I suspect several people thought they could control Hitler once he got them in power, but Hitler's method of command demanded unquestioning loyalty, and once in power, the only way to get rid of him was by killing him. He was just like any of the petty dictators around the world before or since, they almost always die a violent death, and leave their country in ruins.

No, I'm not confusing concentration camps with work camps. They were deliberately modelled on those used by the British in the previous century. The killing of the Jews in camps started years before the war started. The mechanics of the industrial killing and the 'Final Solution' itself were decided later, but the activity of killing Jews started almost as soon as Hitler took Chancellorship in 1933, and carried on accelerating. It absolutely could not have gone un-noticed by anyone in Germany. The nation effectively remained in collective amnesia until long after the war. Even after the German translation of Primo Levi's 'If This is a Man' came out Germans still tried to justify their actions and their acceptance of Hitler. Levi would have none of it though. Most of the rest of Europe and the lands invaded by Germany also were aware of what Hitler's Germany and the Nazis were doing with the Jews. So I absolutely cannot accept any idea of any blindness to Hitlers anti-semitic activities that was anything other than entirely self-imposed blindness and amnesia.

I've got no intention of reading Blair's Autobiography ... life's too short, as they say ... ;D

I think it's poor that the West is pretty much ignoring the Palestinians' legitimate request for their own nation. Typical of Cameron though ...... he'll only say something once he's worked out what other world leaders say, until then he'll just spout inane and meaningless rhetoric, while pretending to be an Elder Statesman. The man's got 'not so much brains as ear-wax'.

I doubt having our own nuclear deterrent has done anything more than be a drain on public finances, which is why I think it's a totally hypocritical farce that Camron has agreed to replacing Trident. We have a powerful ally in the US, and they had nuclear weapons on British soil anyway. Our political 'enemies' were the same, it was just Thatcher's ego that saw it through, and the fact she had an unasailable majority. It's crass stupidity on the part of the current bunch of politicians that's allowed their replacement.

I take it you don't like Obama, then? ... ... I think Obama's a very shrewd, intelligent and thoughtful politician. It's well known that, in marked contrast to his predecessor, he reads all of the briefs given him, and asks searching questions before he makes decisions ... he's also very shrewd in choosing his leadership team. What's damaging his presidency is the overhwelmingly large right-wing press and media (just remind me who owns Fox News?) that do everything they can to rubbish everything that the democrats are trying to do. The economic problems the US are going through are entirely the fault of the previous president, who blew the budget wide open after Clinton had reduced the National debt to a manageable level. Apart from that: McCain would have been an appalling choice - I mean anyone who could choose Sarah Palin as a Vice Presidentreally doesn't know what's going on ... ;D
The US needed a change from Bush and the republicans, because he was such a poor president, and had effectively, single handedly, destroyed their chances of winning the presidency. They tried as many smear tactics as they could, but the Republicans still lost big time. What they did know though that their chance would come at the mid-term elections, and this is where the total stupidity of the US electoral system shows itself. Because now the Republicanshave control they can actually stall what the President wants to do, regardless of the damage it is doing to their country's economy. What can be said in support of an electoral system that allowed the appointment of the most powerful leader in the Western world on the votes of just seven people, the majority of whom were republican supporters, as happened with Bush Junior. My real worry is that the Obama doesn't make it to a second term of office, because who knows what damage a republican president and a Tory leader could do to their respective countries and the rest of the world ... ;)

President Barack Obama isnt really qualified to be President. He got ellected because he was a good orator and because of his skin colour. He has done nothing but talk and alienate even his own party since. His ideas are to pull out of Iraq... and afghanistan to early, thus in the latter, basically entering into negotiations with terrorists and risking civil war. Then we get to what distroyed his chances of a second ellection, an unconstitutional, and unpopular mandate on health reform, which included student loans...yes...how that has anything to do with health I dont know! even the democrats were not solidly behind him on that one. Then came the British Petroleom oil spill which was as much a fault of the American Station hosts as the British oil company. He ignored the spill for too long, and then double backed so quickly that he distoryed the livelihoods of those pensioners in England who had stakes in the company. Meanwhile, despite supposedly being pro-israel, instead of paying money to the gulf coast, he spent about 33milion in compensation to the islamists of the Turkey Flottilla who got stopped from delivering to the palastinians. That impressed noone, not Turkey, Not Israel, and not the American People. Then came the almost fatal Government shut down because he wasnt prepared to negotiate with the Republicans until the eleventh hour, then came the downgrade because, basically he hasnt the heart to impose on the American populas, the kind of austerity needed. Finally, last week he took to the United Nations to lecture European Members States about working together as a collection of communities, expecting applause for outlining what the United Nations stood for, and failing to understand that it was His countries actions in 2003 that ruined the United Nations through failing to work together with the rest of the world. The only way he becomes President again will be if the Republicans fail to get a good candidate. As for George Bush...he made some mistakes...the war in Iraq being the largest...but he was absolutely right to ignore the Republicans on an imediate withdrawal...once your in, your in...to reverse makes a second mistake. and he was right to ignore the Republicans about bailing out the banks...he saved the world economy from worse. I thought that McCain was alright...but probably weak...I wasnt inspired like I would have been if Condi Rice had run for the Presidency. I also aggree that the way the voting system in the US works is absolutely abstract...I have never know such a fuss and bother, be it mid terms...or the actual Presidential ellection...they vote for blah to vote blah for them, maybe, possibly...WTF LOL We are leaving the subject of Hitler coz I know too much about the German Angle, you know too much about the rivisionistic historical accounts, and the truth is somewhere in between them..I mean who ever heard of a dictator retiring a foe and not having them executed...I mean...really! LOL

Re. Beck: indeed ... who ever heard of it, nevertheless, that is actually what happened - it's not revisionist it's what happened. Beck was removed from office, either because he resigned or because he was ordered to resign, and Hitler actu...ally retired him instead of moving him to another post within the Army. He was made an example of ... it's entirely the right tactic to use for someone who wants to let people know who is in charge, and to deliberately give a signal that, 'you must agree with me or you're out'.

Yes Obama is an exceptionally good orator, but he is also fiercely intelligent - in marked contrast to his predecessor, who was entirely reliant on his advisors to tell him everything. Bush read virtually nothing that was placed in front of him, he always just asked what the 'important' points were, leaving him wide open to manipulation by others - he was the perfect foil for Cheyney and Rumsfeld.
Obama's been absolutely right to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq as early as possible. If there is a civil war they should be free to sort out their own country, without fear of overt (or as in the past [Reagan era] covert) interference in another regions politics. you seem to be suggesting that the Republican party wanted a swift withdrawal from the wars - they did not, because every President knows that the best way to get a second term is to find an enemy abroad. The Republicans have been playing the politicis fo fear for decades now - at least since Reagan, although more probably since Vietnam.

Enormous damage has been done to world-wide security by the Western democracies' (particularly the US) interference in the politics of countries all over the world and particularly in the North African and Middle Eastern areas. Osama Bin Laden was a leader in the Mujahedin against the Russians and was armed by the Americans. The Iran Contra scandal when the US was playing against Iran and funding Saddam's military, to the extent that Donald Rumsfeld was the key person who dealt arms with Saddam, and sold them the equipment and know-how to build chemical weapons - and the Thatcher government tried to cover up the sale of the Iraq Super-gun. The West's support of President Suharto in Indonesia against the East Timorese, including Thatcher's sale of Hawk Aircraft to them. The irritating support of Israel even when it is overtly engaged in atrocities, and the refusal to allow sanctions against Israel for the murder of thousands of innocent Palestinians. But then, I suppose the US has its own history of atrocities from Vietnam - My Lai, for example.
I think that Obama's intent on restoring the fortunes of the US on the world stage, by avoiding the terrible agression and mistakes of the past.
I think you'll find that Obama was kept well informed about the BP oil spill, and that the responsibility for the clean-up was taken entirely by BP, with the US government providing assistance as much as they could. Marked contrast to the inactivity of the Bush administration to New Orleans. I agree though that something should have been done about the US company that actually were responsible for the construction and maintenance of the pipeline and equipment on the sea-bed. However, there is still a detailed report to come out, and I'd expect criticisim to shift away from BP. It is BP that are providing compensation and clean-up costs, and I suspect you'll find there are still claims going through for compensation to both the US government and BP. It aint over, as they say, till the fat lady sings.
Obama's health-care reforms were intended for the benefit of the poorest in US society, and they came directly up against an overly powerful Republican machine. You're wrong about his refusal to negotiate with the Republicans when the reality was that the Republicans were deliberately holding the whole country to ransom by refusing to negotiate with the US President, because they knew they could hold the whole country to ransom, or force the President to impliment the measures by using his Presidential authority,which is something he did not want to do, preferring the more difficult course of attempting to negotiate through differences by compromise - the Republicans would not compromise though. The Republican negotiator did not even have the support of his own party in what he was doing. It was an excercise in political powermongering of the most cynical kind. Obama had no choice but to shut down administration, until agreement was made - to coin a phrase, 'there was no money left'.
The financial problems the US are in is almost entirely down to the previous Republican activities and policies. The Republican elite are very like the Tory Elite in this country, they are wealthy, powerful multi-millionaires who are not prepared to pay their share for the care of the poorest in society. Nor are they prepared to allow their own children to join the armed forces, but rather they want to increase the military to employ the cannon-fodder of the poorest. The blame for the downgrade should be placed entirely at the door of the wealthy Republicans whose millions are assured and unaffected by any downgrade.

I suspect we're unlikely to ever agree on most of this ... but I'm enjoying the debate ...

No Lindsey, A true example is to do what Stalin did to the Military when he took over. You dont allow them to resign and sit quietly. You execute them for treason preferably BEFORE they conspire to take your life. Now to America...bear in mind please I talk every single day to stanch Republicans AND Democrats...and that I was doing Military Stretegic Studies as a Module at University when America invaded Iraq...George Bush was probably a figure head for Donald and also for George Bush Senior. For if you have ever studied the administration you will know they were all involved in a pressure group during the Clinton administration known as The New America for The 21st Century. The Republicans had changed their mind by 2006 about the war in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq and they wanted out...infact George Bush used his Congressional Veto more then once I believe to ensure that the American Forces remained in Iraq...I think he realized that going in was a mistake, but I also think that as soon as 9/11 happened there was pressure from all around him to do it. I think he realized that to pull out within the first five years would have led to the sort of mess that the British Empire was outstanding at creating...he unconstitutionally went against his people AND his party to stay in Iraq. I recognise that he was trying to avoid a secondary mistake. I think the weapons of mass destruction was never truely an issue...but I DO think preventing Iran from taking a weak Iraq to ensure the oil fields was more of a probable cause...and yes I do believe the British Government murdered that Scientist who tried to leak it to the press. President Obama has no choice because he is out of money and out of time. and The United States is certainly not the biggest meddler the world has ever seen. The US has only been the super power for the last thirty years...we were a super power for the best part of three centuries! Whats more, Obama knows that the Chinese are coming! He was not quick enough in responding to the BP oil spill...perhaps because he actually spent too long thinking about his response. Now for the health reform bill...Try to understand that unlike England, the United States has a Constitution that tells its Government what it may and may not do. Strictly speaking the Federal Government is allowed to do nothing more then Transport and Union Defence...did you know that?? They are not supposed to be imposing wide scale acts of parliment onto a group of Soverignties...Taken litterally, the Constitution would set the European Government with more legal entitlements then the US Government. So to be frank...it is none of the Presidents Business...it is down to individual States to sort out stuff with their own poor...and they do have a system of clinics nationwide which deal with the poorest NOT unlike the NHS. But Barack Obama wanted everyone...even the rich, to take out Medical Insurance EVEN IF THEY DONT NEED IT...and you couldnt individualize it, so if you were single, you would have to get the same sort of insurance as an entire bloody family. THATS the problem that most of the Republicans had. The fact is the US President is WAY over his Jurisdiction.. with The Jobs Act he even admitted it was totally unconstitutional. YOU may not have a problem with that because YOU live in a Centrist Left environment...but if you were American and cared about your Constitution, you would have a right to be VERY upset. I dont want America to change, I dont want America to be Centrist...America reminds me of what WE were...in essence they are a snapshot of US right before we started our decline...if you were to go back to Elizabeth I you would see the England was just as Right Wing....it is us that has changed not America...we dont have the right to cheer a Liberal into pushing the entire Country to the Left so that we can be more at peace with the way they are. In America, they still care about their Nation, about their Flag, about their National Identity, and the Sacred still exists...in England we dont care. We have basically, and most tragically betrayed our Beautiful and Glorious past for nothing but a subsection of a multicultural Europe that leaves us with nothing sacred, and nothing to identify us as English...you cant even tick a box for English on the diveristy Questionnaire anymore...but then possibly you hadnt noticed that...The Republicans have every right to push their agenda, the only reason you dont like it is because you dissagree with Republicanism alltogether by the sounds of it LOL...if the tables were turned and the Democrats could...oh wait..that happened in the latter tern of George Bush didnt it when he lost control of both Senate AND congress...we are selective with what we are presenting...which is close to Revisionistic isnt it...not that I would ever accuse you of deliberately being missleading...but only presenting one side of the story isnt the full truth. Finally, your stereotype of Republicans only really fits to the Jewish Remenant, and the politician...most of the Republicans I know are not any more wealthy then me...and I happen to be one of the poorest in this country, I live alone, trying to hold down an independant flat, on a low wage, with little to no, and gradually decline help from benefits...course...if I just stopped working, and slept around, I would be rewarded with all the State Benefits I need. Is there any wonder that some of us are a little less "thoughtful" about the state of the country, and a little more angry instead. I suspect you see me as nigh on Nationalistic...and to a large extent I have only ever come to these sorts of feelings because I happen to be one of those people who has too many morals to be classed as poor enough to win benefits, but not rich enough to litterally survive...most of the Liberals in this country are married, and possibly have children...oooo get them with their child benefits and two sets of incomes LOL. I am enjoying this discussion also...but I cant hold back on my sentements LOL
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.