CIA Protected Nazi War Criminals

nimh wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I visited Amsterdam a few years ago
and had a pleasant time;good food;
nothing untoward was encountered.
David

I'm glad you had a good time, OmsigDavid <smiles>

Thank u; me too.
Tho I have no current plans to return,
I have happy memories thereof.
I thought it was a nice place.
David

0 Replies

The "Historian" Nimh won't tell you that the moth eaten country( The Netherlands) is like a third world country. The indigent and non productive Netherlands, as represented by the "Historian" Nimh, is almost a third world country. That is why their "Historians" take every opportunity to criticize the USA in every way they can. The backward country of the Netherlands had a puny GNP of $429 Billion in 2000 while we had a GNP of $10,533,000,000(over ten trillion) or 21 times more than the stolid Dutch. That is why they snipe at us--They ENVY our prosperity.
People like Nimh would never be allowed to teach in our schools. We have high standards!

0 Replies

Its not untypical that a well argued and balanced post by nimh meets with a response of undiluted sh1t. Your offensive racist and violent abuse says a lot about you Bernard, and sadly Americans who think like you.

More importantly though, Cheney's lesbian daughter?[/i]How can he remain Vice President? Or should that be President of Vice

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

The backward country of the Netherlands had a puny GNP of $429 Billion in 2000 while we had a GNP of $10,533,000,000(over ten trillion) or 21 times more than the stolid Dutch.

There's 295 million Americans and only 15 million Dutch.

21 times more GNP ... almost 20 times greater population ... I see a connection ;-)

You may want to use a per capita number, and compare that of The Netherlands with that of fellow EU countries ... and some real third world countries.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Its not untypical that a well argued and balanced post by nimh meets with a response of undiluted sh1t. Your offensive racist and violent abuse says a lot about you Bernard, and sadly Americans who think like you.

More importantly though, Cheney's lesbian daughter?[/i]
How can he remain Vice President? Or should that be President of Vice

Does Article II of the US Constitution
say something about lesbianism in one 's relatives ?
David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Does Article II of the US Constitution
say something about lesbianism in one 's relatives ?
David

But about statistical data from the Netherlands?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Does Article II of the US Constitution
say something about lesbianism in one 's relatives ?
David

But about statistical data from the Netherlands?

not much statistical data in Article II

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Its not untypical that a well argued and balanced post by nimh meets with a response of undiluted sh1t. Your offensive racist and violent abuse says a lot about you Bernard, and sadly Americans who think like you.

More importantly though, Cheney's lesbian daughter?[/i]
How can he remain Vice President? Or should that be President of Vice

Does Article II of the US Constitution
say something about lesbianism in one 's relatives ?
David

Hang on I'll check. Yes, its in the small print at the bottom. In pink.

0 Replies

Barnard,

I've been a little shocked at your recent intemperate remarks on this thread regarding the Netherlands. Whenever conservatives depart from calm and reasoned rhetoric, we provide ready ammunition for the left. Your characterizing a little country that has long been known as a bastion of resistance against group think is not called for. Individuals SHOULD have the liberty to follow any sexual model they wish. Society at large has no business interfering or regulating with individual sex choices. This is one of those things that are fundamental rights we revere in the Constitution. I see no real danger to society from the sexual choices of individuals, so by what theory is it that national government has a rightful interest in regulation?

I believe that society has an important interest in regulating and controlling access to highly addictive narcotics like the opiate family, Speed, Cocaine, Crack, and some synthetic drugs. On the other hand, hashish and marijuana are less socially destructive than alcohol. Mez Mezzroe, an old time jazz man and pot-head once said, the only bad thing that grass will do to you is land you in jail." Actually, the illegalization of marijuana has another downside that is much more socially destructive, and that is that it pours money into organized crime while fostering disrespect for the law and those who enforce it. The Netherlands is a pioneer in trying to handle drugs more rationally. I'm sure that many Dutch are as appalled at some of the unintended consequences as you are.

Over generalization fuels conspiracy theories and is most evident in the leftish rant that have made the Democratic Party unable to come up with a platform that addresses the nation's problems, and that turns off many of Middle Americans. Please edit gratuitous insults from your postings, they only detract from your many thoughtful remarks.

GRAVITAS! GRAVITAS!

0 Replies

I am reacting to the comment made by Nimh-- A comment which is unnoticed by the monitors. A comment calling me"the village idiot". I can assure mr.Nimh that I will dog his trail and find any small error he makes and then ask him to stick it where the sun does not shine.

Now, back to the crap spewed by Mr. Nimh.

I note he did not comment on the cowardice of the Dutch in World War II.

How could he?

If those incompetent idiots had stood up to Hitler's Wermacht, the course of the war might have been different.

Per Captia GNP?

USA- $38,000-2000 data

Netherlands--$27,000--2000 data.

Obviously a group of moth-eaten cowards who don't have indoor plumbing.

0 Replies

Statistics, statistics..

This is from The CIA World Factbook:

United States
GDP - per capita (PPP): $41,800 (2005 est.)

Netherlands
GDP - per capita (PPP): $30,500 (2005 est.)

United Kingdom
GDP - per capita (PPP): $30,300 (2005 est.)

European Union
GDP - per capita (PPP): $28,100 (2005 est.)

Would you say the Brits are "a group of moth-eaten cowards who don't have indoor plumbing", Bernard? Their GDP/cap (PPP) is lower than that of The Netherlands...

For further comparison's sake:

Costa Rica
GDP - per capita (PPP): $11,100 (2005 est.)

Colombia
GDP - per capita (PPP): $7,900 (2005 est.)

Iraq
GDP - per capita (PPP): $3,400 (2005 est.)

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

I believe that society has an important interest in regulating and controlling access to highly addictive narcotics like the opiate family, Speed, Cocaine, Crack, and some synthetic drugs. On the other hand, hashish and marijuana are less socially destructive than alcohol. Mez Mezzroe, an old time jazz man and pot-head once said, the only bad thing that grass will do to you is land you in jail." Actually, the illegalization of marijuana has another downside that is much more socially destructive, and that is that it pours money into organized crime while fostering disrespect for the law and those who enforce it.

GRAVITAS! GRAVITAS!

Mr. Asherman:
Whether or not society has an important interest
in controlling access to highly addictive narcotics,
it is INCONCEIVABLE that when government was authorized
in America, after the Hanoverian Dynasty was ejected,
ANY of the Founders intended to endow any government
with power to control what any American citizen ingests.
U will strive in vain to find evidence that this power
was granted anywhere in the Constitution.
The 9th and 10th Amendments militate to the contrary.

Hence, u have ( consciously ? ) endorsed government by USURPATION.
The roots of unlimited tyranny are in the false concept
that government was authorized to restrain us from self-destructive conduct.
In fact, it was erected only to defend our rights
from violation by others.
David

0 Replies

asherman wrote

Quote:

I believe that society has an important interest in regulating and controlling access to highly addictive narcotics like the opiate family, Speed, Cocaine, Crack, and some synthetic drugs. On the other hand, hashish and marijuana are less socially destructive than alcohol. Mez Mezzroe, an old time jazz man and pot-head once said, the only bad thing that grass will do to you is land you in jail." Actually, the illegalization of marijuana has another downside that is much more socially destructive, and that is that it pours money into organized crime while fostering disrespect for the law and those who enforce it. The Netherlands is a pioneer in trying to handle drugs more rationally. I'm sure that many Dutch are as appalled at some of the unintended consequences as you are.

I've thrown pies filled with nasty stuff at you when I thought you were speaking big foolishness, and so I owe you support when you say other things which I think very bright and perceptive.

0 Replies

The Constitution was designed and written to provide a strong central government capable of effectively addressing problems facing the nation as a whole. That did not exist under the Articles of Confederation, and the whole self-government experiment tottered on the brink of total failure. Not only were the States more powerful than the central government, in many places local citizens only followed those laws that they agreed with. The result was a degree of chaos that resulted in our first great depression.

Some leading members of the Continental Congress were authorized to rewrite and strengthen the Articles, but instead they started from scratch. Behind closed doors and sworn to secrecy a new Constitution was hammered out during a long hot summer. The resulting document was not an expression of unanimous agreement, but rather was a set of compromises and accomodations. Small States worried that large ones, like Virginia, would be too powerful and would dominate the Union. Geographically larger States worried that small densily populated states would dominate. Everyone agreed that a strong, powerful executive was required, but feared a reversion to one man rule. The propertyless envied and hated the wealthy and the wealthy feared redistribution of property. Southern agricultural States depended upon a slave economy and "Free Trade", while the New England States favored "Free Labor" and high tariffs (almost the only source of revenue at the time).

The whole of the document was a practical system of representation that balanced the interests of all the original States. The authors of the proposed Constitution were convinced that they had done the best that could be done under the circumstances to balance the rights of individuals and society while protecting essential liberty and self-determination. They recognized that the document was imperfect and provided for later amendments so that the Constitution could evolve to meet unforeseen needs. George Mason insisted that a positive declaration of individual rights sacrosanct from Federal intrusion be written into the document. When the States came to ratify the Constitution many did so conditioned upon the amendments suggested by Mason. The Bill of Rights resulted.

Implicit in the Constitution is recognition that the rights of individual, States and the Federal government do not always coincide. The solution to the problem is that our system is constantly weighing and balancing individual interests. The Federal Government is limited in its power to transform society by passing and enforcing laws, and individual liberty is constrained and subject to the laws of State and Federal governments. The interests of the propertyless are protected by popular election of Congressment based upon the census. Senators were to be selected by the States to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful who were believed to control State governments. The proportioned power between the two houses was expected to prevent either "class" from gaining the upper hand over the other. The Executive was given extradinary powers, but was subject to the legislative power to fund and approve major decisions. The Judicial Branch, appointed for life and beyond interest group pressure, was set to guard the integrity of the Constitution and representative system. The system has worked extremely well, though we are often in turmoil and disharmony.

The State and Federal governments do have the Constitutional power to pass laws intended to protect the interests of society from the destructive effects of individual liberty. In fact, it is one of the primary and fundamental purposes of government. However, when government takes to legislatting morality and behavior that does not clearly harm society as a whole we enter a very dangerous zone. This happened with the Amendment to prohibit the sale and use of alcohol. That amendment was later repealed by amendment and ratified quickly by the States. So far as I know, no one has proposed a Constitutional Amendment permitting or prohibiting the personal possession and use of narcotics. There are State and Federal laws regulating those substances, and they have never been found un-Constitutional.

Are the laws reasonable and so beneficial to society that they require no change? Many don't believe that. The costs and difficulty of enforcement are often cited as reasons why a major change in our drug laws needs to be undertaken. At one end of the spectrum is little or no controls at all. That might well result in all the ills that so offends Bernard about the drug policies of the Netherlands. A more moderate stance recognizes the social costs of narcotics addiction reflected in crime rates, and suffering steming from their use. Some substances, such as marijuana products are not believed to be even as harmful as the more socially acceptable consumtion of alcohol.

Is now the time to tinker with the drug laws of the United States? Probably not. There are more pressing issues of vital concern to the nation that should first be resolved. The country is threatened by an international gang of cutthoats and rogue governments known to be capable of inflicting serious harm to our citizens. That needs to be our highest priority. To pay for what promises to be a long difficult war while maintaing expensive non-discretionary funded social probrams, the National Debt is far too large in the opinion of many., That is a more important national priority than revising the drug laws. Eventually, I expect that those laws will change, and hopefully be more rational and enforceable. In the meantime, be discrete and moderate in your use of illegal substances ... or obey the laws.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

The Constitution was designed and written to provide a strong central government capable of
effectively addressing problems facing the nation as a whole.

That depends upon WHICH problems;
e.g., I am too fat, too ugly, too feeble, and I do not get enuf sleep.
It may well be that too many of my fellow citizens, nationwide,
partake in some or all of those " problems ".

Clearly, there is no grant of power to any government
to control those issues. Thay r on the other side of the line
defined by the 9th n 10th Amendments.

Quote:

That did not exist under the Articles of Confederation, and the whole self-government experiment tottered on the brink of total failure. Not only were the States more powerful than the central government, in many places local citizens only followed those laws that they agreed with. The result was a degree of chaos that resulted in our first great depression.

Some leading members of the Continental Congress were authorized to rewrite and strengthen the Articles, but instead they started from scratch. Behind closed doors and sworn to secrecy a new Constitution was hammered out during a long hot summer. The resulting document was not an expression of unanimous agreement, but rather was a set of compromises and accomodations. Small States worried that large ones, like Virginia, would be too powerful and would dominate the Union. Geographically larger States worried that small densily populated states would dominate. Everyone agreed that a strong, powerful executive was required, but feared a reversion to one man rule. The propertyless envied and hated the wealthy and the wealthy feared redistribution of property. Southern agricultural States depended upon a slave economy and "Free Trade", while the New England States favored "Free Labor" and high tariffs (almost the only source of revenue at the time).

The whole of the document was a practical system of representation that balanced the interests of all the original States. The authors of the proposed Constitution were convinced that they had done the best that could be done under the circumstances to balance the rights of individuals and society while protecting essential liberty and self-determination. They recognized that the document was imperfect and provided for later amendments so that the Constitution could evolve to meet unforeseen needs.

I am aware of, and agree with, most of
what u have written.

Do u believe that all of this bears upon
the issue of government by USURPATION ?
Government was granted SOME power,
as designated, not ALL power, like Saddam.

Quote:

George Mason insisted that a positive declaration of individual rights sacrosanct from Federal intrusion be written into the document. When the States came to ratify the Constitution many did so conditioned upon the amendments suggested by Mason. The Bill of Rights resulted.

It was acknowledged that the proposed constitution
cud not prevail, wud not be viable, without the participation
of the 2 most important new states: Virginia and NY,
in that order.
Patrick Henry and George Mason were the leading Anti-federalists,
who threatened to defeat ratification
call a second constitutional convention in the absence of a bill of rights,
to EXPLICITLY limit political power in the new scheme of things.
( The prevailing counterargument at the Constitutional Convention of 1787
was that merely not granting power to government was enuf,
and that inadvertent failure to mention a right might mistakenly
be taken as an abrogation thereof. )

Quote:

Implicit in the Constitution is recognition that the rights of individual, States and the Federal government do not always coincide.

Individuals have rights.
States have rights only against the federal gov't.
State n federal governments have powers and authorities granted to them.

Quote:

The solution to the problem is that our system is constantly weighing and balancing individual interests.

This may actually be illicitly done, but
I respectfully dissent from the implication that this is legitimate.
It is a scandal.
The correct approach is to carefully examine the
Supreme Law of the Land, by which government was created,
and ascertain whether or not the power in question
was granted to government. If so: OK.
If not, then screw government,
and exalt or preserve individual freedom.
Let us not lose sight of the fact
that as ice is made out of water,
so freedom is made out of the INCAPACITY of government;
i.e., personal freedom and the power of government r inversely proportional.

Quote:

The Federal Government is limited in its power to transform society by passing and enforcing laws, and individual liberty is constrained and subject to the laws of State and Federal governments. The interests of the propertyless are protected by popular election of Congressment based upon the census. Senators were to be selected by the States to protect the interests of the wealthy and powerful who were believed to control State governments. The proportioned power between the two houses was expected to prevent either "class" from gaining the upper hand over the other. The Executive was given extradinary powers, but was subject to the legislative power to fund and approve major decisions. The Judicial Branch, appointed for life and beyond interest group pressure, was set to guard the integrity of the Constitution and representative system. The system has worked extremely well, though we are often in turmoil and disharmony.

I must dissent.
If it had worked well,
then governments thru out America wud have n exercise
much less power,
in keeping with the constitutional mandate.
( Note that I reject the holding of Barron v. Baltimore
as an affront to human intellegence, and in any case,
it was voided by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment )
For goodness' sake,
a local city councilman has proposed using zoning laws
as a weapon to curtail what the citizens eat,
by reducing the number of fast food restaurants.

He thinks the council has jurisdiction for that.

Quote:

The State and Federal governments do have the Constitutional power to pass laws intended to protect the interests of society

U r satisfied to assume this, without proving it
by reference to the enabling instrument.

Quote:

from the destructive effects of individual liberty. In fact, it is one of the primary and fundamental purposes of government. However, when government takes to legislatting morality and behavior that does not clearly harm society as a whole we enter a very dangerous zone.

Before we get to THAT dangerous zone,
we must pass thru the dangerous zone
of government simply ASSUMING that it has power
to adjust society to what the politicians think it shud be,
without checking to see if thay were granted the power in question.

Quote:

This happened with the Amendment to prohibit the sale and use of alcohol. That amendment was later repealed by amendment and ratified quickly by the States. So far as I know, no one has proposed a Constitutional Amendment permitting or prohibiting the personal possession and use of narcotics. There are State and Federal laws regulating those substances, and they have never been found un-Constitutional.

That results from a judicical default, in dereliction of duty.
Because government was never granted that power in the first place,
it need not ( in theory ) be removed from government.
As I remember, the USSC at first found the anti-drug laws
to be unconstitutional, but changed its mind,
in later holdings.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history
is aware that the Founders wud have been aghast
at the concept of free Americans being told what thay cannot legally ingest.
To their minds, if any citizen opted to pick up a handful of America
and swallow it down, government had no power to interfere.
It was not set up for THAT.
If thay had believed that it wud come to this,
I suspect that thay 'd have scrapped the concept of government,
entirely, leaving every citizen to get along as well as he cud.
In their world, the mailman did not even take the mail to your house,
nor were there any police, anywhere in the USA, nor in England,
until the following century.

Mr. Asherman, I suggest that as we tread the roads of
political adventure, it is not enuf
to look at the points upon which we put our jurisprudential feet NOW;
we need to give our attention to the DIRECTION of our progress.
It is alarming. Are we the ancestors of the Borg ?
who are under unlimited control and microsurveillance ?

Quote:

Are the laws reasonable and so beneficial to society that they require no change? Many don't believe that. The costs and difficulty of enforcement are often cited as reasons why a major change in our drug laws needs to be undertaken. At one end of the spectrum is little or no controls at all. That might well result in all the ills that so offends Bernard about the drug policies of the Netherlands. A more moderate stance recognizes the social costs of narcotics addiction reflected in crime rates, and suffering steming from their use.

Let 's look at that.
In my vu, narcotics are poisons,
very dangerous, and beyond the jurisdiction of government
( like smoking tobacco ).
Government created a GREAT BOON to the drug lords
by outlawing their possession or use.
By making them contraband,
thay enacted government price supports that dwarf
those of American agriculture; thay drove prices of weeds skyhigh.
Addicted citizens committ huge numbers of crimes, NOT
because of malice resulting from the use of the poisons ( e.g., heroin )
but in an effort to acquire the financing necessary to defeat
government 's attempt to interfere in what thay ingest.
Thay crave the poison, and employ crime to force the average citizen
to deliver the funds to get that poison.
When it sold at the price of a weed ( which it is )
PEACE prevailed until the misbegotten government USURPATION of ultra vires activity.

Quote:

Some substances, such as marijuana products are not believed to be even as harmful as the more socially acceptable consumtion of alcohol.

Is now the time to tinker with the drug laws of the United States? Probably not. There are more pressing issues of vital concern to the nation that should first be resolved. The country is threatened by an international gang of cutthoats and rogue governments known to be capable of inflicting serious harm to our citizens. That needs to be our highest priority. To pay for what promises to be a long difficult war while maintaing expensive non-discretionary funded social probrams, the National Debt is far too large in the opinion of many., That is a more important national priority than revising the drug laws.

It is not more important
than enforcing the Constitution,
insofar as it limits the powers of its creation, government.

Quote:

Eventually, I expect that those laws will change, and hopefully be more rational and enforceable.
In the meantime, be discrete and moderate in your use of illegal substances ... or obey the laws.

I regard narcotics as poisons,
and use them only under the advice of an M.D.,
as I have after recent surgery.

Even MORE poisonous is tolerating a government
that runs beyond the limits of its granted power,
pretending, faking, that it has powers that it merely assumes that it has
( with little or no challenge ).
This has moven us progressively away from our rightful personal freedom.

0 Replies

You must forgive me, Om sig David for posting after your informative post on the Constitution.

nimh shows that there is only $11,300 per capita difference between the slugs in the Netherlands and the citizens of the United States and then asks whether I think the Brits are "moth eaten cowards" since their percapita is slightly lower.

Well, you are no "village Idiot", Mr. nimh the "Historian: but you surely did not read my post or don't want to answer it. I said the Dutch could have stood up to Hitler but instead capitulated like the cowards that they are after the Nazis bombed Rotterdam.

The Brits? They took everything the Nazis could throw at them and won the battle of Britain. Did the "historian" nimh, ever read about that?

They are called the Netherlands because they are the "Anus" of Europe!!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

They are called the Netherlands because they are the "Anus" of Europe!!!

I deeply bow for this truely well founded analysis and summary of more than 2,000 years of history.

0 Replies

Well, Walter Hinteler, You may have a point. I would never tell you that the Netherlands were the Anus of Europe. But I will tell the "Historian" himn that his country is the Anus of Europe.

Why? I do not take personal insults lightly.

0 Replies

These Bush people are f**ken nuts. There American fascist. Everybody except then are liberals and they make up less then 1% of the world population. They're fundamentalist. The worship the golden calf.

0 Replies

Amigo- Do you have a link for what you said, or is it just your own opinion?

0 Replies

CIA Protected Nazi War Criminals

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know