McCain is a refreshing blast from the past.. . . .
- Thread starter blazin waffles
- Start date
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
So Hitler = Bush?
a lot of the shit on there sounded like Good ole George W.
I g2g. I'll be back on in a little to play!
~~TLB
ccodiane
New Member
So America=Nazi Germany?So Hitler = Bush?
a lot of the shit on there sounded like Good ole George W.
I g2g. I'll be back on in a little to play!
You should be in hog heaven.
Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini
In 1940, al-Husseini requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right:
- ... to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy.
Islam Nazi connection........
ccodiane
New Member
Excerpt-http://palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php
Haj Amin al-Husseini eventually died in exile in 1974. He never returned to Jerusalem after his 1937 departure. His place as leader of the radical, nationalist Palestinian Arabs was taken by his nephew Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini, better known as Yasser Arafat. In August 2002, Arafat gave an interview in which he referred to "our hero al-Husseini" as a symbol of Palestinian Arab resistance.
Haj Amin al-Husseini eventually died in exile in 1974. He never returned to Jerusalem after his 1937 departure. His place as leader of the radical, nationalist Palestinian Arabs was taken by his nephew Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini, better known as Yasser Arafat. In August 2002, Arafat gave an interview in which he referred to "our hero al-Husseini" as a symbol of Palestinian Arab resistance.
blazin waffles
Well-Known Member
ALLLAlALallALALa! LOLWork those sales son. Allah willing, of course.
Thats creepy!
Radical Arabs probably are jew hating bomb toters.
~~TLB
GarryFroker
New Member
It cracks me up when people do the same thing they accuse others of doing. Kind makes me feel like everything is "ok".
GarryFroker
New Member
Never. Every politico is corrupted to varying degrees......yes, even Ron Paul.
ViRedd
New Member
1. The only way to end a so-called unequal status of any type through government force, is to create a class system, then give special privileges to one group at the expense of other groups. We see this with the "affirmative action" laws. A more qualified person from the "White Group" is passed over for a job in favor of a person from the "Brown Group" or the "Black Group" in the name of "fairness." As a result, the member of the "White Group" has his/her rights violated. Government should not be in the anointing of rights business at the expense or sacrifice of the rights of another. The most negative aspect of these types of laws is that a central planning oversight committee (the government) is substitutited for free, voluntary exchange of human action. The result is the destruction of liberty.
2. First, we do not have a democracy. There is no mention of the word "democracy" in any of our founding documents. We have a representative republic where the power (should) resides in the states and not in a central federal government. Second, property ownership is the basic foundation of liberty. Without property rights, it would be impossible for other rights to exist. Our rights do not come from government. As human beings, we are endowed with certain rights by our Creator, not government bureaucrats. There is no such thing as to much ownership in a free society. If we were to "end the private ownership of wealth," who would own the wealth? The answer is, of course, the government. When government owns the wealth, then there is an elite ruling class of people at the top that determines how that wealth is to be doled out. Everywhere this has been tried before, the common man lives in abject poverty and has to deal with chronic shortages of the basic staples that maintain life. There is no one person, no one panel or one bureaucracy that can plan for an entire nation. The best "planner" for society, as Adam Smith said, is the Invisible Hand of the free market.
"A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness."
At whose expense?
Vi
PS: And, instead of categorizing communism as being on the left, and fascism on the right, a more accurate term would be just plain old socialism. Both end up at the same place; state control of private assets including ownership of one's very own being. Slavery is slavery no matter how you slice it. The Communists and the Nazis were not on opposite poles ... they were two rival gangs fighting over the same territory. The same is true today.
ccodiane
New Member
Capitalism, the Free Market, and the Duties of Property and Contract
The starting point for an evaluation of capitalism must be the principle that poverty is not an injustice: it is no more than the natural condition of humanity [2]. There are therefore no "causes of poverty," only causes of wealth. This means that there is no such thing as "social justice" -- poverty in the presence of wealth is not as such a wrong. Only theft, taking by fraud or force, is a wrong. Property and contract, commerce and industry are what alter the natural condition of humanity thanks to the enterprise and imagination -- the hortative virtues of prudence -- of those who create the products of technological society and hire the people to manufacture them. Wealth is not found, it is created [3]. It is not justice to "distribute" wealth that must be coercively taken from its creators in order to be given to those who have not created it. That is theft. And doing that, sacrificing freedom in order to create "equality," never accomplishes that end, since it is the distributors themselves, given power over people's freedom, who become "more equal than others."
The starting point for an evaluation of capitalism must be the principle that poverty is not an injustice: it is no more than the natural condition of humanity [2]. There are therefore no "causes of poverty," only causes of wealth. This means that there is no such thing as "social justice" -- poverty in the presence of wealth is not as such a wrong. Only theft, taking by fraud or force, is a wrong. Property and contract, commerce and industry are what alter the natural condition of humanity thanks to the enterprise and imagination -- the hortative virtues of prudence -- of those who create the products of technological society and hire the people to manufacture them. Wealth is not found, it is created [3]. It is not justice to "distribute" wealth that must be coercively taken from its creators in order to be given to those who have not created it. That is theft. And doing that, sacrificing freedom in order to create "equality," never accomplishes that end, since it is the distributors themselves, given power over people's freedom, who become "more equal than others."
ccodiane
New Member
Capitalism, the Free Market, and the Duties of Property and Contract
The great traditional alternative to capitalistic political economy has been socialism (or communism), where persons are expected to work for the interests of others, either directly or by proxy of the state, and not just for their own interests. As intentionally implemented in communist states, socialist rules of political economy failed by both criteria above: 1) the autonomy of persons was repeatedly violated by massive applications of murderous force and by large scale restrictions on innocent speech and activities, and 2) wealth was produced nowhere near to the extent promised or anticipated, production and development lagged far behind capitalistic countries, and much of the wealth that was produced became concentrated in the hands of the politically privileged, despite constant criticism of the disparities of wealth under capitalism. Without a marketplace, economic planners are expected to know what people want; but clearly they cannot know all, and even if they do find out some, they may well reject the wants as unworthy. And so many people's wants, and needs, will not be provided for. Since prices depend on demand, and demand cannot be calculated without a market, the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), a man with the distinction of having his papers stolen first by the Nazis and then by the Soviets, argued in 1920 that a socialist economy cannot calculate prices and so cannot calculate how much or how little to produce of anything. It is a sorry truth of history that it took another seventy years for that truth to be brought home by the practice, by the general pauperization, by the devastation of land and industry, and especially by the terror and murder of millions, in the Soviet Union and its satellites. Even on the verge of collapse, the Soviet Union still managed to deceive the credulous: The dean of the MIT school of business, Lester Thurow, said in 1989:
The great traditional alternative to capitalistic political economy has been socialism (or communism), where persons are expected to work for the interests of others, either directly or by proxy of the state, and not just for their own interests. As intentionally implemented in communist states, socialist rules of political economy failed by both criteria above: 1) the autonomy of persons was repeatedly violated by massive applications of murderous force and by large scale restrictions on innocent speech and activities, and 2) wealth was produced nowhere near to the extent promised or anticipated, production and development lagged far behind capitalistic countries, and much of the wealth that was produced became concentrated in the hands of the politically privileged, despite constant criticism of the disparities of wealth under capitalism. Without a marketplace, economic planners are expected to know what people want; but clearly they cannot know all, and even if they do find out some, they may well reject the wants as unworthy. And so many people's wants, and needs, will not be provided for. Since prices depend on demand, and demand cannot be calculated without a market, the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), a man with the distinction of having his papers stolen first by the Nazis and then by the Soviets, argued in 1920 that a socialist economy cannot calculate prices and so cannot calculate how much or how little to produce of anything. It is a sorry truth of history that it took another seventy years for that truth to be brought home by the practice, by the general pauperization, by the devastation of land and industry, and especially by the terror and murder of millions, in the Soviet Union and its satellites. Even on the verge of collapse, the Soviet Union still managed to deceive the credulous: The dean of the MIT school of business, Lester Thurow, said in 1989:
Can economic command significantly accelerate the growth process? The remarkable performance of the Soviet Union suggests it can. Today it is a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States. [Hoover Digest, 2000 No. 2, p.151]
This was bitter, ignorant nonsense at the time, especially considering that glasnost had made it possible for outsiders in the late 80's to inspect the Soviet Union as previous travelers had been unable to. Yet even today, after the full story is out, American politicians and academics still advocate price-fixing (in medical care and agriculture especially) and other command-economy forms of regulation, justifying them with outrageous Marxist clichés, as though nothing had ever happened to self-professedly "social" economies. Meanwhile, in 2003 Russia stood, according to The Economist, as only the 18th largest economy in the world, behind Taiwan (16) and even Argentina (17). The ranking of the Soviet Union as the 2nd largest economy in the world, as it was from the 50's to the 80's, is open to serious question. Its economy was never as large as even the CIA thought it was. omegafarmer
Well-Known Member
the usa is dead but doesnt seem to know it yet. mccain is great if you like spineless lying no mind morons like the present guy
tipsgnob
New Member
in that presidential forum McCain was supposed to be in a sound proof and not hear the questions being asked Obama....well as it turns out, he was actually in his motorcade on the way to the forum and heard the questions beforehand...that fat bastard/quirk preacher lied his ass off...he knew McCain wasn't in a sound proof room....