Re: Only Ron Paul and Romney on VA Primary Ballot
Posted by:
Übermensch
()
Date: January 08, 2012 07:47PM
someone hates jews a lot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Übermensch Wrote:
>
>
> > No, YOU'RE the one that dense here. The Axis
> > powers did not exist during the First World
> War,
> > you're thinking of the Central Powers. The war
> did
> > NOT start in the Balkans - I pressume you are
> > confusing the assassination of the Archduke
> Franz
> > Ferdinand by a Serb with the war itself.
> > Yes, I realize you never refered to Hitler by
> > name, though your accusation of state-sponsored
> > antisemitism on the part of the Central Powers
> > nonetheless implied a lack of knowledge of WWI.
> If
> > you were not mistakenly suggesting that
> National
> > Socialism existed during the Great War, then
> > precisely what did you mean when you claimed
> the
> > Jews would have been wiped out had America not
> > partaken in the war?
>
>
> Sorry central powers not axis. Yes the that
> murder was one of the things that started the war.
> No I am not confusing that event with the entire
> war. Hatred of the Jews in Europe didnt start in
> the 1930s. Both world wars were land grabs, if it
> wasnt the Jews it would have been someone else
> which i already said.
Triggered the war, yes. Part of the war, no.
No, you're absolutely correct - antisemitism was widespread prior to WWII. America and Britain, France and Germany...all the way to Romania and Russia. No, antisemitism was definitely not a uniquely German phenomenon, nor was it a new ideology at the time.
But, this STILL has nothing to do with the Prussian and Austro-Hungarian states. You implied that antisemitism was state-sponsored at the time, and that it was the goal of these states to wipe out the Jewish people.
Both of which are quite incorrect.
> Also my initial post was referring to Paul saying
> we shouldnt have been in WW2
>
> > I never said it WOULD happen (though, likewise,
> I
> > would never be so naive as to insist that it
> never
> > will happen). You questioned me on my view
> > regarding nuclear armaments, and I gave you
> them.
>
> And I pointed out that their view is not a
> practical solution to it. Again Paul is fine with
> anyone who wants to get them having them.
That 'VIEW' is a fucking VIEW. A 'view' is in no way synonymous with a 'solution'. Get a fucking dictionary.
> > Clearly you know next to NOTHING about drugs.
> > Cigarettes are more adictive than most 'hard
> > drugs'. Other countries have experimented with
> > legalization and decriminalization of drugs,
> and
> > statistics have PROVEN that in such cases, use
> of
> > hard drugs does not increase.
> > Regardless, even were this not the case, who
> the
> > fuck are you to tell someone whether or not
> they
> > can become addicted to something? Do you also
> > intend to moniter television watching? What
> about
> > fat and carbohydrate consumption? IT'S NOT YOUR
> > FUCKING PLACE. This is supposed to be a free
> > society - clearly you are anti-fascism, so why
> the
> > fuck don't you recognize that the very laws you
> > attempt to defend are fascist?
> > Oh, right - I guess that goes back to the same
> > shitty education that failed to properly teach
> you
> > the history of Germany and Europe in general.
>
> Im glad a small country is Europe is what your
> going to use to compare to the USA which
> demographically has no equals. Its clearly you
> who knows nothing about hard drugs. You dont use
> heroin socially or crack. Their rehab rates have
> something like an 8 percent success rate.
Actually, I am very experienced with hard drugs, as well as the people that use them, and have previously used them.
I have no idea what 'small country' you are speaking of, but it doesn't matter, as at this point, your argument has already lost all cohesion.
Any drug can be used 'socially', not that this is relevant. I'm sure as hell not dropping my hard earned money on something as expensive as cocaine.
Doesn't mean I won't take a line if offered one.
> And its societies place to tell people they cant
> be addicted to heroin. Those same junkies will be
> the ones in the ER getting free health care and
> applying for welfare. When you take from others
> and expect government help they get the right to
> tell you you cant do heroin.
No...it is not. You're probably one of those people that also thinks homosexuals shouldn't be able to serve in the military, simply because much of 'society' is too ignorant to approve. If you're worried about addicts 'in the ER getting free health care and applying for welfare' then go bitch about health care and welfare laws. Neither of those are the issue at hand.
Do you wish to ban tobacco? Should we re-implement alcohol prohibition?
After reading everything you've written, I almost wish you'd been forced to pay attention in your English classes (work on your fucking writing), but in the end, it's really not my place to force people to know what I believe they should know.
> All this goes back to is your hatred of people and
> YOUR desire to defend your own personal drug use.
How do you figure? What is 'all this'? And 'goes back' to when?
It's never too late to go back to school, my friend. Do yourself a favor and enroll in some English and logic courses.