Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"I for one will be investigating with California's AG what the definition of all this is." -Wallaby
As an employee at the CA A.G.'s office, you should see what we get in the mail.
Address it to the Public Inquiry Unit. Seriously, they have thousands of form letters to choose from. Enjoy yours.
Q: Why is it that Republicans are incapable of discussing any foreign policy issue without bringing up Hitler and Neville Chamberlain and appeasement?
A: Because Neville Chamberlain is the ultimate personification of liberalism at its most flagrant, and he DID try to sate the appetite of a voracious, murderous monster.
Just as leftists today are trying to comfort the Allahu Akbar crowd, the very same "peaceful" Islamists who would just love to kill all of us kuffar in the name of Global Jihad.
In other words, all of you lefties here are dangerously naive for refusing to learn from the harsh lessons of the past, starting with the Great Appeaser, Chamberlain.
At least we won't have to worry about the following list of "Warriors" showing up here -
Dennis Hastert - did not serve.
Dick Armey - did not serve.
Tom Delay - did not serve. "so many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for me"
Roy Blount - did not serve
Bill Frist - did not serve.
Trent Lott - did not serve.
VP Cheney - avoided the draft through several (5!) deferments, the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service")
John Ashcroft - did not serve; sought deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State
Florida Governor - did not serve.
Karl Rove - did not serve
Newt Gingrich - did not serve
Phil Gramm - did not serve, four (?) student deferments
Don Nickles, R-OK - did not serve
Richard Shelby, did not serve
Jon Kyl, R-AZ - did not serve
Tim Hutchison, R-AR - did not serve
Saxby Chambliss, Georgia - did not serve, had a "bad knee"
JC Watts - did not serve
Jack Kemp, did not serve (was fit enough for pro football, but "failed" the physical?)
Eliot Abrams, did not serve
Vin Weber, did not serve
Richard Perle, did not serve
Rudy Giuliani, did not serve
Michael Bloomberg, did not serve
George Pataki, did not serve
John Engler, did not serve
George Will, did not serve
Tweety Matthews, did not serve.
Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
Paul Gigot, did not serve.
Bill Bennett, did not serve
Pat Buchanan, did not serve
Rush Limbaugh, did not serve 4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst'
John Wayne, did not serve
Bill Kristol, did not serve
Kenneth Starr, did not serve
Antonin Scalia, did not serve
Clarence Thomas, did not serve
Ralph Reed, did not serve
a new article about Tony Blair on page 3 of the Wog
link at sig
A: Because Neville Chamberlain is the ultimate personification of liberalism at its most flagrant, and he DID try to sate the appetite of a voracious, murderous monster.
OK, anyone with a few 20th century history classes can probably figure out what the problem with this ridiculous statement is.
Hint: Neville Chamberlain was succeeded by a member of his own political party.
Using power may mean going beyond mere mediation.
Here's Seth P. Tillman, a few decades ago, on U.S.-Israel relations:
http://wrmea.com/backissues/101882/821018008.htm
"The U.S. should cease to be a mediator and become an arbitrator."
- - Seth P. Tillman, 1982
* * * * *
Of course, these past 8 years, the U.S. did cease to be a mediator . . .
Do you know what the word Appease means? If so, please define it, and then tell us how it is that you connect it to the "appeasing liberals'.
Q: Why is it that Republicans are incapable of discussing any foreign policy issue without bringing up Hitler and Neville Chamberlain and appeasement?
Whenever someone brings up the Nazis in an argument where it really doesn't apply (99.9% of the time), it's their way of admitting that they don't have a valid point to make. Think of it as an argument placebo, to give the feeling of a valid argument when there isn't one. There are many variations of this. For example, Lab2112:
In other words, all of you lefties here are dangerously naive for refusing to learn from the harsh lessons of the past, starting with the Great Appeaser, Chamberlain.
Chamberlain let Hitler annex Poland and Czechoslovakia. In the mind of a right wing authoritarian, this is the same thing as expressing criticism at the wanton loss of innocent life in an Israeli offensive.
These people are not rational players. Scrutinizing their ideas as if they were rational is folly.
Q: Why is it that Republicans are incapable of discussing any foreign policy issue without bringing up Hitler and Neville Chamberlain and appeasement? A: Because Neville Chamberlain is the ultimate personification of liberalism at its most flagrant, and he DID try to sate the appetite of a voracious, murderous monster.
As soon as Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia (and any others I neglected to mention) start annexing territory as Hitler did, you'll be sure to find all sorts of objections here about. Until then, well, it's pretty silly/pathetic to say that Chamberlain personifies "liberalism" because he gave in to Hitler.
Just as leftists today are trying to comfort the Allahu Akbar crowd, the very same "peaceful" Islamists who would just love to kill all of us kuffar in the name of Global Jihad.
And how many of these Islamists are there? Can you provide a number, a percentage, from a reputable source? Or do you "claim" that all Muslims fit into this category?
In other words, all of you lefties here are dangerously naive for refusing to learn from the harsh lessons of the past, starting with the Great Appeaser, Chamberlain.
In other words, you're words lack any kind of coherency.
One of the fascists' earliest tests was to see if the West would allow them to overthrow a Western democracy and assist fascism by aiding and bombing Spain to back the Franco Falangists.
And they got the message they sought -- the West declared themselves officially uninterested, although Britain, for example blockaded Spain from getting arms and assistance from Mexico and elsewhere.
Maybe if the anti-Communist, anti-Socialist, anti-democratic right wing of the USA and elsewhere hadn't let Mussolini and Hitler aid Franco so easily into power, it might have sent a different message.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
