(OT) Bush worships Satan!

[DC Tom]

Ilya Ehrenburg frequently contributed to Pravda, and to the Soviet military daily. In addition, he authored leaflets broadly distributed to troops at the front. He served the functions of a propaganda minister, regardless of whatever official title he may have had.

 

In one of Ehrenburg's leaflets, he told the Soviet soldiers:

 

"The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day ... If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another -- there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German -- that is your grandmother's request. Kill the German -- that is your child's prayer. Kill the German -- that is your motherland's loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill."

 

Ehrenburg received the Stalin Prize in 1952.

215004[/snapback]

 

Nice job of backing and filling: "Okay, Ehrenberg wasn't really the propaganda minister...but he was."

 

You couldn't possibly give me a source - primary or secondary - for any of this, could you? I know I've never seen any of this drivel in Wirth, Erickson, Glantz and House, Beevor, Clark, Seaton, or Tsouras...but it's just possible that there's an authoritative scholar on the Russo-German conflict who'se books I haven't read...

[Terry Tate]

Nice job of backing and filling: "Okay, Ehrenberg wasn't really the propaganda minister...but he was."

 

You couldn't possibly give me a source - primary or secondary - for any of this, could you?  I know I've never seen any of this drivel in Wirth, Erickson, Glantz and House, Beevor, Clark, Seaton, or Tsouras...but it's just possible that there's an authoritative scholar on the Russo-German conflict who'se books I haven't read... 

215119[/snapback]

Interesting discussion. I found what appears to be his source here. I don't know anything about the 'Institute for Historical Review', but a quick look around reveals they are not well thought of by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. That's as far as I'm researching that.

[Snorom]

Race

Liberals complain that black people are victims of poverty, discrimination, and lack of opportunity. They then prevent blacks from having educational opportunity by working to deny poor black parents the right to decide what schools their children should be sent to. They also oppose strong anti-crime measures, creating dangerous neighborhoods that black people are stuck living in. Two parent black families, at least in poor neighborhoods, were attacked by Democrats as a form of welfare fraud. Speaking of welfare, Democrats were the ones who came up with the idea of paying people more to do nothing than to work in low-wage jobs. Minorities were disproportinately impacted by this attack on the work ethic, because minorities had historically been the victims of institutionalized discrimination. The problem of inner city drug addition is largely due to liberal influence: ideas about recreational narcotics worked their way from '60s hippie campuses to the inner city.

 

 

Do you really think that removing funding from people on welfare is going to solve problems. That they will all just take the jobs that cannot provide the means well enough to support a person. How is this going to help the problems of people who are on welfare. There are tremendous amount of people today who work full time and are receiving little or no benefits, and stuggle to make ends meet. Many of these people today are well educated. I know of many people who are college educated who cannot find jobs that provide enough. The fact is minimum wage jobs do not provide the means to a life outside of poverty. Clinton proposed welfare reform but conservatives wanted no part of that.

 

The problem with inner city drug use can just as easily be associated with prohibition. Remember this country's dance with alcohol prohibition. It became the foothold of organized crime and political corruption that gained so much power that many of those factions in this era still exist. The black market was created and it became easy money for many. Take away the black markets and the the amount of crime will desolve proportionally.

 

The real question about inner city drug use is how does a couple hundred tons of cocaine and heroine make it into this country every year. You cannot blame any liberal for this. Although I am positive you will try.

 

The economy

Liberals seem blissfully ignorant that you have to create wealth before you can distribute it. They often favor needless regulations, a parasitic legal system, or other attacks on the economy. Liberals seem to favor massive immigration from Third World countries; creating a situation where the U.S. is importing people while exporting jobs. Hardest-hit by this betrayal of the American worker are those who have the least skills and fewest opportunities.

 

This country was based on immigration, something even george bush supports. No liberal or faction of the government has ever fought for an open door policy to immigrantion. Unless you have multiple sources showing this belief to be true beyond your own cut and paste conservative BS there is no reason to debate it. Its not true.

 

Last time I checked the Bush administration has done very little to make it more attractive for corporations to keep jobs here. The other problem is the fact that so many CEO's, VP's and other higher up white collar corporate personel receive huge bonuses for doing whatever it takes to drive profits and stock prices higher. Because of this menatality, what we see today in America is less. Less jobs, less benefits, less pay, while those towards the top of the tower take larger and larger cuts. We see jobs being shipped overseas for one simple reason. We, the American Blue collar worker need, and expect to make a good solid living. Its time for those at the top of the ladder to take less and redistribute the wealth back down to those who make the country work.

 

However, the American people themselves have to take on much of this blame. Those of us who insist on the cheapest prices are subscribing to outsourcing. Which in turn lowers our wages and the amount of jobs available. This then forces us to look even further for cheaper goods that come from outsourcing.

 

As for needless regultion. In some cases I will agree with you, but I also believe the conservative right is just as dangerous from the opposite end of the spectrum. Allowing corporations to run, unchecked. To me this seems to be a very crooked situation based upon the amount of corporate money we see pouring into politics.

 

Mass murder

Liberals have a long and rich tradition of doing absolutely nothing about mass murder, so long as the perpetrators are communits. The first act of FDR's foreign policy was to recognize the Soviet Union. This, while the Soviets were starving 7 million innocent Ukrainians to death. FDR remained a loyal ally of the Soviet Union throughout his administration. Lest FDR be considered the exception rather than the rule, consider the visciousness with which Democrats attacked any hard-line anti-communist. The Soviets murdered 7 million people in the post-Stalin era. If the Democrats attack the enemies of the Soviet Union, while also favoring appeasement, it seems to me they should feel a deep sense of shame for the mass murders their actions helped perpetrate.

 

 

This one is a laugh riot. Jumping back 50 or so years and trying to fit it into todays world. I'm sure whatever was happening at this time has little to do with what we are seeing in this age. To even think that this is a liberal issue is just downright laughable by anyone. I would call this a desperate reach by a right wing extremeist.

[Chef Jim]

actually posting this dribble. 

214735[/snapback]

 

What, are we playing basketball now?

[KurtGodel77]

Interesting discussion. I found what appears to be his source here. I don't know anything about the 'Institute for Historical Review', but a quick look around reveals they are not well thought of by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. That's as far as I'm researching that.

215151[/snapback]

My source for the original Ehrenburg quote was Jackboot, published by Barnes and Noble, and written by John Laffin. The source for the second Ehrenburg quote was indeed IHR. I realize that the ADL may have a problem with the IHR, so it really depends on whether you think the ADL is unbiased. The ADL has concocted a list of mass murders; the list includes the Holocaust (of course), the U.S. attacks on Native Americans, Australia's war against the aboriginees, and other crimes (real or alleged) committed by Western governments. Absent, however, is any mention of the worst mass murder in human history: the Soviet genocide. The second-worst mass murder in human history--the Chinese genocide--was also not important enough to make the ADL's list. The ADL appears to have a political agenda which goes far beyond the protection of the Jewish people.

[KurtGodel77]

Do you really think that removing funding from people on welfare is going to solve problems. That they will all just take the jobs that cannot provide the means well enough to support a person. How is this going to help the problems of people who are on welfare. There are tremendous amount of people today who work full time and are receiving little or no benefits, and stuggle to make ends meet. Many of these people today are well educated. I know of many people who are college educated who cannot find jobs that provide enough. The fact is minimum wage jobs do not provide the means to a life outside of poverty. Clinton proposed welfare reform but conservatives wanted no part of that.

 

It was conservatives who were the driving force behind welfare reform; something many Democrats didn't want. You ask how the welfare system should work. Fair enough. First, there should be no incentives for a family to get a divorce. Under the welfare system LBJ created, a woman had to divorce her husband to get full welfare benefits. If the husband hung around after the divorce, or spent a lot of time with the kids, the family could expect to be prosecuted for welfare fraud. Simply ignoring marital status when considering a welfare application would have ended this form of institutional brutality. This aspect of the system was reformed by California governor Ronald Reagan in the 1970s, and by the Republican Congress in the 1990s.

 

The way that LBJ set up the welfare system, you would lose your benefits if you worked a full time job. So you were worse off working than sitting around collecting a check. Clearly this was not necessary. A better way would have been to tell people that for every dollar they earn, they lose $0.50 in welfare benefits. That way people would always be better off working; thus helping to end the cycle of poverty Democrats did so much to create.

 

The problem with inner city drug use can just as easily be associated with prohibition. Remember this country's dance with alcohol prohibition. It became the foothold of organized crime and political corruption that gained so much power that many of those factions in this era still exist. The black market was created and it became easy money for many. Take away the black markets and the the amount of crime will desolve proportionally.

 

The real question about inner city drug use is how does a couple hundred tons of cocaine and heroine make it into this country every year. You cannot blame any liberal for this. Although I am positive you will try.

 

There are two separate issues here: drug addiction, and gang-related crime. Legalization would eliminate the latter, while increasing the former. My main point was that often, inner city parents are unfit because they are addicted to recreational substances. I remember quite clearly which political group was most responsible for saying that recreational substances were okay.

 

This country was based on immigration, something even george bush supports. No liberal or faction of the government has ever fought for an open door policy to immigrantion. Unless you have multiple sources showing this belief to be true beyond your own cut and paste conservative BS there is no reason to debate it. Its not true.

I seem to remember John Kerry favoring a liberal immigration policy in the presidential debates. I also seem to remember Democrats calling Bush Sr. a racist for not wanting Haitian immigrants to come into this country, even though the unemployment rate among unskilled blacks was 25% at the time. LBJ was the one who passed the law allowing massive immigration from the Third World in the first place, and I haven't seen a lot of other liberals opposing him on that. Have you?

 

Last time I checked the Bush administration has done very little to make it more attractive for corporations to keep jobs here. The other problem is the fact that so many CEO's, VP's and other higher up white collar corporate personel receive huge bonuses for doing whatever it takes to drive profits and stock prices higher. Because of this menatality, what we see today in America is less. Less jobs, less benefits, less pay, while those towards the top of the tower take larger and larger cuts. We see jobs being shipped overseas for one simple reason. We, the American Blue collar worker need, and expect to make a good solid living. Its time for those at the top of the ladder to take less and redistribute the wealth back down to those who make the country work.

 

I agree that from a social justice perspective, a more equal distribution of wealth makes sense. However, it's not clear to me how the government could accomplish that goal without major interference with the free market system. Moving jobs to the Third World countries increases profits because they can make the same goods cheaper. The way to combat this is for the U.S. to become more economically efficient. It should allow investments in equipment, buildings, and R&D to be expensed immediately, causing a more long-term corporate focus. It should reform employment laws, making it easier for corporations to hire and fire without being sued. It should end the NEA's involvement in setting educational policy, leading to a competitive American workforce. Tort reform would help, as would the elimination of the software patent (copyright yes, patent no).

 

However, the American people themselves have to take on much of this blame. Those of us who insist on the cheapest prices are subscribing to outsourcing. Which in turn lowers our wages and the amount of jobs available. This then forces us to look even further for cheaper goods that come from outsourcing.

 

Agreed.

 

As for needless regultion. In some cases I will agree with you, but I also believe the conservative right is just as dangerous from the opposite end of the spectrum. Allowing corporations to run, unchecked. To me this seems to be a very crooked situation based upon the amount of corporate money we see pouring into politics.

I agree that corporations often don't have this country's best interests at heart, and allowing them too much power would be mistaken. For example, corporations have played a large role in U.S. immigration policy, so as to drive down wages and increase unemployment. Why would a corporation prefer 10,000 people working and 1,000 unemployed to 10,000 people working and 0 unemployed? Because when you're unemployed or fearful of becoming so, you'll put up with more.

 

This one is a laugh riot. Jumping back 50 or so years and trying to fit it into todays world. I'm sure whatever was happening at this time has little to do with what we are seeing in this age. To even think that this is a liberal issue is just downright laughable by anyone. I would call this a desperate reach by a right wing extremeist.

215207[/snapback]

Jumping back 50 years and drawing conclusions from genocides is exactly what Jewish groups do all the time. I assume you say the same things to them that you do to me.

 

However, there are people who have no problem with talking about the lessons we learned from the Holocaust. Considering that far more people were killed by the communists than the Nazis, shouldn't we also be learning lessons from the Soviet genocide too?

[DC Tom]

Absent, however, is any mention of the worst mass murder in human history: the Soviet genocide.

215234[/snapback]

 

Why? Is Ilya Ehrenberg their propaganda minister too?

[KurtGodel77]

Why?  Is Ilya Ehrenberg their propaganda minister too?   

215312[/snapback]

You sure seem fixated on that whole Ilya Ehrenburg/propaganda minister thing. Are you prepared to argue that Stalin wasn't the Soviet dictator, because he lacked the title "Ruthless Dictator?"

[DC Tom]

You sure seem fixated on that whole Ilya Ehrenburg/propaganda minister thing. Are you prepared to argue that Stalin wasn't the Soviet dictator, because he lacked the title "Ruthless Dictator?"

215316[/snapback]

 

Sure...he wasn't a dictator, he was a puppet of the American Liberal Left and FDR. My source for this...is your posts.

 

I'm fixated on it, because it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while.

[KurtGodel77]

Sure...he wasn't a dictator, he was a puppet of the American Liberal Left and FDR.  My source for this...is your posts.   

 

I'm fixated on it, because it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while.

215319[/snapback]

Funny, I don't remember calling Stalin anyone's puppet. I did say that the liberals in this country helped him--which they did. I'm sure you'd feel the same way about FDR's appeasement of the Soviet Union if you yourself had come to the brink of starvation in the Ukraine, or if you'd been a German woman who'd watched the Soviets murder her children.

[DC Tom]

Funny, I don't remember calling Stalin anyone's puppet. I did say that the liberals in this country helped him--which they did. I'm sure you'd feel the same way about FDR's appeasement of the Soviet Union if you yourself had come to the brink of starvation in the Ukraine, or if you'd been a German woman who'd watched the Soviets murder her children.

215344[/snapback]

 

So I clearly don't have the moral right to judge, because I wasn't a starving Ukranian or a Prussian "Blonde Witch"? We're therefore to presume that you are?

 

And is the FDR-led American Liberal Left to blame for Stalin or not? Take your time and get your story straight, I'll wait...I'll spend the time going through some of Ehrenberg's own writing (something I'm sure you've never done) and having a good laugh at your expense.

[KurtGodel77]

So I clearly don't have the moral right to judge, because I wasn't a starving Ukranian or a Prussian "Blonde Witch"?  We're therefore to presume that you are? 

 

And is the FDR-led American Liberal Left to blame for Stalin or not?  Take your time and get your story straight, I'll wait...I'll spend the time going through some of Ehrenberg's own writing (something I'm sure you've never done) and having a good laugh at your expense.

215406[/snapback]

I never talked about whether you were "judging." My point was simple: the Soviets engaged in genocide, the liberals helped them, and you don't seem to care.

[DC Tom]

I never talked about whether you were "judging." My point was simple: the Soviets engaged in genocide, the liberals helped them, and you don't seem to care.

215442[/snapback]

 

It's not that I don't care. It's that, having actually studied that period of history, I think your malinformed opinions are a load of crap.

[KurtGodel77]

It's not that I don't care.  It's that, having actually studied that period of history, I think your malinformed opinions are a load of crap.

215513[/snapback]

That's a pretty broad statement, and it's not clear what exactly you're disputing. The NY Times admits the Soviets engaged in genocide, and that the paper denied the genocide took place. If you're as familiar with history as you claim, you'll know that FDR's foreign policy was consistently pro-Soviet, and that Truman didn't engage in even "moderate" anti-communism until put under pressure from the Republican right. Lenin himself saw liberals as "useful idiots."

 

Based on your signature and on some of the comments you've made, you seem to think that this discussion is beneath you, and that anyone who disagrees with any opinion you've formed must be an imbecile. Typical liberal arrogance.

[DC Tom]

That's a pretty broad statement, and it's not clear what exactly you're disputing. The NY Times admits the Soviets engaged in genocide, and that the paper denied the genocide took place. If you're as familiar with history as you claim, you'll know that FDR's foreign policy was consistently pro-Soviet, and that Truman didn't engage in even "moderate" anti-communism until put under pressure from the Republican right. Lenin himself saw liberals as "useful idiots."

 

Based on your signature and on some of the comments you've made, you seem to think that this discussion is beneath you, and that anyone who disagrees with any opinion you've formed must be an imbecile. Typical liberal arrogance.

215533[/snapback]

 

No, I think discussing it with you is beneath me. You've made a bunch of broad, sweeping, unsupported statements that you haven't yet managed to back up with anything resembling a fact, merely repetition. I could offer a point-by-point refutation of your posts...but frankly, you're so uninformed it's an obvious waste of time. You need to go do your homework before I can even be bothered.

 

And ask the liberals here how much of a liberal I am, you dope.

[KurtGodel77]

No, I think discussing it with you is beneath me.  You've made a bunch of broad, sweeping, unsupported statements that you haven't yet managed to back up with anything resembling a fact, merely repetition.  I could offer a point-by-point refutation of your posts...but frankly, you're so uninformed it's an obvious waste of time.  You need to go do your homework before I can even be bothered.

 

And ask the liberals here how much of a liberal I am, you dope.

215574[/snapback]

Well, you sure sound arrogant enough to be a liberal. Your unsupported characterization of non-liberal points of view as "stupid" is typical of liberals. If you don't like being called a liberal, stop acting like one.

[Britbillsfan]

Only on the PPP board can someone call DC Tom a liberal.

[KurtGodel77]

Only on the PPP board can someone call DC Tom a liberal.     

215608[/snapback]

I'm not familiar with DC Tom's political views in general, but in the context of this discussion he's acting like a liberal.

[KRC]

Only on the PPP board can someone call DC Tom a liberal.     

215608[/snapback]

 

In the past, Tom has been called a Democrat AND a Republican within the same thread.

[KRC]

I'm not familiar with DC Tom's political views in general, but in the context of this discussion he's acting like a liberal.

215624[/snapback]

 

How the HELL is he acting like a liberal?