Comments Posted By funny man
Displaying 151 To 160 Of 492 Comments
I reread the piece by Buchanan and there are some more 'rhetorical' questions that Pat knows better. Like why did he not destroy the British Army in Holland. Indeed, he wanted to have Britain as an ally because he had no interest in the empire (plus they were Anglo-Saxon brothers in his mind) but rather wanted to conquer the East. That is precisely why he attacked the Soviet Union against all sensible military advise. Stalin did match Hitler in ruthlessness and brutality (little known fact in the US: Stalin reimprisoned his own POWs upon their return to the SU) and ultimately that broke Germany's back. However, the way Buchanan speaks of their sacrifice (30 million dead), only talking about Red Hordes etc is pretty offensive. Now again, I know this war was fought with a bestiality on both sides that is hard to imagine here because on the Western front rules of war were largely kept not so on the Eastern front (millions of slave laborers, rape on a grand scale, easily over a 100000 at the fall of Berlin etc) but then Hitler did start it. I don't know what got into Pat to write this article, what is his point?
Comment Posted By funny man On 5.09.2009 @ 22:55
Quiditty,
Comment Posted By funny man On 5.09.2009 @ 13:11
No, no! Post Munich or post Versailles? Bohemia always had a mix of people so there was no need to engineer anything.
Most people talking about this subject haven't read 'Mein Kampf' where Hitler basically says what he thinks. The Germanic people did indeed come from Asia (the Caucasus) and he believes they should reconquer the land to have more space (Lebensraum). In his view they have a right to do that because they are superior and stronger (just as the Americans took the land here). The Jews in his mind are the enemy of the Germans because they pollute their minds etc etc. That wasn't an uncommon view in Europe and the United States (Henry Ford) at the time.
Comment Posted By funny man On 5.09.2009 @ 12:38
So altogether The Nazis did actively work for a war from day one. They probably would have preferred to wait a year or two more but when they got the deal with Stalin both sides went for Poland. England and France did the honorable thing and declared war knowing full well they could be wiped out. I just like to point out one thing as a German. I find it really ridiculous when Americans (especially some conservatives) make fun of the French. The French fought just as hard as anyone else in WWI and when the German army came (illegally) through Holland in 1940 there was no army in the world that could have stopped them.
Anyway, Rick you have the facts right.
ANGRY IDEOLOGUES vs. THE STATISTS
The strength of the United States (IMHO) lies in its conservative tradition in that it makes the society more flexible and able to adopt to changing circumstances more quickly. In contrast, German people (or a lot of other Europeans too) have due to their own history an understandable desire for security. Hence, more of what here is called the 'nanny state' and yes, a lot of people are willing to give up some of their freedom in exchange for security. The US never had the turmoil that the rest of the world experienced in the last 200 odd years.
Be that as it may, I just think that the Democrats want to move the United States more toward a German style society. In some ways that would lead to a competitive disadvantage for the US because they would give up some of their unique character and even a good copy is still a copy. Other changes are inevitable. For example, 150 years ago London was the world biggest city with a serious sewage problem and a bunch of private companies that couldn't get the job done. In their defense, nobody at the time knew how to handle 2.5 million people's poop. However, it needed central oversight and enforcement to win the sanitary battle. All I'm saying here is that there is a role for government and today's problems can't all be solved by insights from a rural society 233 years ago.
Comment Posted By funny man On 1.09.2009 @ 22:42
NO DOUBTING TED KENNEDY'S IMPACT ON HISTORY
Political partisanship is one thing but I'm pretty sure moral failings and abuses of power is pretty equally divided among Reps and Dems. Why? It's just the human condition.
Comment Posted By funny man On 27.08.2009 @ 15:24
I also believe that you can atone for past sins in your lifetime. This is not a Kennedy issue but rather general. Why then all the self righteousness? I remember (I was still in Germany) the furor caused by Carter's Playboy interview when he said I commit adultery everyday in my mind. I thought, well what is the big deal he is just like every other fellow out here. Apparently not in the United States where playing the role of the righteous, sin-free politician has descended into an artform. Kennedy just like everyone out there was just human, the whole package, not more, not less.
Nobody is only a hero or only a coward. Maybe people felt more comfortable with him precisely because of his failings. Is there no redemption from past sins even if you try hard? I hope so, Rest in Peace Teddy.
Comment Posted By funny man On 26.08.2009 @ 21:43
now to get everyone, left and right, to lighten up a bit; read this about the upcoming German election. Wish we had some more fun like that.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,641787,00.htmlCome to think of it we have, $90,000 in a freezer, walking the Appalachian trail..
Ok, back to Reagan and FDR
Comment Posted By funny man On 23.08.2009 @ 22:25
I think the question still is 'how can the United States stay competitive with more collectivist societies'. It is true that Europe has found a slightly different solutions with its own merits and faults. I think the employer based health care was a little of a historic artifact but one that now does put the US economy at a disadvantage e.g. car industry. Anyway, this will obviously not be easy but there are ways to reduce costs and increase coverage.
Comment Posted By funny man On 23.08.2009 @ 22:16
In contrast, this constant demonizing, hyperventilating attack on the 'other side' really does nothing to make us a stronger nation; well maybe that is just my collectivist German upbringing getting the better of me.
THE ROLE OF RACE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRESIDENT
Mick,
Comment Posted By funny man On 24.08.2009 @ 15:36
according to your definition a couple of presidents in the past would have been illegal. He was born here, end of story.
Bobwire,
Comment Posted By funny man On 20.08.2009 @ 23:03
don't get me started (smile). I remember the most important thing is that you correctly define your parameters for any equation or mathematical operation. If you define racist narrowly as in 'needs a swastika tattooed to his forehead and attend regular hooded events' his number might start to make sense. Hm if however...Well, I'll let you get to work.
