Pro Lifers for Healthcare Reform
- Thread starter dukeofbaja
- Start date
dukeofbaja
New Member
So I guess anyone who supports what you oppose is unholy? Man, your shit stinks
ViRedd
New Member
Not at all. Here's what happened: You sashay into the forum with the message that pro-lifers are for Obama's Marxist health care plan which will do nothing except further erode the citizen's economic and political liberty, using a George Soros funded organization to further your agenda. I called you out on your little scam, and you got pissed off.
And yes ... I believe that abortion on demand, government funded, is an unholy act, not unlike the immolation of 6 million Jews in the death camps throughout Eastern Europe under the terror movement of the Nazis. And by the way, if you want to see a MAJOR tax protest, just wait and see what happens if the health care plan passes with federal dollars supporting abortion in the bill.
Now, how does that grab your naive little ass?
dukeofbaja
New Member
You sound like a crotchety old man yelling at the world. And your fear mongering hyperbole is getting as old as you are. Not a single thought in that post had any substance. I am not pissed off, I rather enjoy posting shit that gets your panties in a bunch. Maybe it will spur that next heart attack to happen a little sooner.
Tyrannabudz
Well-Known Member
Vi Redd you sound like a sound bite for the Glenn Beck show. Stop allowing this left,right paradigm to manipulate your thinking. It is the job of these organizations to bring out those in the shadows who wish to cause harm or delay the process of the elite. They say things to make you angry, to make you feel like they are on your side. When really they are only helping to confuse you so you won't see the real picture. And that truth is that we have never been free and never will be as long as we allow this seperation of left and right to continue.
Read this book "Behold, A Pale Horse" by author and true humanitarian William Cooper.
Read this book "Behold, A Pale Horse" by author and true humanitarian William Cooper.
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
ChChoda
Well-Known Member
Gandhi and Guevara...I just don't get it?
You should read this book, or at least this synapses of this book...
Imperial Bedfellows
Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age
by Arthur Herman
Bantam. 681 pp. $30.00
Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age
by Arthur Herman
Bantam. 681 pp. $30.00
Arthur Herman is a prolific historian known principally for works on British history, most notably his remarkable How the Scots Invented the Modern World. In this new, massive tome he undertakes a dual biography of two of the most important figures of the 20th century, each of whom was a key personality in the struggle to preserve (or dismantle) the British empire.
There are many books on Gandhi and Churchill. But as far as I am aware, until now there has been no attempt to integrate the two mens histories. This is understandable. People who want books on Gandhi do not usually have a high opinion of Churchill, and vice-versa. Yet, as Herman shows, their lives were in many ways part of a larger fabric, an entire world that in terms of historical epochs has disappeared but recently. In order to tell his story, Herman stretches out a huge canvas on which he locates such disparate events as the 1857 mutiny in Cawnpore, the birth of Churchill at Blenheim palace, the suppression of the Mahdist revolt in the Sudan, the Boer war, Gallipoli, the complicated negotiations among various Indian nationalist movements and the British Raj, the Japanese capture of Britains East Asian empire, and, finally, the run-up to Indian independence. This is, in short, a detailed and richly filigreed account that introduces the Anglo-American reader to many facts and vivid if little-known personalities, both English and Indian.
_____________
It is now some 60 years since the Afro-Asian peoples acquired their independence from their European colonial masters. During the first decades of the process, the literature about it, often written by citizens of the metropolitan powers, was overwhelmingly anti-imperialist. But the emergence of so many failed states in Africa and South Asia could be ignored for only so long. The late historian Elie Kedourie, and the writers V.S. Naipaul and his late brother Shiva, all three of them ex-colonial subjects, were among the first to say out loud what many knowledgeable people had been privately thinking: namely, that the departure of European rule from the former colonial world had been a disaster, and principally for the formerly colonized peoples.
One could argue that India today forms a signal exception, especially given its recent economic indicators and its high-tech revolution. But the same is assuredly not true of the former Muslim areas of the Raj now known as Pakistan and Bangladesh. Moreover, as Hermans book shows, the India that today is emerging as a dynamic society and a positive factor in international relations bears no resemblance whatsoever to Gandhis own vision of a nation of primitive, self-sufficient villages. Conversely, all the horrors that attend the former Muslim areas confirm the rightness of Churchills imperial warnings.
Paradoxically, both men began from much the same ideological locusas loyalists of empire. The son of a wealthy Indian merchant, Gandhi arrived in London to study law, eventually becoming a barrister. Through an accident of family connections he started his professional practice in South Africa, where there was already a large and prosperous Indian community. Theoretically co-equal with other subjects of the empire, the Indians sided with the British in the Boer war. Gandhi even organized an ambulance corps of 1,100 volunteers, for which he and 37 others were awarded the War Medal. Apparently Gandhi was untroubled by racial distinctions as such; he merely believed that Indians were far superior to African blacksor Kaffirs as they were then calledand deserved the franchise (which they were denied when, after the war, the British achieved reconciliation with their Boer adversaries at their expense).
The South African experience was one vector of Gandhis intellectual development; the other was represented by his two periods of residence in London (1885-1888 and 1909-1910), during which he fell in with what George Orwell, a generation later, would characterize as sandal-wearers and fruit-juice drinkers. As Herman writes, since aristocratic London was resolutely cosmopolitan, materialistic, and self-consciously modern. . . .[its] opponents decided they would be esoteric, spiritual, and resolutely anti-modern. Their countercultural gods were Edwin Arnold, John Ruskin, Tolstoy, and Edward Carpenter: back-to-the-land primitivists and fantasists.
Gandhis particular genius was to see how to weave together the two opposing strands in a manner that would appeal to Anglicized upper-class Indians and illiterate villagers alike. By 1927 he had managed to bring together in his Congress party Hindu nationalists, Bengali nationalists, Sikh separatists, old-line loyalists, and cutting-edge socialists. He also had the good fortune to launch his movement at a moment when, thanks to the devastation of World War I, Europeans were losing faith in their own civilization. The environment in London, Paris, and Berlin was ripe for new ideologies and styles of life, and was fascinated by non-Western cultures.
Gandhi was introduced to a wide reading public through the Nobel laureate Romain Rolland, who produced an adoring biography of him in 1924. Even more important, he was the first third-world politician to understand how to exploit and manipulate the credulity of Western media. As early as 1912, when he left South Africa for good, he ceased to wear British clothes, and was often photographed with his spinning wheel. For most of his life his diet consisted of fruits, nuts, and goats milk, a token of the saintly image he sought to convey. His famous march to the sea to protest the Rajs salt tax was staged mainly for the benefit of newsreel cameras, which conveyed the images around the world.
To be sure, not everybody was impressed. Churchill, for one, regarded Gandhi as a fanatic and an ascetic of the fakir type well known in the Easta judgment not altogether true, but not altogether false, either.
_____________
Hermans portrait of Churchill will be far more familiar to most readers since the story has been told many times, most notably by Martin Gilbert in his monumental biography. The son of an aristocratic family connected with the dukes of Marlborough, Churchill had seen service in the British army in the Sudan and South Africa. His father, whom he idolized and who died prematurely of syphilis in 1895, had served as secretary of state for India, and had been the principal spokesman on Indian questions for the Conservative party in the House of Commons. After leaving the army and entering parliament on his own in 1900, Churchill took up his fathers interests, eventually becoming undersecretary of state at the India office, in which capacity he met Gandhi for the first and only time.
Churchills basic point of view in his imperial capacity was that India was an abstraction; without British rule, it was a heterogeneous continent made up of peoples who would otherwise be at each others throats. Herman is skeptical of Churchills prejudices and bugaboos, but tries manfully throughout this book to be fair to both of his protagonists. He summarizes the dilemma between them in these terms: What the Indians needed [in order] to be free, the British could not afford to give up. What the British were willing to give up the Indians did not want. The crux of the matter, he goes on to say, was the communal problemthat is, the need to reassure Indias multiple minorities that their rights would be respected in a democratic state dominated by a quarter-billion Hindus. This happy result did in fact finally occur in what is now India, but only after the shedding of enormous quantities of blood.
In some ways the careers of Gandhi and Churchill rose in inverse proportion to one another. Throughout the 1930s, the lingering wounds of the world war had made it impossible for the British to face the challenge of a rising Japan and an aggressive Nazi Germany. Then, in World War II, the struggle to defeat the Axis exacted so enormous a price that, by the end, Churchills vision of a worldwide empire appealed to almost nobody.
TheDemocrat
Active Member
LOL...Vi always grabbing that ass.
ViRedd
New Member
And behold above the compassion of the Left.
