What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

@okie,

okie wrote:

I care, but it also means that people should care for themselves. Even birds kick the birds out of the nest to fly, but only after they nurtured the eggs and fed the babies before they were on their own. I am not opposed to helping people, in fact quite familiar with it, in fact Americans are very charitable, especially Republicans, but I think it is not the responsibility of government to rob one person to give it to another, to the extreme. That is not what freedom and liberty is about. Millions gave their lives for freedom, and I have not given up on it, maybe you have?

Of course, I have not. But what you call 'robbing one person to give to another,' is a ridiculous.

The government taxes, and then spends those funds on programs. Some of these programs benefit certain groups more than other groups, it's inevitable that this will happen, as money cannot be spent equally everywhere. Some of the taxes paid over the last century have gone to help you, specifically, Okie; in ways that they didn't help other people, who nevertheless helped bear the cost of those programs. It would be erroneous to say that they were 'stolen' from those people.

Your problem isn't redistributive taxation, it's who it's redistributed to. And that's a social issue on your part, more than a problem with our government.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, Bad analogy as always; birds don't have to pay to see a doctor. Birds don't get radiation treatment for cancer.

I know you like to equate humans to birds, but that's precisely your problem; you have no heart for other humans.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Okay wise one, tell us why it lasts 9 months? And if born before 9 months, what then?

Well, you might have misread what I wrote. Or have forgotten what you wrote, dear sir.

You spoke about your "experiences about adoption and babies surviving when they were born at less than 6 months". I talked about that with a neighbour who does such professionally and doubts that someone can these experiences .... besides from reading about those few cases in medical science literature. (But I might have forgotten that you are a paediatrician.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I personally know a man, a friend, that was born at 5 1/2 months. I did not say it was common. He was an honor student by the way. Are you going to tell me now that he does not exist, or that I am a liar, wise one? Tell me, professor. After all, you know better than I, you actually know a pediatrician, and therefore it probably didn't happen, right?

2 Replies

@okie,

Sir! You didn't write about your experiences with one single person.
That was my only point and the notation of our neighbour, Your Rightwing Majesty.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, After that baby was born after 5.5 months, what did you do to assist that baby? Did you help with financing the shelter and feeding of the baby? How about the follow-up health care? Anything? Or is that just one of those stories anybody can find if they look hard enough? So, what's your point?

Did you know Obama's parents passed away early in life, and he was also an honor student?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It isn't really your business, but we gave moral support and some marginal financial support, and the parents paid on the bill and completely negotiated the bill to zero. It took years, but it was done.

My point is that those people took responsibility, they salvaged a life, they succeeded, and it proves that a baby can survive at even less than 6 months and with some skill and luck with the medical technology we now have can eventually thrive in such circumstances. It was very marginal for a good long time, and barely survived, but in time he made it and is now a college graduate and a fine young man.

And I understand that in some countries, such lives are not given the chance this person had here, and if not survived they don't even count them as a viable human being or fatality if they don't make it. That is one reason that you cannot compare statistics of infant mortality from country to country unless you know the differences in how they are compiled.

It also proves one other fact, a baby that is aborted late term is a human life that is very possibly or probably capable of living with some help, especially after 7 1/2 months, and yet some people actually advocate the ability to snuff out that life even if they happen to survive that abortion. It proves that late term abortions kill human beings, and that is cold blooded in my opinion, I don't see how anyone could do it.

1 Reply

@okie,

Moral support? What the hell is that? Marginal financial support? Marginal could be $1.

Give us a break; you think you're smarter than the supreme court and all the judges that judge abortion cases. You want to control other people's lives, but give "moral support and marginal financial support" to how many of those women and babies?

You are a tyrant-headed ingoramus! How many babies have you saved lately? There are millions starving in this world. How many have you fed?

There are millions of children all over the world without adequate shelter and food. How many have you supported with your moral and marginal financial support?

You talk about one, and you think you're some kind of savior. You don't even want universal health care to take care of all of those poor children who can't afford health insurance.

You're a big joke!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Imposter, I placed you on my ignore list, the first time I have done that for any user. I don't feel that it is any longer productive to read your condescending abuse, not only for my sake but for other users that are also tired of your constant stream of villification that you spend your days doing here. Perhaps if I don't read them, I won't attempt to respond to any salient point that might be included along with the rest of your haranguing, which I am hopeful will reduce the number of your verbally abusive posts. I wish you well, I have no ill wish toward you at all, but I just think it is high time to knock off the name calling, and hopefully this will help.

1 Reply

On the subject of Hitler, I ran across this reference, which apparently documents the fact that according to intelligence sources inside Germany, religious groups were some of the persecuted and victims of war crimes. This is but one more important fact that supports the idea of Hitler being leftist, as freely practiced religion was no doubt viewed as a threat to the state, which runs counter to the conservative ideal of freedom of worship. Probably he tolerated certain powers of religion if they cooperated with the state, which may explain why the Vatican for example did to some extent. I pick a couple of quotes, but the report is long and detailed.

http://www.lawandreligion.com/publications/churches.pdf

"The track record of both intelligence agencies and the Christian Churches in the war crimes field has attracted controversy. For example, serious allegations have been made regarding help given to suspected Nazi war criminals in the immediate post-war years by both the US Counter Intelligence Corps in the Klaus Barbie case,1 and Vatican officials as well as other senior Church official’s who co-operated with Nazism2 and the fascist Ustasha movement in Croatia.3 There exists, however, a less well documented record of the Office of Strategic Services’ (hereinafter ‘OSS’) support for the Nuremberg prosecutors, which contributed to the recognition that the Christian Churches were amongst the early victims of Nazi war criminality."

...

“This study describes, with illustrative factual evidence, Nazi purposes, policies and methods of persecution of the Christian Churches in Germany and occupied Europe.” This study is important not only as a justification for the strategy adopted in subsequent trial briefs, but also for its elucidation of “criminal organisational” elements of religious persecution within, for example, Goebels Ministry of Propaganda."

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, I agree with you about the name calling.

And I truly feel you were speaking about your friend from the heart.

but...

as evidence on the scale you present it, it becomes very weak in defense of your position.

the Hitler thing is an unwinnable war for you, much as his was for him...

(good luck)

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Hey rockhead, thanks for the support and kind disagreement. About Hitler, I recognize I won't win, but I won't lose either, this is hopefully not a war, just a discussion with opinions presented. You feel my evidence is weak, that is your privilege, but thanks for being civil. I am not right about everything I am sure, I could be wrong, but I am only presenting an opinion, and I try to explain it with the evidence as I see it. And if the opposition does that as well, thats all we can ask for. Then everybody can make up their own mind. As far as I know so far, we are not a socialistic country in thought, we still have individual thought instead of group thought.

Maybe I am wrong about Hitler being a leftist in context with German thought in the 1930s, I'm not as sure about that, but my argument is not based upon that anyway, it is based upon the context of today right here.

4 Replies

@okie,

you're welcome.

i'll let you kids get back to your fun here.

(see you on the healthcare threads)

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

On the subject of Hitler, I ran across this reference, which apparently documents the fact that according to intelligence sources inside Germany, religious groups were some of the persecuted and victims of war crimes.

Well, that has been widely known - since the early 50's, nearly in every town there's e.g. one or both Dietrich-von-Bonhoefer-school/Edith-von-Stein-school, a couple of streets named after them and others; some Catholics recently became saints/were beatificated.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

About Hitler, I recognize I won't win, but I won't lose either, this is hopefully not a war, just a discussion with opinions presented.

For my part I just can say that I didn't present opinion(s) but referred to original, primary sources.

And as far as I understood your posts, you said the same. Which was questioned not just be me ...

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Maybe I am wrong about Hitler being a leftist in context with German thought in the 1930s, I'm not as sure about that, but my argument is not based upon that anyway, it is based upon the context of today right here.

The problem that many people here have with what you write is that you have made a set of assumptions, which are based on your personal view, about what left and right mean, which are not in line with mainstream opinion "today right here." Not all Americans, and very likely not even a significant portion of Americans see this matter as you do. You are, apparently, making an assumption that you views are the commonly held views on the political spectrum. They are not.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

They are very far from mainstream thinking in politics or economics. His imagination runs wild, and he thinks he's contributing something worth the cyberspace it takes up; it doesn't. He can't see how often he is challenged by almost everybody on these threads, and he still doesn't "get it." The only thing sure about okie is his stubbornness. He has that in spades!

0 Replies

@okie,

During the last couple of days, I've various books and copies of documents.

For instance, on 17 December 1922, a Bavarian Jewish politican wrote in the Central-Vereinszeitung der deutschen Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens (CVZ) ["Newspaper of the Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith"] about the "five words and five untruths" in the name of 'National-Socialist Party of Germany' ("Socialist it's what those gentlemen call themselves, but they chase any Socialist with berserk hate").

On 13 February 1921 (posted 9 March, 1921) Anton Drexler wrote a letter to Gottfried Feder in which (again) noted his opposition of being a party, especially of not being socialist. [As written earlier, Drexler 'pinched' the party's name from the Austrian NSDAP, but wrote already in his book (Drexler, Anton: Mein politisches Erwachen ["My political awake"], Munich, 1919) that he didn't like that name and only thought it to be provisorily.

... and all the rest of it, yadda-yadda-yadda ...

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

The so-called 'left wing' within the NSDAP was a very small group. (See my above posts, but I've got additional sources to back it now, too.)

re 'anti-capitalist' of the NSDAP, I came across a rather interesting detail:

in the Weimar Republic, the formerly governing kings, dukes, princes and all noble houses should have been expropriated ("Fürstenenteignung"); the question was 'how' (see: article 153 of the Weimar Constitution).

In 1926, a referendum was announced

The left parties, from Communists to Socialists and Social-Democrats as well as some left leaning Liberal parties had the opinion that such should happen without compensation.

(Source: [German version of] wikipedia ['Fürstenenteignung']

The more centrist parties and the majority of the Liberal parties opposed such ideas but were in favour of the expropriation in general.

Only the NSDAP with some other conservative parties opposed it completely.
Interestingly, they therefore called for the expropriation of the capilalists, naming and meaning here only bank owners .... Jewish bank owners.

(Source: private)

NB: this advert equals the 'Jewish bankers' with the 'red leading mob' ("rotes Führer Gesindel") of the Socialistic International II and III.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter wrote:

Quote:

Only the NSDAP with some other conservative parties opposed it completely.
Interestingly, they therefore called for the expropriation of the capilalists, naming and meaning here only bank owners .... Jewish bank owners.

As I've said in a previous post, capitalists were the supporters of Hitler, and their only challenge against capitalism were against businesses owned by Jews. Your article pretty much confirms my earlier statements.

0 Replies

What produces RUTHLESS DICTATORS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know