Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I also neglected to mention the Anti-Semitic actions of Democraps such as FDR when he sent back to Europe Jewish refugees from Nazis, aboard SS St Louis.
At least 250 of them died as a result.

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27373131

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousa
nds-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/

---

The St. Louis is a tragic story, but in 1939 FDR's administration could not have possibly foreseen or even imagined the scope of the mass exterminations that would take place years later. Eisenhower himself was on hand in 1945 when American troops stumbled upon Ohrdruf and Birkenau death camps and he couldn't believe or comprehend what he saw there.

I remember FDR and his Democrats as the Party that supported Churchill during England's darkest days when they alone stood against Hitler. The Republicans were isolationists. They argued against Lend/Lease and wanted no part of the fight against Germany.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

methinks you rememberfy incorrectly.
FDR campaigned very clearly as isolationist in 1940 election. That was why he needed to sacrifice Pearl Harbor and the Battleship Navy, to not violate his campaign promise.

Crystal Night had already occurred in November 1938, and was no big secret. The Times of London reported it the next day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

FDR campaigned very clearly as isolationist in 1940 election. That was why he needed to sacrifice Pearl Harbor and the Battleship Navy, to not violate his campaign promise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

A number of books were reviewed on the subject upon which JewelStaiteFan got everything backwards and upside down from what actually happened.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

FDR campaigned very clearly as isolationist in 1940 election. That was why he needed to sacrifice Pearl Harbor and the Battleship Navy, to not violate his campaign promise.

---

That's insane.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

A number of books were reviewed on the subject upon which JewelStaiteFan got everything backwards and upside down from what actually happened.

---

You're right. His FDR fantasies are nothing but demented lies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Supporting Nazis speaks volumes about the mentality of people on the far right.


SGG

---

Hey SGG.

I consider you one of the rational people on this board.

I would like you to REALLY read these two threads that are being heavily posted on and think for yourself here, rather than jumping on board the Wishy/Reaverfan hate train.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Six,

I will respond later today. I'm doing so holding the White Flag of Truce, but right now I have a major league headache.

Thanks


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I also neglected to mention the Anti-Semitic actions of Democraps such as FDR when he sent back to Europe Jewish refugees from Nazis, aboard SS St Louis.
At least 250 of them died as a result.

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27373131

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousa
nds-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/

---

The St. Louis is a tragic story, but in 1939 FDR's administration could not have possibly foreseen or even imagined the scope of the mass exterminations that would take place years later. Eisenhower himself was on hand in 1945 when American troops stumbled upon Ohrdruf and Birkenau death camps and he couldn't believe or comprehend what he saw there.

I remember FDR and his Democrats as the Party that supported Churchill during England's darkest days when they alone stood against Hitler. The Republicans were isolationists. They argued against Lend/Lease and wanted no part of the fight against Germany.

---

methinks you rememberfy incorrectly.
FDR campaigned very clearly as isolationist in 1940 election. That was why he needed to sacrifice Pearl Harbor and the Battleship Navy, to not violate his campaign promise.

Crystal Night had already occurred in November 1938, and was no big secret. The Times of London reported it the next day.

The Isolationist and Nonintervention policies codified in Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1939 were all passed with Democrap majorities in both houses of Congress, and Supermajorities in both houses from 1935 - 1938.

The darkhorse candidate Wilkie in 1940 for GOP did end up an Isolationist but Republicans considered that to be a negative in the race.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Six,

I will respond later today. I'm doing so holding the White Flag of Truce, but right now I have a major league headache.

Thanks


SGG

---

No worries. Take your time.

I should admit that my language has gotten a little "colorful" over the last few days. Let's just say that I'm feeling a little "triggered".

Wolf Blitzer isn't helping things.

---

Quote:

---

"He also recently has not demonstrated that he understands the character of this nation. He has not demonstrated that he understands what has made this nation great and what it is today."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Steve Bannon, Controversial Aide to Trump, Leaves White House Staff

https://www.wsj.com/articles/steve-bannon-leaves-white-house-staff-150
3075345

---

Geezus. Is anyone left? I think I'll just head on over and let myself in, check the fridge for leftovers, maybe grill some Trump steaks and catch some Netflix. Later, hang out with that Miller stooge, get drunk on Trump Scotch and punch his lights out and then pass out in the foyer. Hey - it's my house!

On a serious note... I keep thinking that presidents almost always seem to bend to the will of the people. No how many bad ideas Trump serves up or bad people he hires, the people let him know and eventually he capitulates.

Gorka freak and Miller putz next.

==============================

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Ok, before I answer, let me tell you:

I'm a die-hard Democrat.
I believe in democracy.
Born and raised in the good ol' USA.
My president was JFK (10 when they killed him)
Protested the Vietnam War
Believe in the Death Penalty (especially when it comes to kids and police killed in cold blood)
Yes, believe there are those that cheat the system (from the top to the bottom and back again)
Vets should get a house, health care for free, especially if they lost a limb
Free enterprise should be allowed to run it's course
College should not be for profit
Universal Health Care
I hate bullies
There's nothing wrong with a little cursing every now and then, helps relieve stress

I've been known to use "colorful" language myself. At times, it's to blow off steam, other times it's to make a point. I like to think of myself as a rational human being, but every once in a while I lose my shit.

Sometimes I like to fuck with people (habit of mine with my old friends) but we stay friends at the end. There are times when it's appropriate, and others when it's not. I try not to hold grudges when someone loses their shit, as long as it's done honestly. I think that guys tend to understand that more than women, I don't know why that is.

I despise when people try to insult my intelligence. If you call me out on a particular topic and you make a valid point, I will say so. If you lose your shit and curse me out, then later come back and say "I had a bug up my ass, let's start over." I respect that. We are all here because of the freedom within Firefly. Being ourselves and allowed to speak our minds without fear. Fuck!, everyone has the right to speak their minds and believe what they believe. Sometimes JSF will call me a Libtard (his favorite word), but I know that's his way of saying "you're wrong you asshole" and I'll call him a dickhead and we'll argue our points and views.

I have to admit, sometimes I get steamed, but when I think clearly and calmly, I'll say..."Hell with it, he's just speaking his mind. He's wrong! But he's speaking his mind." I may not respond for a few days, but, in the end, we all have the right to speak our minds. Me, I try not to insult you in the process, but shit happens. Bottom line, we all get angry and lose our shit. But I don't care for the insults and lack of respect for my beliefs and contributions. You could call me a dickhead, sure. I've even gotten use to being called a drunk (thanks Keeks and Sig), I just laugh it off and make some reference to something that comes to my mind in that instant. Helps me to cope with the idiocy of the moment.

But there are times when I respond and it's laser sharp on point. And times when I'm just letting off some steam. I will, at times, not get angry if you go tell me to go fuck myself, or go to hell, I know that is your way of letting off steam. But please know that I think for myself. If I see something that you, or anyone for that matter, makes sense to me...I will go along with it or comment on it in some way. But know this, it is my decision and mine alone. You know this to be true because many times we have agreed....well, maybe not many times, but a few.

So Six, speak your mind. So will I. If we agree, fine, if not, that's fine too.
Just be honest and we'll be cool.


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Six,

I will respond later today. I'm doing so holding the White Flag of Truce, but right now I have a major league headache.

Thanks


SGG

---

No worries. Take your time.

I should admit that my language has gotten a little "colorful" over the last few days. Let's just say that I'm feeling a little "triggered".

Wolf Blitzer isn't helping things.

---

---

Quote:

---

Ok, so can we generalize that to: It's bad if ANYONE drives a car into a group pf people, whether they are Nazis, radical jihadists, militant Hindus, or anyone else? If fact, can we make that an even MORE general statement, that killing or injuring anyone for a political cause is bad??? Yup, I think we can. - SIGNY

I am not sure I have seen your outrage over the doctors prescribing these psychotropic drugs to this guy or others. When these doctors are held responsible and thrown in prison for these deaths then we'll have started to make progress. - JSF

---

Quote:

---

Contrary to what we learn from progressives in education and the media, the history of the Democratic Party well into the twentieth century is a virtually uninterrupted history of thievery, corruption and bigotry. American history is the story of Democratic malefactors and Republican heroes. Yes, it’s true.

I begin with Andrew Jackson. He—not Thomas Jefferson or FDR—is the true founder of the modern Democratic Party. Progressives today are divided about Jackson. Some, like historian Sean Wilentz, admire him, while others want to remove him from the $20 bill because he was a slaveowner and a vicious Indian fighter. He was, in this view, a very bad American.

I support the debunking of Jackson, but not because he was a bad American—rather, because he was a typical crooked Democrat. Jackson established the Democratic Party as the party of theft. He mastered the art of stealing land from the Indians and then selling it at giveaway prices to white settlers. Jackson’s expectation was that those people would support him politically, as indeed they did. Jackson was indeed a “man of the people,” but his popularity was that of a gang leader who distributes his spoils in exchange for loyalty on the part of those who benefit from his crimes.

Jackson also figured out how to benefit personally from his land-stealing. Like Hillary Clinton, he started out broke and then became one of the richest people in the country. How? Jackson and his partners and cronies made early bids on Indian land, sometimes even before the Indians had been evacuated from that land. They acquired the land for little or nothing and later sold it for a handsome profit. Remarkably, the roots of the Clinton Foundation can be found in the land-stealing policies of America’s first Democratic president.

The Democrats were also the party of slavery, and the slave-owning mentality continues to shape the policies of Democratic leaders today. The point isn’t that the Democrats invented slavery which is an ancient institution that far predates America. Rather, Democrats like Senator John C. Calhoun invented a new justification for slavery, slavery as a “positive good.” For the first time in history, Democrats insisted that slavery wasn’t just beneficial for masters; they said it was also good for the slaves.

Today progressive pundits attempt to conceal Democratic complicity in slavery by blaming slavery on the “South.” These people have spun a whole history that portrays the slavery battle as one between the anti-slavery North and the pro-slavery South. This of course benefits Democrats today, because today the Democratic Party’s main strength is in the north and the Republican Party’s main strength is in the South.

But the slavery battle was not mainly a North-South issue. It was actually a battle between the pro-slavery Democrats and the anti-slavery Republicans. How can I make such an outrageous statement? Let’s begin by recalling that northern Democrats like Stephen Douglas protected slavery, while most southerners didn’t own slaves. (Three fourths of those who fought in the civil war on the confederate side had no slaves and weren’t fighting to protect slavery.)

Republicans, meanwhile, to one degree or another, all opposed slavery. The party itself was founded to stop slavery. Of course there were a range of views among Republicans, from abolitionists who sought immediately to end slavery to Republicans like Abraham Lincoln who recognized that this was both constitutionally and politically impossible and focused on arresting slavery’s extension into the new territories. This was the main platform on which Lincoln won the 1860 election.

The real clash was between the Democrats, north and south, who supported slavery and the Republicans across the country who opposed it. As Lincoln summarized it in his First Inaugural Address, one side believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, and the other believes it is wrong and ought to be restricted. “This,” Lincoln said, “is the only substantial dispute.” And this, ultimately, was what the Civil War was all about.

In the end, of course, Republicans ended slavery and permanently outlawed it through the Thirteenth Amendment. Democrats responded by opposing the Amendment and a group of them assassinated the man they held responsible for emancipation, Abraham Lincoln. Republicans passed the Fourteenth Amendment securing for blacks equal rights under the law, and the Fifteenth Amendment giving blacks the right to vote, over the Democrats’ opposition.

Confronted with these irrefutable facts, progressives act like the lawyer who is presented with the murder weapon belonging to his client. Darn, he says to himself, I better think fast. “Yes,” he now admits, “my client did murder the clerk and rob the store. But he didn’t kill all those other people who were also found dead at the scene.”

In other words, progressives who are forced to acknowledge the Democratic Party’s pro-slavery history promptly respond, “We admit to being the party of slavery, and we did uphold the institution for more than a century, but slavery ended in 1865, so all of this was such a long time ago. You can’t blame us now for the antebellum wrongs of the Democratic Party.”

Yes, but what about the postbellum crimes of the Democratic Party? From Democratic support for slavery, let’s turn to the party’s complicity in segregation and the Ku Klux Klan. Democrats in the 1880s invented segregation and Jim Crow laws that lasted through the 1960s. Democrats also came up with the “separate but equal” rationale that justified segregation and pretended that it was for the benefit of African Americans.

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 in Pulaski, Tennessee by a group of former confederate soldiers; its first grand wizard was a confederate general who was also a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. The Klan soon spread beyond the South to the Midwest and the West and became, in the words of historian Eric Foner, “the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.”

The main point of the Klan’s orgy of violence was to prevent blacks from voting—voting, that is, for Republicans. Leading Democrats including at least one president, two Supreme Court justices, and innumerable Senators and Congressmen were Klan members. The last one, Robert Byrd, died in 2010 and was eulogized by President Obama and former President Bill Clinton.

The sordid history of the Democratic Party in the early twentieth century is also married to the sordid history of the progressive movement during the same period. Progressives like Margaret Sanger—founder of Planned Parenthood and a role model for Hillary Clinton—supported such causes as eugenics and social Darwinism. While abortion was not an issue in Sanger’s day, she backed forced sterilization for “unfit” people, notably minorities. Sanger’s Negro Project was specifically focused on reducing the black population.

Progressives also led the campaign to stop poor immigrants from coming to this country. They championed laws in the 1920s that brought the massive flows of immigration to this country to a virtual halt. The motives of the progressives were openly racist and and in the way the immigration restrictions were framed, progressives succeeded in broadening the Democratic Party’s target list of minority groups.

While the Democratic Party previously singled out blacks and native Indians, progressives showed Democrats how to suppress all minorities. Included in the new list were Central and South American Hispanics as well as Eastern and Southern Europeans. Many of these people were clearly white but progressives did not consider white enough. Like blacks, they were considered “unfit” on the basis of their complexion.

During the 1920s, progressives developed a fascination with and admiration for Italian and German fascism, and the fascists, for their part, praised American progressives. These were likeminded people who spoke the same language, and progressives and fascists worked together to implement programs to sterilize so-called mental defectives and “unfit” people, resulting subsequently in tens of thousands of forced sterilizations in America and hundreds of thousands in Nazi Germany.

During the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent members of his brain trust to Europe to study fascist economic programs, which he considered more advanced that anything his New Deal had implemented to date. FDR was enamored with Mussolini, whom he called the “admirable Italian gentleman.” Some Democrats even had a soft spot for Hitler: young JFK went to Germany before World War II and praised Hitler as a “legend” and blamed hostility to the Nazis as jealousy resulting from how much the Nazis had accomplished.

Yes, I know. Very little of this is known by people today because progressives have done such a good job of sweeping it all under the rug. This material is simply left out of the textbooks even though it is right there in the historical record. Some progressive pundits know about it, but they don’t want to talk about it.

Indeed many progressives have been working hard to come up with lies that can be passed off as facts. Progressives have a whole cultural contingent—Hollywood, the mainline media, the elite universities, even professional comedians—to peddle their propaganda. From the television show Madame Secretary to the front page of the New York Times to nightly quips by Stephen Colbert, the progressive bilge comes at us continually and relentlessly.

In this bogus narrative, Republicans are the bad guys because Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. For progressive Democrats, the civil rights movement is the canonical event of American history. It is even more important than the American Revolution. Progressive reasoning is: we did this, so it must be the greatest thing that was ever done in America. Republicans opposed it, which makes them the bad guys.

The only problem is that Republicans were instrumental—actually indispensable—in getting the Civil Rights Laws passed. While Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the backing of some northern Democrats, Republicans voted in far higher percentages for the bill than Democrats did. This was also true of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Neither would have passed with just Democratic votes. Indeed, the main opposition to both bills came from Democrats.

Interestingly enough the GOP is not merely the party of minority rights but also of women’s rights. Republicans included women’s suffrage in the party’s platform as early as 1896. The first woman elected to Congress was Republican Jeanette Rankin in 1916. That year represented a major GOP push for suffrage, and after the GOP regained control of Congress, the Nineteenth Amendment granting women’s suffrage was finally approved in 1919 and ratified by the states the following year.

The inclusion of women in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was, oddly enough, the work of group of racist, chauvinist Democrats. Led by Democratic Congressman Howard Smith of Virginia, this group was looking to defeat the Civil Rights Act. Smith proposed to amend the legislation and add “sex” to “race” as a category protected against discrimination.

Smith’s Democratic buddies roared with laughter when he offered his one-word amendment. They thought it would make the whole civil rights thing so ridiculous that no sane person would go along with it. One scholar noted that Smith’s amendment “stimulated several hours of humorous debate” among racist, chauvinist Democrats. But to their amazement, the amended version of the bill passed. It bears repeating that Republicans provided the margin of victory that extended civil rights protection both to minorities and to women.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Six,
I will respond later today. I'm doing so holding the White Flag of Truce, but right now I have a major league headache.

Thanks
SGG

---

No worries. Take your time.

I should admit that my language has gotten a little "colorful" over the last few days. Let's just say that I'm feeling a little "triggered".

Wolf Blitzer isn't helping things.

---

Ok, before I answer, let me tell you:

I'm a die-hard Democrat.
I believe in democracy.
Born and raised in the good ol' USA.
My president was JFK (10 when they killed him)
Protested the Vietnam War
Believe in the Death Penalty (especially when it comes to kids and police killed in cold blood)
Yes, believe there are those that cheat the system (from the top to the bottom and back again)
Vets should get a house, health care for free, especially if they lost a limb
Free enterprise should be allowed to run it's course
College should not be for profit
Universal Health Care
I hate bullies
There's nothing wrong with a little cursing every now and then, helps relieve stress

I've been known to use "colorful" language myself. At times, it's to blow off steam, other times it's to make a point. I like to think of myself as a rational human being, but every once in a while I lose my shit.

Sometimes I like to fuck with people (habit of mine with my old friends) but we stay friends at the end. There are times when it's appropriate, and others when it's not. I try not to hold grudges when someone loses their shit, as long as it's done honestly. I think that guys tend to understand that more than women, I don't know why that is.

I despise when people try to insult my intelligence. If you call me out on a particular topic and you make a valid point, I will say so. If you lose your shit and curse me out, then later come back and say "I had a bug up my ass, let's start over." I respect that. We are all here because of the freedom within Firefly. Being ourselves and allowed to speak our minds without fear. Fuck!, everyone has the right to speak their minds and believe what they believe. Sometimes JSF will call me a Libtard (his favorite word), but I know that's his way of saying "you're wrong you asshole" and I'll call him a dickhead and we'll argue our points and views.

I have to admit, sometimes I get steamed, but when I think clearly and calmly, I'll say..."Hell with it, he's just speaking his mind. He's wrong! But he's speaking his mind." I may not respond for a few days, but, in the end, we all have the right to speak our minds. Me, I try not to insult you in the process, but shit happens. Bottom line, we all get angry and lose our shit. But I don't care for the insults and lack of respect for my beliefs and contributions. You could call me a dickhead, sure. I've even gotten use to being called a drunk (thanks Keeks and Sig), I just laugh it off and make some reference to something that comes to my mind in that instant. Helps me to cope with the idiocy of the moment.

But there are times when I respond and it's laser sharp on point. And times when I'm just letting off some steam. I will, at times, not get angry if you go tell me to go fuck myself, or go to hell, I know that is your way of letting off steam. But please know that I think for myself. If I see something that you, or anyone for that matter, makes sense to me...I will go along with it or comment on it in some way. But know this, it is my decision and mine alone. You know this to be true because many times we have agreed....well, maybe not many times, but a few.

So Six, speak your mind. So will I. If we agree, fine, if not, that's fine too.
Just be honest and we'll be cool.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Ok, so can we generalize that to: It's bad if ANYONE drives a car into a group pf people, whether they are Nazis, radical jihadists, militant Hindus, or anyone else? If fact, can we make that an even MORE general statement, that killing or injuring anyone for a political cause is bad??? Yup, I think we can. - SIGNY

I am not sure I have seen your outrage over the doctors prescribing these psychotropic drugs to this guy or others. When these doctors are held responsible and thrown in prison for these deaths then we'll have started to make progress. - JSF

---

Who? Does this have anything to do with Charlottesville and James Fields? Because I haven't seen any suggestion that he was on drugs, or given drugs, by a doctor; just a random quote from a high school teacher (a long time ago!) that he might be "schizophrenic".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I also neglected to mention the Anti-Semitic actions of Democraps such as FDR when he sent back to Europe Jewish refugees from Nazis, aboard SS St Louis.
At least 250 of them died as a result.

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27373131

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousa
nds-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/

---

The St. Louis is a tragic story, but in 1939 FDR's administration could not have possibly foreseen or even imagined the scope of the mass exterminations that would take place years later. Eisenhower himself was on hand in 1945 when American troops stumbled upon Ohrdruf and Birkenau death camps and he couldn't believe or comprehend what he saw there.

I remember FDR and his Democrats as the Party that supported Churchill during England's darkest days when they alone stood against Hitler. The Republicans were isolationists. They argued against Lend/Lease and wanted no part of the fight against Germany.

---

methinks you rememberfy incorrectly.
FDR campaigned very clearly as isolationist in 1940 election. That was why he needed to sacrifice Pearl Harbor and the Battleship Navy, to not violate his campaign promise.

Crystal Night had already occurred in November 1938, and was no big secret. The Times of London reported it the next day.

The Isolationist and Nonintervention policies codified in Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1939 were all passed with Democrap majorities in both houses of Congress, and Supermajorities in both houses from 1935 - 1938.

The darkhorse candidate Wilkie in 1940 for GOP did end up an Isolationist but Republicans considered that to be a negative in the race.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I also neglected to mention the Anti-Semitic actions of Democraps such as FDR when he sent back to Europe Jewish refugees from Nazis, aboard SS St Louis.
At least 250 of them died as a result.

---

The St. Louis is a tragic story, but in 1939 FDR's administration could not have possibly foreseen or even imagined the scope of the mass exterminations that would take place years later. Eisenhower himself was on hand in 1945 when American troops stumbled upon Ohrdruf and Birkenau death camps and he couldn't believe or comprehend what he saw there.

I remember FDR and his Democrats as the Party that supported Churchill during England's darkest days when they alone stood against Hitler. The Republicans were isolationists. They argued against Lend/Lease and wanted no part of the fight against Germany.

---

methinks you rememberfy incorrectly.
FDR campaigned very clearly as isolationist in 1940 election. That was why he needed to sacrifice Pearl Harbor and the Battleship Navy, to not violate his campaign promise.

Crystal Night had already occurred in November 1938, and was no big secret. The Times of London reported it the next day.

The Isolationist and Nonintervention policies codified in Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1939 were all passed with Democrap majorities in both houses of Congress, and Supermajorities in both houses from 1935 - 1938.

The darkhorse candidate Wilkie in 1940 for GOP did end up an Isolationist but Republicans considered that to be a negative in the race.

---

Here are a couple of thoughts:

1- Why is what FDR did or didn't do so important as to what is going on today?
2- Speaking of Isolationists; isn't that exactly what Trump wants to do now?
Isn't it part of the of the MAGA movement and how Trump was "elected" president - because of what he promised - also; isn't that what your comrades are against - Globalization? Wasn't it Trump who famously declared,
"I'm the president of Pittsburgh, not Paris."

Just wondering!

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Libtards are as Libtards do.
The term only applies to those intentionally blinding themselves to truth, fact, reason.

---

Quote:

---

If you quit the siphoning straw supplying your MSM Fake News,

---

Quote:

---

you might hear that more progress is being made in the Middle East by military forces than in the past 8 years.

---

Quote:

---

Do you really believe there is no difference between the intermingling and corruption of Free Market, Enterprise - and the defense of liberty, freedom, and democratic Republics?

---

Quote:

---

If you quit the siphoning straw supplying your MSM Fake News, you might hear that more progress is being made in the Middle East by military forces than in the past 8 years.

---

Quote:

---

FDR's Isolationist practices would have done the opposite, just like Bobo, Slick Willie, and Jiminy Cotta.

---

Quote:

---

And the point of The Big Lie that Nazis are copies of some group OTHER than Democraps is this thread topic.

---

Quote:

---

Do you really believe there is no difference between the intermingling and corruption of Free Market, Enterprise - and the defense of liberty, freedom, and democratic Republics?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I did a search on fields+drugs and fields+psychotropic and didn't find anything, so if you can post links it would be much appreciated.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hey, all you liberals, I think you're missing the point.

Why did we destroy Afghanistan? Partly it was because they refused to turn over their guest (ObL) to the USA - although they WOULD have turned him over to the ICC, that wasn't good enough for us. Plus, the Taliban was in charge, and they treated females worse than donkeys. We needed to do something about that. When we were done, Afgahnistan was in far worse shape than when we started, and not only was the Taliban still in control of much of the countryside, ISIS reared its ugly head.


Why did we destroy Iraq? Well, "Saddam had WMD" and posed a major security risk to ... the USA, I guess ... Plus yanno he was a terrible dictator. So it was worth killing somewhere between 200,000- 1,000,000 civilians and leaving the nation partially occupied by ISIS and riven with ethnic hatred just to depose a dictator and get rid of phantom WMD.

Why did we destroy Libya? Well, Qaddafi was a terrible dictator, and despite the fact that the standard of living in Libya was VASTLY superior to any other nation in Africa, Qaddafi had to "massacre his own people" in order to stay in power, which somehow required not only a NATO no-fly zone but eventual bombing of the entire civilian space and arming radicalized jihadists to topple the leader. But we managed to take down Qaddafi and the price was only about 10,000 dead, a nation crawling with jihadist terrorists, and a catastrophic drop in living standards.

Why did we get involved in Ukraine? Well, despite having been elected into power, Yanukovich was a terrible corrupt oligarch - even more terrible and corrupt than the other terrible corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs - and despite the fact that early elections were offered to the protesters, even that wasn't enough for the State-Department and its NGOs and its team of merrie provovateurs, and they took down a democratically elected government and installed their appointed leaders, and now there are 11,000 dead civilians and the country is riven in three.

And what about Assad? Well, he was a terrible anti-democratic dictator, plus he "gassed how own people" (not) and so that justified our funding, training, and arming an assorted crew of old-guard al Qaeda terrorists, new-guard ISIS terrorists from Chechnya to Morocco, an almost invisible minority of pro-democracy forces (all 100 of them), and Kurdish separatists, as well as allowing Israel the random missile-strike into the Golan heights so they can keep their (Syrian) water source. So now there are 300,000+ dead Syrians, millions displaced and cities destroyed.

******

You might ask what the point of this diatribe is.

The point is that LIBERALS are just as likely to kill and destroy as CONSERVATIVES. All you have to do is give them a gooey-sounding cause .... "freedom", "democracy", "human rights" .... and they will unthinkingly trample over a million bodies to pursue their just cause.

*******

Once you have a group of people with an ideology, they stop seeing others as people, and start seeing them in dehumanized form. "Those people" are not longer real people, they're blacks or whites; Democrats or Republicans; or Hutus or Tutsis; Sunnis or Shias; men or women. Once you have dehumanized someone in your mind, it is extremely easy to apply extreme measures to them Off-the-charts partisan Democrats do that, as well as off-the-chart partisan Republicans. So did the Nazis, the Communists, the Maoists, the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot.

SO.

After watching violence being used to promote so many "good causes", I've come to the conclusion, that the only LEGITIMATE use of violence is actual honest self-defense or defense of others. And no, I don't mean "the best defense is a good offense" kind of defense, or a That person might harm somebody some day" defense, I mean defense against immediate physical harm.

If you don't want to slip off into Nazi-land by promoting "eradication (extermination of a hated group) by any means possible" then limit your violence to self-defense, and use other options (the law, negotiation, discussion) to solve your problems instead.







-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

---

Quote:

---

I can be an asshole too, and you all know about my drunk history here. (Almost 8 months without a drop all on my own).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

I try not to look at things as BLACK & WHITE so much, because I know things are much closer to GRAY than anything else.

I made a general statement and that was wrong, because it's not all "black and white"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Six, to continue this conversation:

Before I say another word: Congrats Six on your staying sober. I have friends and family in that very situation, so I know it's not easy. Good luck to you.

---

Thanks man. I'm still not working an actual job yet, but I've been getting some stuff done that I've put off for years. I've also gotten pretty deep into some hobbies that I had lost interest in when I was drinking. I haven't started working out again yet, but I've been eating better and not consuming 2,500 empty beer calories at a time 3 to 4 times a week, so I've lost around 30 lbs since Christmas time and I'm looking and feeling a lot better.

The best part though is that I feel like I'm part of my family again. I've been doing a lot to help my parents who are selling their house and business and moving south, and I've been spending a lot more time with my niece than I ever had.

It's been good. I really don't think about drinking all that much anymore... I mean the urge to go right down the street and buy some. I know that part of it is that I have supplemented my life with other things though. Drinking a lot of coffee now and some of my projects are pretty OCD stuff that other people would think was crazy and extremely boring. I'm formulating a plan to make some money with the work now though. I'll never get rich off of it or anything, but it could be a good supplement to whatever shitty part time job I can get around here.

Quote:

---

Okay, enough with the sappiness....lol

---

Deal.

Quote:

---

There was something I wanted to say in addition to my last response to you. I'm not sure, but I believe you may have stated that I called you a Nazi.
I don't recall where, or if it was you, but no, I wouldn't do that. If I did (my memory has been a bit erratic lately) I apologize. In the long run, I really don't know you and I wouldn't want it done to me. Just wanted to get that out there to you. That is not my style, if I disagree with you I will say so.

---

No. You never said that word. I didn't accuse you of it either. I just spoke up and said something because I felt that you were falling in line with others here that do use the word.

I don't feel that anybody here on this board is a Nazi or a White Supremacist or even a sympathizer. Just because you're not a radical on the left side crying racism and parroting the MSM does not mean that you support those people.

Quote:

---

Usually I will answer in such a way so that you get my meaning. If not, just ask. If I see a comment that I feel strongly about, I will comment.
If I agree, I will say so...but sometimes I want to make a point, so I'll comment. I don't believe I called anyone a Nazi. But if someone supports a group who's driving force is hate and prejudice...well, you tend to think that that person is sympathizing with their beliefs. I try not to look at things as BLACK & WHITE so much, because I know things are much closer to GRAY than anything else.

---

I agree with all of that. That being said, I don't believe that anybody here is protecting, supporting or sympathizing with anybody who is spreading hate. Especially those who actually hurt or killed somebody else.

Quote:

---

One point I wanted to make and so I add it here: If I support Obama, what will you think? That I'm a card carrying pansy-ass lefty liberal...in other words a Democrat. There's that label thing that Sigs was talking about.

---

I'll admit that in general I don't have a high opinion of somebody who calls Obama a great president... especially if that's all I have to go on when interacting with that person. The internet makes it pretty easy to do that sort of thing. This conversation and a few others we've had on here tend to humanize things though and it's not so easy to just call you an SJW douche

I don't think that Obama lovers are bad people or anything. I just think they're misguided, and that they have blinders on to all the bad stuff. Some wear them intentionally, others were duped.

I thought GWB was the worst president we ever had before Obama came in, and for the very reasons that I thought that, Obama did the same things but since the ball was already rolling he just made them even worse.

Trump might end up being more of the same. All indications at this time point to that being the case. I just filter out all of the hate coming from Obama supporters because since I already think they don't know what they're talking about in the first place they're just pissy that Obama isn't still in the office and that Hillary didn't win.

Quote:

---

But that doesn't make me that label, but you would have a picture in your head of the type of person I might be. I do it too, it's okay to admit.
But this forum has shown me some different things, and I'm hoping that others would come to discover themselves in the process as well.

---

I've changed my mind on a lot of things since I first joined this site 11 years ago. We all are guilty of throwing out labels.

Quote:

---

Having said that I don't like Nazis, the KKK or WS because they tend to be BULLIES, and also because of what they believe - that superiority thing.
I made a general statement and that was wrong, because it's not all "black and white" and there are some good people on the right, conservatives, that
also despise fascism and racist qualities. My ex girlfriend's dad was a conservative, boy was he, who served his country during WWII and was a hard ass. But he loved his country almost as much as he loved his daughters. We would argue, but we respected each other.

---

I don't support racism or any form of attacks against anybody that wasn't attacking you first. I live my life by the non-aggression principal. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone did. I think it's a sad thing that our own Government does not and sets a very bad example for civillians to follow with the meddling and fighting and manipulation they do in other countries every single day. Obama was the first president (I believe in all of history) that presided over a country at war every single day he sat behind that desk. Hopefully he was the last.

One thing I would like to get straight about the whole race thing though is that I don't believe it's a bad thing to not want to be around people who are not your own race. It's not a matter of supremacy or anything. It's human nature. Blacks and Mexicans and Asians do it to. It's not just a white thing. I don't understand the world governments pushing multi-culturalism and diversity at every opportunity. What is the point of it all?

Quote:

---

Again, to reiterate, I follow no one. I have a set of values and I go by them. Freedom is something you work for, and I believe that everyone has a right to believe as they wish. I might not agree with you, but that's a part of life. We don't have to be all chummy to co-exist.

If you cut a human being, we all bleed red.

---

Agreed. I try not to throw labels your way though since I do kind of like you. I think if we knew each other in the real world we'd probably be friends and call each other stupid fucks every once in a while if the conversation got political. No more drinking for me, but maybe one day we'll smoke a peace pipe together.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
Oh, and if you don't understand why Obama is NOT LIKE HITLER, you need to watch your entire family be gassed to death. It kinda has a way of making people figure out who the bad people are...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
- probably because they cannot read, let alone think.

---

Oh, the irony.

Nazi's are ALWAYS CONSERVATIVES.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Supporting Nazis speaks volumes about the mentality of people on the far right.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Six,

I will respond later today. I'm doing so holding the White Flag of Truce, but right now I have a major league headache.

Thanks

SGG

---

No worries. Take your time.

I should admit that my language has gotten a little "colorful" over the last few days. Let's just say that I'm feeling a little "triggered".

Wolf Blitzer isn't helping things.

---

Ok, before I answer, let me tell you:

I'm a die-hard Democrat.
I believe in democracy.
Born and raised in the good ol' USA.
My president was JFK (10 when they killed him)
Protested the Vietnam War
Believe in the Death Penalty (especially when it comes to kids and police killed in cold blood)
Yes, believe there are those that cheat the system (from the top to the bottom and back again)
Vets should get a house, health care for free, especially if they lost a limb
Free enterprise should be allowed to run it's course
College should not be for profit
Universal Health Care
I hate bullies
There's nothing wrong with a little cursing every now and then, helps relieve stress

I've been known to use "colorful" language myself. At times, it's to blow off steam, other times it's to make a point. I like to think of myself as a rational human being, but every once in a while I lose my shit.

Sometimes I like to fuck with people (habit of mine with my old friends) but we stay friends at the end. There are times when it's appropriate, and others when it's not. I try not to hold grudges when someone loses their shit, as long as it's done honestly. I think that guys tend to understand that more than women, I don't know why that is.

I despise when people try to insult my intelligence. If you call me out on a particular topic and you make a valid point, I will say so. If you lose your shit and curse me out, then later come back and say "I had a bug up my ass, let's start over." I respect that. We are all here because of the freedom within Firefly. Being ourselves and allowed to speak our minds without fear. Fuck!, everyone has the right to speak their minds and believe what they believe. Sometimes JSF will call me a Libtard (his favorite word), but I know that's his way of saying "you're wrong you asshole" and I'll call him a dickhead and we'll argue our points and views.

I have to admit, sometimes I get steamed, but when I think clearly and calmly, I'll say..."Hell with it, he's just speaking his mind. He's wrong! But he's speaking his mind." I may not respond for a few days, but, in the end, we all have the right to speak our minds. Me, I try not to insult you in the process, but shit happens. Bottom line, we all get angry and lose our shit. But I don't care for the insults and lack of respect for my beliefs and contributions. You could call me a dickhead, sure. I've even gotten use to being called a drunk (thanks Keeks and Sig), I just laugh it off and make some reference to something that comes to my mind in that instant. Helps me to cope with the idiocy of the moment.

But there are times when I respond and it's laser sharp on point. And times when I'm just letting off some steam. I will, at times, not get angry if you go tell me to go fuck myself, or go to hell, I know that is your way of letting off steam. But please know that I think for myself. If I see something that you, or anyone for that matter, makes sense to me...I will go along with it or comment on it in some way. But know this, it is my decision and mine alone. You know this to be true because many times we have agreed....well, maybe not many times, but a few.

So Six, speak your mind. So will I. If we agree, fine, if not, that's fine too.
Just be honest and we'll be cool.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Supporting Nazis speaks volumes about the mentality of people on the far right.


SGG

---

Supporting FREEDOM of Speech has nominally been the mentality and covenant of the Far Right, The Right, Conservatives. Restrictions of Freedoms has been the hallmark of the Intolerants, Democrats, The Left.

---

Quote:

---

I think what this starts to suggest to me is that these are old holdovers from the Democratic Party that are conservative on race issues. And while Bernie wasn't campaigning on that kind of thing, Clinton was much more forthright about courting the votes of minorities — and maybe that offended them, and then eventually pushed them out and toward Trump."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

I try not to look at things as BLACK & WHITE so much, because I know things are much closer to GRAY than anything else.

I made a general statement and that was wrong, because it's not all "black and white"

---

There are reasons to believe the Democratic Party has angry racists left behind when most of the angry racists switched over to being Republicans. They were numerous enough to swing the last Presidential election.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/24/16194086/bernie-trump-voters
-study

In key states that went for Trump — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan — the number of defectors from Sanders in the primary election to Trump in the general election were greater than Trump’s margin of victory, according to new numbers released Wednesday by UMass professor Brian Schaffner.

Sanders -> Trump voters…
WI: 51k
MI: 47k
PA: 116k

Trump win margin…
WI: 22k
MI: 10k
PA: 44k

The professor goes on to explain why these Democrats voted for Trump:

"I also looked at how the Bernie-Trump voters identify themselves on the ideological scale, and very few say that they're liberal. Only about 17 to 18 percent say that they're liberal, in any kind of way, shape, or form, though they voted for Sanders.

By contrast, about 45 percent of these Bernie-Trump voters say they're ‘middle of the road’ — basically, a lot of them see themselves as “moderates.” Meanwhile, another 35 percent of them are claiming to be either somewhat conservative or very conservative.

I think what this starts to suggest to me is that these are old holdovers from the Democratic Party that are conservative on race issues. And while Bernie wasn't campaigning on that kind of thing, Clinton was much more forthright about courting the votes of minorities — and maybe that offended them, and then eventually pushed them out and toward Trump."

It’s been months since the election — why is this data coming out now?

"What we do with this survey is go back and match respondents to voter files because people lie about having voted, and especially lie about having voted in the primaries. What I was worried about is people who claimed to have voted in a primary for Bernie but didn’t.

So I waited until I had the data that matched the respondents to their voter file record, which allowed us to see — these are the people we know voted for a primary."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Supporting Nazis speaks volumes about the mentality of people on the far right.

SGG

---

Supporting FREEDOM of Speech has nominally been the mentality and covenant of the Far Right, The Right, Conservatives. Restrictions of Freedoms has been the hallmark of the Intolerants, Democrats, The Left.

---

You're kidding, right!?

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Supporting FREEDOM of Speech has nominally been the mentality and covenant of the Far Right, The Right, Conservatives.

---

Quote:

---

Restrictions of Freedoms has been the hallmark of the Intolerants, Democrats, The Left.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
You're kidding, right!?

SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Supporting Nazis speaks volumes about the mentality of people on the far right.

SGG

---

Supporting FREEDOM of Speech has nominally been the mentality and covenant of the Far Right, The Right, Conservatives. Restrictions of Freedoms has been the hallmark of the Intolerants, Democrats, The Left.

---

---

I thought the facts were fairly obvious.

Oh wait.
Your quoted comment about supporting Nazis is where you're just kidding - is that it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Supporting Nazis speaks volumes about the mentality of people on the far right.

SGG

---

Supporting FREEDOM of Speech has nominally been the mentality and covenant of the Far Right, The Right, Conservatives. Restrictions of Freedoms has been the hallmark of the Intolerants, Democrats, The Left.

---

You're kidding, right!?

SGG

---

I thought the facts were fairly obvious.

Oh wait.
Your quoted comment about supporting Nazis is where you're just kidding - is that it?

---

Not my quote, I merely agreed with it. So, if I support a president (in this case Obama), am I not supporting his approach to Democracy. As you say, supporting his leadership in restricting Freedoms?

If the answer is yes, then you do get it. If one supports a cause, then one believes in that cause. Therefore, if one supports the Far Right, the Left, The Walking Dead or Nazis; then it is safe to say that they support the individual causes of each of those ideals, beliefs or movements.

According to you: If I follow the Left, then I follow restrictions of Freedoms.

According to how I think and believe: Nazis, White Supremacists who believe that they are the superior race above all others - are dead wrong!

See how simple that is. The highlighted statement holds, IMHO.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Supporting Nazis speaks volumes about the mentality of people on the far right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Excellent example of the topic:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
There aren't any Nazis here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Are Antifa, BLM, SJWs just modern day Gestapo?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Are Antifa, BLM, SJWs just modern day Gestapo?

---

Nope. And you know that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

This whole thread is just one big *facepalm.

Morons fighting over who wants to kill who, which party does or said what 150 years ago. Or thirty years ago. Like it fucking matters right here and now. Like ANYTHING would justify ANYONE driving a car into a group of ANY people.
Nazi's are bad, M'kay. If you don't get THAT at least, the hell with you.
As usual, this planet would be a whole lot better without most humans on it. - WISHY

---

Ok, so can we generalize that to: It's bad if ANYONE drives a car into a group pf people, whether they are Nazis, radical jihadists, militant Hindus, or anyone else? If fact, can we make that an even MORE general statement, that killing or injuring anyone for a political cause is bad???

Yup, I think we can.

---

Then why is there not more universal outrage?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
This whole thread is just one big *facepalm.

Morons fighting over who wants to kill who, which party does or said what 150 years ago. Or thirty years ago. Like it fucking matters right here and now. Like ANYTHING would justify ANYONE driving a car into a group of ANY people.

Nazi's are bad, M'kay. If you don't get THAT at least, the hell with you.

As usual, this planet would be a whole lot better without most humans on it.

---

I am not sure I have seen your outrage over the doctors prescribing these psychotropic drugs to this guy or others. When these doctors are held responsible and thrown in prison for these deaths then we'll have started to make progress.

https://breggin.com

---

---