7
   

If Christians were treated like Muslims.

 
 
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2010 08:03 pm
In the be careful what you wish for category.

Conservative Christian Gary Bauer today wished Christians could be treated like Muslims. He is upset at the way that Christians are demonized and distrusted, where Muslims are celebrated and trusted in the US.

The funny thing is that I love the idea. If somehow his wish (which is also my wish) could be granted and that he could feel how wonderful it is to be treated like a Muslim, I wonder how long Gary Bauer would last.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40839&s=rcmp

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 6,392 • Replies: 92
No top replies

 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2010 08:13 pm
@maxdancona,
The Rothchilds real last name is Bauer.

Quote:
Europe, towards the end of the eighteenth century or at the time of the American Revolution, was very different from what we know in the same area today. It was composed oil a combination of large and small kingdoms, duchies and states which were constantly engaged in squabbles among themselves. Most people were reduced to the level of serfs -- with no political rights. The meager 'privileges' that were granted to them by their 'owners' could be withdrawn at a moment's notice.

It was during this period of time that a young man appeared on the European scene who was to have a tremendous impact on the future course of world history; his name was Mayer Amschel Bauer. In later years his name, which he had changed, became synonamous with wealth, power and influence. He was the first of the Rothschilds -- the first truly international banker!

Mayer Amschel Bauer was born in Frankfurt-On-The-Main in Germany in 1743. He was the son of Moses Amschel Bauer an itinerant money lender and goldsmith who, tiring of his wanderings in Eastern Europe, decided to settle down in the city where his first son was born. He opened a shop, or counting house, on Judenstrasse (or Jew Street). Over the door leading into the shop he placed a large Red Shield.

At a very early age Mayer Amschel Bauer showed that he possessed immense intellectual ability, and his father spent much of his time teaching him everything he could about the money lending business, and the lessons he had learned from many sources. The older Bauer originally hoped to have his son trained as a Rabbi but the father's untimely death put an end to such plans.


http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/slavery.htm
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2010 08:27 pm
@maxdancona,
He should just go through airport security while wearing a kafia and he might change his mind.

Yo, NaziTalk:
The word Bauer is german for a peasant or nickname meaning ‘neighbor’, ‘fellow citizen’, from Middle High German (ge)bur, Middle Low German bur, denoting an occupant of a bur, a small dwelling or building. The German phone book is full of them.
talk72000
 
  0  
Reply Thu 30 Dec, 2010 09:31 pm
@Green Witch,
Hey Jewish witch, I am giving the resident Muslim the low down on the Jewish bankers that runs the American economy and skims the profits.

Quote:
Among the economic fields in which Jews today are especially visible is investment banking -- "Wall Street," including interconnected networks of lawyers and other legal and economic manipulators stretching deeply into Hollywood and the mass media. Since the 1800s the "Old Crowd" of German-Jewish banking families (the Seligmans, Lehmans, Goldmans, Sachs, Warburgs, Schiffs, Loebs, et al) had predominated the field; a "New Crowd" of Jews has in recent decades taken their place. After World War II, melodramatically note Judith Ehrlich and Barry Rehfeld, "economic power in America and Wall Street was shifting ... Fresh faces came forward as if answering a call ... They were the children and grandchildren of Italian, Irish, Poles, and other Europeans who were not of Anglo-Saxon ancestry. But most of all they were Jews." [EHRLICH, p. 12] This is not to suggest of course that the seminal Jewish American investment firms are today inconsequential. Far from it. In 1999, for instance, Goldman, Sachs and Co. stretched across the world to become the "single largest and controlling shareholder of South Korea's largest bank, Kookmin. [BLOOMBERG NEWS, p. 11]

"In the world of high finance," observed Gerald Krefetz, "Jewish interest is concerned with investment banking, a broad catchall for activities ranging from tendering advice to underwriting securities. The heart of investment banking is public offerings and private placements, the risking of capital -- sometimes ones' own, but more often other peoples' -- to finance new companies, or expand old ones." [KREFETZ, p. 54] The nature of Wall Street entrepreneurship might well be presumed in the title of a 1986 volume by Ken Auletta: Greed and Glory on Wall Street: the Fall of the House of Lehman, or Martin Meyer's Nightmare on Wall Street: Salomon Brothers and the Corruption of the Marketplace (1993). Both Lehman and Solomon are Jewish-founded firms.


http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/22wallst.htm
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 02:17 am
What a little Nazi puke . . . what a creep.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 03:08 am

As a supporter of laissez faire capitalism,
a libertarian-Individualist, I oppose all forms of socialism,
including nazism.

To oppose racial profiling or cultural profiling
is to oppose sound reasoning. We need to know who our enemies are.

What happened on 9/11/1 was not just a prank
and we have no reason to believe that it was
the Moslems' LAST attack on us.

Forewarned is forearmed.





David
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 03:09 am
If you think that nazism was a form of socialism, you are sersiously delusional. Of course, i already knew that--this is just further proof.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 03:12 am
@Setanta,

Nonsense; it is obvious.

It was no accident that thay called it that.
He grew up in near destitution and drew
his S.A. from hungry, unemployed, impoverished Germans.

He hated capitalism and said so.

It was government control of the means
of production n distribution with no respect
for personal, individual freedom; what more do u want ??





David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 03:30 am
An explanation of just what parts of nazism were socialist. Government control of the means of production is not automatically socialist, and your inability to understand the distinction is not conclusive (nor surprising). The NSDAP controlled the means of production to further the megalomaniacal ambitions of Hitler, not to benefit the people of Germany. You may not have noticed, but socialism is, at least ostensibly, conceived as a system to benefit the people. Hitler didn't give a rat's ass about the Germans, and his lackeys were only in it for personal self-aggrandizement.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 03:36 am
By the way (and i should know better than to fall for that kind of "have you stopped beating your wife" bullshit), it is ipse dixit on your part to claim, without proof, that the NSDAP controlled the means of production. They certainly gave sweetheart contracts to Hitler's buddies--just as the recent Republican administration of Mr. Bush gave sweetheart contracts to Dick Cheney's buddies, by the way--but you have provided no evidence that they controlled the means of production. As the war progressed, the diminishing resources being diverted to preferred government contractors simply choked out other producers--but you have no basis for claiming that the NSDAP was ideologically devoted to controlling the means of production.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 03:39 am
To dispose of more of your bullshit--laissez-faire capitalism never has, and, i suspect, never will exist.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 03:46 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
An explanation of just what parts of nazism were socialist.
U don t pay me enuf to draw an itemized list.




Setanta wrote:
Government control of the means of production is not automatically socialist,
The HELL, its not.



Setanta wrote:
and your inability to understand the distinction is not conclusive (nor surprising). The NSDAP controlled the means of production to further the megalomaniacal ambitions of Hitler, not to benefit the people of Germany. You may not have noticed, but socialism is, at least ostensibly, conceived as a system to benefit the people.
I 'm a little taken aback at your naivete.
I 'd been under the impression that u were
a little wiser in the ways of the world; O, well.




Setanta wrote:
Hitler didn't give a rat's ass about the Germans,
and his lackeys were only in it for personal self-aggrandizement.
Yeah, surely Stalin was much nicer; (maybe he was not a socialist either, huh ?)

Socialism
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of
the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution,
of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 03:52 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
By the way (and i should know better than to fall for that kind of "have you stopped beating your wife" bullshit), it is ipse dixit on your part to claim, without proof, that the NSDAP controlled the means of production. They certainly gave sweetheart contracts to Hitler's buddies--just as the recent Republican administration of Mr. Bush gave sweetheart contracts to Dick Cheney's buddies, by the way--but you have provided no evidence that they controlled the means of production. As the war progressed, the diminishing resources being diverted to preferred government contractors simply choked out other producers--but you have no basis for claiming that the NSDAP was ideologically devoted to controlling the means of production.
O, yeah! TELL me about all the wonderful FREEDOM that existed in the 3rd Reich!

Tell me all about it.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 03:54 am
So, a series of snide slights against my intelligence is all the response you have?

Writing in April, 1928, Hitler had the following to say about the NSDAP:

"Because of the mendacious interpretations on the part of our opponents of Point 17 of the programme of the NSDAP, the following explanation is necessary. Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression 'confiscation without compensation' refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land." (emphasis added)

The Nazis would have been delighted to see someone like you coming down the pike.

Comparing Hitler to Stalin does not establish that the NSDAP was socialist.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 03:57 am
@OmSigDAVID,
That's a complete non-sequitur. At no time have i stated or suggested that there was great personal freedom in Germany while it was under the control of the NSDAP. This is an hilarious example of what passes for logic at your house. Just because you alleged that socialism is opposed to personal freedom (leaving aside the issue of your inability to distinguish freedom and license), you seem to think that you can claim that any system in which there is an absence of personal freedom is ipso facto socialist.
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 04:01 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
it is obvious that the expression 'confiscation without compensation' refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary

Any expansion of central government is socialist. Hitler had a different system than Stalin, the end result was the same, government control of the means of production.

That's the meaning of 'confiscation without compensation'
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 04:05 am
@electronicmail,
electronicmail wrote:
Any expansion of central government is socialist.


Leaving aside your naïvete with regard to the difference between what Hitler said and what Hitler did, this claim on your part is mere ipse dixit--it is not demonstrated, and you have not substantiated this.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 04:08 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
So, a series of snide slights against my intelligence
is all the response you have?
I don 't think that u r stupid, nor did I accuse u of that.
(U have impugned my I.Q. more than once, but I ignore it.)
I just note that u misuse your intelligence; prostitute it.





Setanta wrote:
Writing in April, 1928, Hitler had the following to say about the NSDAP:

"Because of the mendacious interpretations on the part of our opponents of Point 17 of the programme of the NSDAP, the following explanation is necessary. Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression 'confiscation without compensation' refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land." (emphasis added)
In some instances, allegedly there were TECHNICAL differences
between the commies and the nazis. I don 't see much substantive difference.
If u disagree, then please specify.



Setanta wrote:
The Nazis would have been delighted to see someone like you coming down the pike.
Y? For what reason?




Setanta wrote:
Comparing Hitler to Stalin does not establish that the NSDAP was socialist.
What distinctions do u wish to make between them ?
0 Replies
 
electronicmail
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 04:13 am
@Setanta,
You wrote
Quote:
Government control of the means of production is not automatically socialist, and your inability to understand the distinction is not conclusive (nor surprising). The NSDAP controlled the means of production to further the megalomaniacal ambitions of Hitler, not to benefit the people of Germany.

Control of the means of production isn't socialism? Read the definition. Who cares about the motives why it was done, the end result is the same for Hitler and Stalin both.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Dec, 2010 04:17 am
A perfect example of how contractors worked with the NSDAP is found in the Focke-Wulf 190. Willi Messerschmidt was Hitler's buddy, and with the success of the Bf 109, Messerschmidt got unlimited access to the Daimler-Benz 601 liquid-cooled engine. When the Reichluftministerium tendered a contract to Focke-Wulf in 1937 for a new fighter to supplement the Bf 109, FW produced two designs--one using the DB601 engine, and one using the BMW 801 air-cooled radial engine. To the surprise of the design boys at BMW, and despite the drawbacks of the BMW engine, the design with the air-cooled radial engine was approved. The result was the FW190 fighter. It completely outclassed the Supermarine Spitfire V when it began to appear over England in 1941. It was not until Supermarine produced the Spitfire model IX and Hawker produced the Typhoon that the Brits came up with fighters which could perform with the FW190.

The story of the FW190 is a perfect example of how an ordinary capitalist contracting system produced goods to meet the demands of the RLM's tender. Messerschmidt was getting all the Daimler-Benz engines, so FW not only made do with the BMW radial engine, they eventually produced a superior fighter using that engine, and this despite the fact that the company had not previously been designing war planes of any kind.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » If Christians were treated like Muslims.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/24/2021 at 01:32:57