Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * W is a freakin' nazi! < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

chumley (199.92.192.126)
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 04:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is this the right place to express such sentiments? :)
 

Bill Pierce (24.141.63.119)
Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 09:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Yeah, chumley, this is the place, even if I wouldn't express my own less than favorable opinion of Dubya in the same words as yours. But we could certainly beat this horse to death over a beer or three.
 

chumley (216.161.219.34)
Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 05:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I admit that nazi is probably an incorrect term. Fascist, maybe? I'm not a student of political science, so I probably am not very good in articulating how I despise W.

Sorry I posted about it on the B&V. This article (re: growing pot in a brewery) unfortunately coincided with one in my local paper about how 9 or so college students from the University of Montana and Carroll College were busted for importing "British Columbia Bud". Their possessions were confiscated, bank accounts frozen, all for trafficking a little weed. Their lives undoubtedly have taken a serious turn for the worst, thanks to some BS legislation passed by Ronnie and the boys in the 1980s. It just pisses me off.

Republicans are wangs. Those with any integrity should have left the party long ago to become Libertarians, whom, though I disagree with their philosophy, I understand their viewpoint. Republicans, on the other hand, are just greedy c#cksuckers interested solely in making a buck without any regard for their fellow man or the environment. 'Nuff said.
 

Joe Sandlin (66.207.81.26)
Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 11:57 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I agree that the "war on drugs" is a failure and should be ended. But why do you blame Republicans for it? There's been a steady decrease in personal liberty in the name of the war for decades. No knock laws, asset forfiture, ten year federal minimums. Politicians of both parties have been milking this issue for their own gain for a long time.

Now we have another excuse to eliminate more freedom. A new war, this time on terrorism. I'm more worried about the actions of my government than I am about a terrorist. But the sad fact is that the majority of the American people would rather feel safe than live free. So the trend continues.
 

Bill Pierce (24.141.63.119)
Posted on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 03:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm a longtime civil libertarian, a somewhat different notion than a political libertarian. I, too, worry greatly about the surrender of personal freedoms and privacy in the name of security. In some ways we have only furthered the goals of those who seek to make the US and the world a worse place to live.

Joe's right that the erosion of our liberties has occurred under the watch of both political parties. I don't believe that Gore would have been able to resist these impulses much more than Bush has.

As Gore Vidal (Al Gore's cousin) used to preach, the concept of the "national security state" has its roots at the end of World War II when the military/security interests had lost the urgency of an immediate war to ensure their remaining in power. They substituted a fear of Communism for that of Nazism, which now has been supplanted by terrorism. It's all about control. The heirs of the original architects of Vidal's NSS are positioned throughout our government and have been for a long time.
 

Wykowski (209.222.26.27)
Posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 07:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html

listen to the song in the background, it's funny, my grandfather had that record when I was a kid
 

Pat Babcock
Moderator
Username: Pbabcock

Post Number: 49
Registered: 02-2002
Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 05:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hey, Chumley! Thanks for sharing your opinion of Republicans.

What strange twist of reason causes you to classify all Republicans in such a way? Has every Republican you've ever encountered dipped his or her hand into your pocket to demonstrate their greed? How about ANY Republican? Has every Republican you've ever encountered somehow demostrated a lack of integrity to you?

What about Democrats? Should they all be canonized for some demonstration of a common decency? For some enlightenment that assures us that they are all employed working toward our best interests?

You're pretty small minded, I'd have to say. Anyone who prejudges a class of people as you just have qualifies for the purist definition of the term "Nazi". Go look at their history. Then go look in the mirror.
 

Ken Anderson
Intermediate Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 377
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

There are enough apathetic, contented people in America to reelect Bush. They don't read, listen, or think. That's what pisses off those of us that do. My rant.
Ken
 

J. Steinhauer
Member
Username: Jstein6870

Post Number: 191
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 05:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm sorry for pissing you off Ken.

I must admit, I'm pretty content. It took me a long time to get here, too. It is perhaps, my lack of apathy about this contentedness that leans me more to the right. According to the Democrats, I'm not even a "working man."

I actually consider myself more of a Libertarian, and agree with Bill and Joe in that both major parties are guilty of maintaining the status quo. Drug laws (including prescription drugs) are part of that.

I'm not pissed off by the malcontents who would support Kerry/Edwards, but those who THINK (?) that Kerry/Edwards are going to make things magically better. The only thing that will be different for me if Kerry gets elected is that I will pay more income tax. If that's better for you, then your THINKING is correct.

Steinhauer
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 567
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 07:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Steinhauer's right. Despite the polarization of American politics that has occurred in the last dozen or so years, a vote for Kerry is no more of an endorsement of radical change than one for Bush was four years ago. The choices are really rather limited. Of course a vote for Nader, as much of an expression of protest as it may be, has virtually the same effect as one for Bush.
 

Ken Anderson
Intermediate Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 378
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 02:33 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

My post was directed at no one in this thread. I was just venting. But we KNOW the Bush camp is amazing. I'm for giving Kerry's crew a try.
 

J. Steinhauer
Member
Username: Jstein6870

Post Number: 192
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 03:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The polarity in politics, as you call it, unfortunately, has much less to do with important policy than it has to do with highly personal issues, that I think the government has no business sticking its nose into: abortion, prayer, gay rights, ten commandments, flag burning, etc. This is what drives many to select their candidate, because the country's deteriorating infrastructure (highways, airports, power grid, etc.) is not emotional enough.

The "war on terrorism" is a thing that I have difficulty with. I simply don't know what is the best way to go about this, but it has to be done. Whether the Iraq quagmire is the right way or wrong way will only be known decades from now. I am afraid that the Kerry will take us back to our passive stance, which is doomed to fail, as WWII and the Cold War showed. It was only when the threats were addressed head on, almost too late, that they were eliminated. While I won't argure that there are no ulterior motives to Iraq, I don't think they are as simple as many believe (oil?). Frankly, we all know that oil prices are high because of increased worldwide demand (China, India, growing East Europe). I also can not support anyone who thinks we need to work with the impotent group of wannabes in the United Nations where our national interests are concerned. Diplomats from third world Africa simply have no business telling us what to do.

Anyway, Kerry can't win. He and Edwards are both too liberal for the average American. Edwards can't win the South, because he's not a Bible beater, and they're both Senators, who are by nature dealers and not executives. Kerry's a sacrificial lamb. The party put him on the block so they can run Hilary next time around. She's a Senator, too, but notice how low low low of a profile she is taking. This is the most frightening thing of all.
 

Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl

Post Number: 1134
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 04:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hey, Chumley! Thanks for sharing your opinion of Republicans. ...

give us a break Pat, I believe Chumley deserves the benifit of the dought, in that his rant is directed towards Republican politicians not regular people who's voting card says republican

Republican and Democrat politicians all suck,
so I will vote against every incumbant every time untill a viable alternative arises,

vote for plumbers not lawyers
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church

 

Ken Anderson
Intermediate Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 380
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 06:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

A politician's first and foremost goal is his own re-election (though they'll never admit that). Look at the Bush handlers when they revealed the computer mole in Pakistan. That guy may have been able to lead us to Bin Laden, but the Republicans blew it by squawking about him to "prove" there was reconnaissance information on his computer (the bank buildings, etc). How we as Americans can let that one slide is beyond me. And did you see the recent world poll showing the VAST majority of foreign citizens want Bush out of office? I for one wouldn't mind being in good graces with the rest of the world. Pardon the rant.
 

Hornbrau
Member
Username: Hornbrau

Post Number: 247
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 08:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"And did you see the recent world poll showing the VAST majority of foreign citizens want Bush out of office?"

I would bet that the vast majority of terrorists would be happy to see Bush gone as well. Think about that!
 

Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny

Post Number: 3505
Registered: 01-2001
Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 08:59 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Actually, from a couple interviews I've heard recently, terrorists would rather have Bush remain in office. It's a great recruiting tool for them.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
 

J. Steinhauer
Member
Username: Jstein6870

Post Number: 195
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Now, how much do you know about Prime Minister Blair? I don't even know the names of most of the leaders of the world? Given what I know about internal politics of foreign countries, I would guess that foreigners know diddly squat about internal American politics. They are in no better position to have an opinion about Bush than I do about their leaders. Do you think the Russians give a crap what you think when they vote for Putin. The Chinese don't get to vote. I assum the vast majority of Earth citizens, including the Chinese, would like to see their leaders out of office. I simply don't worry much about what foreigners think. Most of them have no idea what being American means.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 574
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Recent polls have shown that Kerry would receive 61 percent of the votes in Canada and 79 percent in Europe, that is, of course if people in those countries could vote in the US election. I suspect that satisfies some Republicans who pride themselves on being at odds with the rest of the world. It's obvious that sometimes America has to act in its own interests and these cannot always be those of everyone else, but it does give pause to the notion of international cooperation and points out how isolated the US has become.
 

Ken Anderson
Intermediate Member
Username: Ken75

Post Number: 381
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"We're fighting terrorism, and you're either with us or you're against us."
Thanks George. That, and his cowboy image, is going over real well with the rest of the world. Cheney, the Wyoming boy, is right in there too. I'm sure a lot of Americans could not care less, but I do.
 

Pat Babcock
Moderator
Username: Pbabcock

Post Number: 50
Registered: 02-2002
Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 01:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Had to pause and think about whether this warranted a reply, but I decided it did.


Hey, Chumley! Thanks for sharing your opinion of Republicans. ...

give us a break Pat, I believe Chumley deserves the benifit of the dought, in that his rant is directed towards Republican politicians not regular people who's voting card says republican


Huh. Oddly I read: Republicans are wangs. Those with any integrity should have left the party long ago to become Libertarians, whom, though I disagree with their philosophy, I understand their viewpoint. Republicans, on the other hand, are just greedy c#cksuckers interested solely in making a buck without any regard for their fellow man or the environment.

No, I have no doubt about what was written. You, apparently, read something very diferent than I did. Not all Republicans are greedy "wangs" just as not all Democrats are "rob the rich to feed the poor" liberal wienies, not all Libertarians are naive, disenfranchised college dropouts; and not all Natural Law Party members are mindless simps.

It makes me pretty sick to think of the things many of the "greedy Republicans" do for people at no cost to society, only to have such "intelligentsia" toss them all out with the bathwater. Because most Republicans prefer to assist voluntarily by giving to things they WISH to support, rather than have it stolen from their assets and slung around to every pork-barrel initiative and special interest group on the planet, I guess that's a bad thing, huh?

I've always considered myself to be nonpartisan. I have always voted my conscience with respect to the stance on certain ISSUES that an individual represents; not whether they are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Natural Law Party. But, as I think back on the past many elections I've participated in, I guess I'm a greedy, <expletive>, Republican wang.

Give me a break, Wykowski. He wrote what he wrote, and it was pretty cut and dried. I found it offensive - even though I claimed no affiliation with the party.

Frankly, I see this whole discussion as a perfect demonstration of why the rest of the world thinks of us as a group of slack-jawed, drooling idiots. We don't focus on the issues. We rely on the childish classification of groups and individuals to sway wach other, and let the issues fall where they may.
 

Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl

Post Number: 1137
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 03:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

yes Pat, I hear ya
I'm a registered Republican and I didn't think it was directed at me, my Dad, Brother or Boss

(I'm only a republican because I wanted to vote in the primary, the religious right drove me to Libertarianism long ago)

I'm greedy wang, I just wish the other Republicans would admit it and quit hiding behind Jesus....

ps the Democrats are dicks too, but party in power (R or D) is always the biggest bunch in my twisted view,

and rest of the world should admit they are asses too, big world full of pussys and an administration full of chicken-hawks, no wonder I drink so much
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church

 

J. Steinhauer
Member
Username: Jstein6870

Post Number: 200
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 03:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

90% of Americans ARE slack-jawed idiots. 90% of foreigners are, too.

American isolationism started in the 1770's. I also don't see that the rest of the world has a great history of cooperationism. Anyway, it's really easy for foreign politicians when they have the U.S. to do their dirty work for them, because they don't have to take a stand on controversial issues; they only have to bash Americans. Let us also not forget that Western Europe is not the rest of the world.
 

Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley

Post Number: 2283
Registered: 02-2003
Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 08:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Wow. I should check "World Expressions" more often. I just came here to copy Wykowski's excellent link to send to a friend of mine, and saw all this...

Pat, I apologize. Looks like I should have laid off the Rochefort 8 clone keg that night nine months ago when I posted. I shouldn't generalize about Republicans. Heck, as a white male, most of my friends are Republicans (those greedy, narrow-minded, no good so-and-sos...dang! there I go again!) Reading the World Expressions Rules of Conduct, I suggest that as administrator, you delete my post (but spare me from the Air Force, please).

Big Earl, thanks for sticking up for me. It is obvious that you have spent some time in the company of loud obnoxious drunks. :-)
 

Kent Fletcher
Advanced Member
Username: Fletch

Post Number: 574
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 06:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

As Gore Vidal (Al Gore's cousin) used to preach, the concept of the "national security state" has its roots at the end of World War II when the military/security interests had lost the urgency of an immediate war to ensure their remaining in power. They substituted a fear of Communism for that of Nazism, which now has been supplanted by terrorism.

Bill, the fear of Communism predated the rise of Nazism. Neither of them can even remotely be called baseless or irrational fears. If you think that we in post-war America need not have feared Communism, I suggest you look at Czechoslovakia, Romania, Germany, the Balkans, etc. Not to mention places like Afghanistan. Not to mention most of the Middle East and Africa...

BTW, I also find it somewhat incongruous for a self-avowed civil libertarian to quote Gore Vidal.
 

Kent Fletcher
Advanced Member
Username: Fletch

Post Number: 575
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 06:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

their possessions were confiscated, bank accounts frozen, all for trafficking a little weed. Their lives undoubtedly have taken a serious turn for the worst, thanks to some BS legislation passed by Ronnie and the boys in the 1980s. It just pisses me off.

Hmmm. They knowingly broke laws that have been on the books for SIXTY YEARS, and the current forefieture laws have been on the books for their whole lifetime. And they're "college students?" That's a bit like calling Rodney King a "motorist."

Excuse my while I dry my tears, don't want to short out my keyboard... The lives of these criminals (that's what they are, right?) took a turn for the worse LONG before they were busted.

BTW, the Dems were in control of both houses of Congress when the "BS legislation" you refer to was passed, with enough support to override a presidential veto.

If you want to talk about nazis and/or fascists, let's talk about the administration that enabled the most fascistic government agency in U.S. history, an agency that trumped up a phony case against the Branch Davidians, just so they could make another "big gun bust" with TV news cameras rolling.}
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 965
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 11:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Kent, I don't subscribe to everything Gore Vidal says. I merely think his "national security state" concept is an interesting way of explaining what has occurred in the US in the past 60 years and something that to me seems to dovetail with events and attitudes in the wake of September 11.

I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s when the anti-Communist rhetoric and paranoia bordered on a national epidemic. What occurred in Eastern Europe (my wife is Romanian; you should hear her take on this) had more to do with Stalin and the Soviet military than with economics or ideology. The same is largely true of the Cold War. I fail to see how Communism would have made much headway in the US. It was used as a bogeyman to justify abuses of civil liberties, much as (in my opinion) the Patriot Act has allowed today.

I had a professor in college, a thoughtful and conservative man, who was also a former FBI agent in the 1950s. He described in some detail his gradual disillusionment with the government as he witnessed firsthand J. Edgar Hoover's paranoia about a host of imagined evils that included Communists, Jews and homosexuals. The stories were enough to make me mistrustful of most of our national leaders.

One subject with which I won't take issue is your opinion about Waco, which I agree is one of the sorrier abuses of American governmental power. They could have waited out David Koresh and his even more sorry, misguided cult and avoided the mess that ensued. But somehow the very manhood of law enforcement was being called into question, which required a macho response and a fiery conflagration. In no way can I make excuses for Oklahoma City and Timothy McVeigh, but it seems to me that none of this needed to happen.

(Message edited by BillPierce on October 31, 2004)
 

Kent Fletcher
Advanced Member
Username: Fletch

Post Number: 581
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 02:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, the Hoover era of the FBI is another long, sad chapter of American history, but the bureau is nothing like that today. I have known many men and two women in the FBI, ranging from retirees who started in the 60's to current agents who joined in the 90's, and there is little doubt that Hoover would not recognize the agency today.

But I was not talking about the FBI, but the ATF. The FBI shouldn't have had to wait out Koresh because the ATF shouldn't have been there in the first place. The whole raid was a trumped up publicity operation. And the gung-ho, 'let's be a swat team, who cares if we don't know about tactics,' kick doors and justify it later bent of that agency was a mandate from Reno and Clinton.

As you said, if not for Waco there would have been no Oklahoma City. I'll add that if not for Reno there would have been no Waco, if not for Clinton there would have been no Reno, and, most importantly, if not for Perot therer would have been no Clinton.

As for communism not making headway, well, it's not like there weren't people trying. I was born in 56, and did the duck and cover drills in grammar school, but that was far from paranoia. And Kruschev wasn't exactly a peace and freedom guy, either. I was born and raised in Hollywood, and know all of the hue and cry about the HUAC, but there WERE communists in the Hollywood Ten, and they DID make films pushing the fellow traveler message.

If you don't think Hollywood writers and directors could advance communism in this country, I would point at the difference some of them have made in 20-25 years re the mainstream acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: