Welcome to the New Reich (Spellcheck courtesy of PSU)

[War Wagon]

But now, we have someone with some radical political policies who claims we need to back away from those steadfast rules that worked so well for 200+ years. Red flag...big time.

Umm, CL..., exactly which of your "inalienable" and "guaranteed" rights have been abrogated for you, personally? I'll need specific examples of how you weren't allowed to assemble with a group of like minded clucking hens, weren't allowed to practice your religious faith of choice, weren't allowed to seek redress for grievance, etc.

The notion that the government "lets" me do things is so fucking traitorous, it makes me sick.

That's not Van's point, and you know it. His point is that if what you say were true...were even in the realm of the remotely plausible, that there would be certain specific examples which you could cite to back-up your assertions. Rather, you're left spewing hysterical generalized notions and pounding yourself on the chest amidst much wailing, pulling of hair, and gnashing of teeth against non-existant black helicopters.

Really, I admire your patriotism and willingness to go the mat to protect the legacy the founding fathers left us. I just think your oh so noble and altruistic efforts are seriously misplaced and mis-directed...not that that's going to stop you from continuing your hilarious crusade against perceived injustice and tyranny or anything, so...

You GO, boy.

[Dinsdale]

exactly which of your "inalienable" and "guaranteed" rights have been abrogated for you, personally?

You really aren't very bright, are you?

The government has made it very clear, in case you haven't noticed, that they are reserving some "right" to monitor any phone conversations I may have without warrants or probable cause that's supported by oath.

There's your example. Maybe next time, you can hit up a newspaper or evening news broadcast to get up to date on current events, rather than asking me.

It doesn't matter whether the government has done this to me or not. The point is, that if anyone claims they have some "right" to do something which I have...here's this word again...a GUARANTEE against happening as a citizen of this country, then something has broken down in our democratic system.

Whether this breech of governmental power has æffected me personally or not is moot. Remeber this quote?

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

To relinquish your rights willingly in the face of a threat is the biggest, most traitorous act of pussiness that one can engage in. Anyone who does so sullies the memory of those that died on 9/11.

When the flag-waving retards spout out the dreadful "those troops are fighting for your freedom," they always seem to lose sight of what that "freedom" is. In case you fall into that category, I posted the definitions of that freedom above.

[poptart]

Not only that, Mace, but anyone thinking 'secret' wire-tapping is something that just began under this administration needs a lobotomy.

[Dinsdale]

Applied loosely, this could include all of us but, as you well know, it doesn't. It does, however, open the door for potentially dangerous abuses of the law, and that can and should be cause for concern.

That is EXACTLY my point.

If a person is engaging in conversations with known terrorists or those who are under strong suspicion of subversive activities, it should be absolutely no problem whatsoever to obtain the neccessary (there's THAT word again) warrants to listen on in.

Where's the problem with that? As much money as we're spending fighting the terrorists, surely it wouldn't be a big deal to have a judge on site at the NSA or wherever he needs to be, so he can sign warrants in lightning-quick fashion when evidence of wrongdoing is presented to him....just like the 4th Amendment says is supposed to happen.

S'all I'm saying. Skirting around the Bill of Rights is NEVER, EVER the proper way to deal with a problem.

[Dinsdale]

Not only that, Mace, but anyone thinking 'secret' wire-tapping is something that just began under this administration needs a lobotomy.

The battlecry of tards everywhere.

So, what's your plan to fix this wire-tapping of days gone by?

Sit back and let people who you pay continue to trash what you believe in (or you sure fucking should believe in, anyhow)?

Stick with what appears to be a "two wrongs make a right" justification?

Child molestation didn't begin with the Catholic Church in the late 20th Century, either. That makes it cool to fuck little boys in your book? (I only ask because you brought up stuff that's happened in the past to a debate about what's happening at present, so I'm assuming the "it's cool, because it happened in the past" applies to everything in your world? If not, then why did you bring it up in the first place?).

Why not drop a line like "the rain in Spain remains mainly on the plains" into the thread? Equally relevant.

[Diogenes]

What I have a beef with is warrantless searches, which are in DIRECT violation of the 4th Amendment.

No, you're just an illiterate twit.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The first part deals with the requirements for search and seizure, the second with probable cause for warrants.

And none of you seem to give a fuck about the first being stripped of all meaning and turned on it's head...

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

[Mississippi Neck]

Skirting around the Bill of Rights is NEVER, EVER the proper way to deal with a problem.

Agreed.
Otherwise, whats the point? To stop terrorism by substituting a police state? That would be a victory in OBL's book. Let's really fuck with him by doing it the right way and still whipping his turban ass.

[Dinsdale]

Skirting around the Bill of Rights is NEVER, EVER the proper way to deal with a problem.

Agreed.
Otherwise, whats the point? To stop terrorism by substituting a police state? That would be a victory in OBL's book. Let's really fuck with him by doing it the right way and still whipping his turban ass.

The point I've been trying to make for 4+ years.

RACK, RACK, and RACK again. Although you and I might have our political differences, we will be wearing the same uniform when the Revolution comes....the AMERICAN uniform. I'm as of yet unwilling to pack it in so easily after 200+ years of success. It's sad that some are.

[Diogenes]

Except that nobody is skirting, ignoring or violating the BOR to begin with.

Well, maybe the 1st and 2nd amendments, but the lefties don't care to much about those.

[War Wagon]

The government has made it very clear, in case you haven't noticed, that they are reserving some "right" to monitor any phone conversations I may have without warrants or probable cause that's supported by oath.

BFD. If you're planning on blowing up the WTC, I don't give a fuck what lengths the government goes to to prevent it from happening, even if it means despoiling one of Dinsypoos precious and God given "GUARANTEED" rights. Believe it or not, the government really isn't interested in a phone conversation between you and the next skank you want tied to a bed.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

If they were coming for good ol' Marty because he intended to place a U-Haul truck full of fertilizer and diesel fuel outside the OKC federal building, then I'd say that was a good thing.

To relinquish your rights willingly in the face of a threat is the biggest, most traitorous act of pussiness that one can engage in. Anyone who does so sullies the memory of those that died on 9/11.

Nope. I haven't relinquished any such rights, as the government isn't targeting me or any other ordinary American citizens. Whether or not they have a warrant to listen in on Akmed in Bahrain and Yusef in Toledo (who's here using bogus documents) conversation doesn't concern me much. To not learn from 9/11 and do everything possible to prevent such an act from re-occurring would be to sully their memories.

Save me the pompous and pious use of the Ben Franklin quote about those trading liberty for security deserving neither. It doesn't apply here.

[Dinsdale]

Except that nobody is skirting, ignoring or violating the BOR to begin with.

Did you even read what you posted? It's the 4th Amendment.

Maybe you can read this again?

and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You're not smart enough to distinguish the difference between "particularly describing" and carte blanche?

And that part where it says "supported by oath or affirmation"? I'll help you out -- they cover this when investigators "particularly describe" specific, compelling evidence to a judge, and he signs a warrant. That's what those fancy words means, Dio. That's the way it's worked for 200+ years, yet now, we have an executive who wants to bypass the procedure....in the name of "your safety."

So yes -- the current MO of the Bush Administration is clearly in violation of the 4th. The safety of the BOR takes precedence over "my safety." Always has, always will.

[Mister Bushice]

^^^
The path from a free republic to a dictatorship leads thusly, when the citizens care so little about their individual freedoms that they turn the responsibility of interpreting them over to the ones who govern them.

[poptart]

Stick with what appears to be a "two wrongs make a right" justification?

I have no problem with the wire-tapping.

Are you going to have us believe that you've been crying about secret wire-tapping for years now.......during many different admins...?

I've never heard you, or anyone, say word one about it, until some details of the tapping going on under the Bush admin were made public.

Your hatred of Bush is so severe that you can't think straight, guy.

[Dinsdale]

Rhetoric

OK, we're actually on the same page here. I just apply it as an American patriot, you don't.

We both believe the end justifies the means. I just believe that the "means" is the Bill of Rights, you believe it's the bypassing of the Bill of Rights. You believe the "ends" are captured terrorists and foiled terrorism plots. I believe the "ends" are this Great Nation we live in, and 200 years of (mostly) cool history. My stance has 200+ years of the history that allowed you to sit in your trailer and type this. Your side is supported by...nothing.

You even stated in your post that you don't care if my civil rights get violated. That's where you and I differ -- I care very stongly if your civil rights are violated, even though I disagree with your politics, and even though I don't know you nor will I ever, and even though you're a fucking retard...I still value YOUR rights every bit as much as I value my own...that's what has made our system work for this long.

At the root, the issue here is that you think it's all about YOU, and are willing to trash 200 years of greatness in the name of YOU. I am loyal the the United States of America, which is DEFINED by the Bill of Rights. I guess our loyalties are just in different places. I see the USA as being so much bigger than just my little slice of it, you don't.

But, it's nice to know that you're actually on record as being opposed to the Bill of Rights. When it comes time to defend the USA against a fascist coup, me and Mississippi Neck will now know to shoot at you.

You are my enemy, and an enermy of America.

[poptart]

Consequently, I don't know how any of us can pass judgment based solely on newspaper accounts of what we're doing.

The troof.

[Dinsdale]

I have no problem with the wire-tapping.

OK.

We've got someone else on record as being an enemy of the state.

Two can play the "let's keep dossiers" game. Your time will come, and you will be called upon to confess your crimes, and face the people who you committed treason against. Helping suppress the BOR is without question "supporting the enemy." Hell, it's "being the enemy."

[War Wagon]

When it comes time to defend the USA against a fascist coup....

You be sure and let me know when that's likely to happen, you hysterical, over-reaching, over the top nitwit.

[Diogenes]

Except that nobody is skirting, ignoring or violating the BOR to begin with.

Did you even read what you posted? It's the 4th Amendment.

Maybe you can read this again?

and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You're not smart enough to distinguish the difference between "particularly describing" and carte blanche?

And that part where it says "supported by oath or affirmation"? I'll help you out -- they cover this when investigators "particularly describe" specific, compelling evidence to a judge, and he signs a warrant. That's what those fancy words means, Dio. That's the way it's worked for 200+ years, yet now, we have an executive who wants to bypass the procedure....in the name of "your safety."

Bullshit.

The part you left off...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

If there is probable cause to believe that a terrorist act is being planned and/or executed, there is no time for a warrant and it is nessecary and yes REASONABLE to investigate immediatly instead of waiting for one.

And warrantless searches are not per se unconstitutional.

Where were you when OJ needed you, BTW?

[Mister Bushice]

I guess you guys forget the last time an extensive amount of wiretapping and dossiers were happening. The Nixon era, which was also the last time there was a lot of civil unrest and war. Nixons administration was keeping files on anyone considered "subversive" or an "Enemy"", like those awful criminals Paul Newman and John Lennon.

Between the war, the riots and protests, and the illegal activities, I'd say that heading down that road has been proven to be the wrong way to go.

In the words of John Dean:

In the words of John Dean, "This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration, Stated a bit more bluntly —how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies."

[Diogenes]

You even stated in your post that you don't care if my civil rights get violated. That's where you and I differ -- I care very stongly if your civil rights are violated, even though I disagree with your politics, and even though I don't know you nor will I ever, and even though you're a fucking retard...I still value YOUR rights every bit as much as I value my own...that's what has made our system work for this long.

And I'll say it again, oh protector of the 4th amendment...

Where were you when OJ needed you?

Sin,

The only non-african-american without a law degree in America who agreed with that verdict.

And John Dean was a lying sack of shit, BTW.

[Dinsdale]

Nice speech, but you seem to ignore the violations of civil rights that are present in the 200+ history of this country and, by comparison, your rant on fucking wiretapping is laughable.

Sin,

Japanese Americans
Black Americans

And along comes the softball I've been waiting for...


I mentioned that our (or at least "my") country's history is "great." Nowhere did I use the word "perfect." Matter of fact, I'm sure if you talked to descendents of other nations, as well as this one, that have been dominant forces in world history, for example the Egyptians, Romans(Italians eventually), the British, or even the Germans, they'll all universally admit to some mistakes and a few errors in judgement -- that's life. And that's the entire point of history -- to not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Just because a mistake was made in the past, it doesn't excuse it being made again.

[Mississippi Neck]

....
. Although you and I might have our political differences, we will be wearing the same uniform when the Revolution comes....the AMERICAN uniform. I'm as of yet unwilling to pack it in so easily after 200+ years of success. ....

Yes, we are probably of different political stripes, but, this issue is so basic, so fundamental, we should all be in general agreement. One can support the War on Terror without walking lockstep with the administration. They DO NOT have an exclusive on being right in this damn mess.

Its disappointing that somehow the USA had the complete high road with the majority of the planet after 9/11 and Bush has all but pissed it away in 5 years. That, in my opinion, will be George's legacy when all is said and done. There's a time for being a cowboy and kicking ass, then, there is a time for diplomacy and subtleness in getting results. George has fully demonstrated his deficiency in shifting gears in this war.

[War Wagon]

I guess you guys forget the last time an extensive amount of wiretapping and dossiers were happening. The Nixon era, which was also the last time there was a lot of civil unrest and war. Nixons administration was keeping files on anyone considered "subversive" or an "Enemy"", like those awful criminals Paul Newman and John Lennon.

Between the war, the riots and protests, and the illegal activities, I'd say that heading down that road has been proven to be the wrong way to go.

In the words of John Dean:

In the words of John Dean, "This memorandum addresses the matter of how we can maximize the fact of our incumbency in dealing with persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration, Stated a bit more bluntly —how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies."

Yes, and if the Bush administration could be shown to be wiretapping or any other such machinations of abusing power for the sole purpose of screwing political enemies, then I'd agree with you.

However, I don't believe that's the case. I still believe Bush to be a decent and honorable man trying to do the right things by the country. Sure, he's made some crucial mistakes, but what President hasn't?

One thing for sure, I don't and never will regret my vote for him over Kerry or Gore. If they'd gotten into office instead, then I believe we'd be in whole much worse world of shit than what we are now.

Mace makes some excellent observations in refuting Dins contentious rant in that this countries proud history is replete with tyranny and injustice that he seemed to be unaware of prior to now.

But I guess we're all now "enemies of the state" in that we don't see things exactly the same way he does.

[Dinsdale]

Where were you when OJ needed you?

Probably on the golf couse...same place I'll be in a few minutes here.

And I see you missed my point. I stated that I was completely in favor of giving our investigators every tool they need to execute warrants instantaniously. If that means they need to have a judge right there on site to sign warrants upon reviewing evidence, then that's what should happen. As quickly as possible.

And there's no such thing as a "warrant after-the-fact," Mace. You got evidence against someone, then let's get it in front of a judge, like pronto-like. Have him sign that sucker, and off we go. Obviously, the people doing the investigating must have some sort of reason to suspect the people that they do, so presenting it to a judge shouldn't be a problem, and I can't see any reason that once there's a link of evidence, that monitoring of a suspect can't be an ongoing thing...I don't see where once a link is established, that a warrant needs to be issued for each individual instance of wire-tapping or any other monitoring of communications -- I just want there to be some sort of warrant to perform a "search" against a suspect. Once an investigation is deemed to be warranted, then by all means have at it.

It almost seems as though some of you folks think taking a pro-Bill of Rights stance is somehow being pro-terrorism. That's not the case. I'm all about fighting domestic terrorism -- I just want for it to be done leagally, and the trend seems to be getting away from that.


And how funny is this thread? At various times, I've been labelled everything from a "lefty" to a "liberal," and alllllll kinds of other stuff. Yet here I am, defending the Bill of Rights...I'm standing here as the voice of pure, unadulterated conservatism. How you like them apples? Just goes to show that politics in this day and age aren't quite as simple as "left vs. right" or "us vs. them," or "dem vs repub."

All I ask is that you keep this in mind the next time any of you decide to regale us with your takes about "those damn liberals." Bear in mind that War Wagon has shown himself to be the biggest liberal in this thread. So much for those definitions that the AM talk show hosts want you to adopt, eh?

[Dinsdale]

Too much for just a RACK

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. And a true American. What's popular isn't always what's right.

But I guess we're all now "enemies of the state" in that we don't see things exactly the same way he does.

Keep throwing shit at the wall, and some of it might stick.

Has nothing to do with whether you agree or disagree with me. Matter of fact, I'm arguing for your RIGHT to disagree with me. It has to do with whether you believe in the Bill of Rights or not. As I said, when I pledged allegiance to the flag, and to the republic for which it stands, I wasn't lying, and I wasn't just standing there saying the words to make my grade-school teacher happy. When I recited those words, I was dead fucking serious. And the republic for which it stands is DEFINED by the BOR. I'm not sure what part of that you're having trouble understanding, but you need to find that answer within yourself, rather than trying to put words in my mouth and justify an undermining of our country's core values.


It's fucking disturbing that I'm having to defend my belief in the Constitution of the United States of America. Sad times, indeed.

[War Wagon]

And how funny is this thread? At various times, I've been labelled everything from a "lefty" to a "liberal," and alllllll kinds of other stuff. Yet here I am, defending the Bill of Rights...I'm standing here as the voice of pure, unadulterated conservatism.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it YOU who started off by comparing the "similarities" between the Bush administration and Hitler?

That's why this topic about a dumfuck teacher has gone 16 pages and counting.

Props to you, I guess.

[Mississippi Neck]

And how funny is this thread? At various times, I've been labelled everything from a "lefty" to a "liberal," and alllllll kinds of other stuff. Yet here I am, defending the Bill of Rights...I'm standing here as the voice of pure, unadulterated conservatism. How you like them apples? Just goes to show that politics in this day and age aren't quite as simple as "left vs. right" or "us vs. them," or "dem vs repub."

Being for the B of R should be a cornerstone of both parties. And I honestly think it is....but each has their tortured path to get to the same conclusion.

[Dinsdale]

The fact that it was almost 100 years after the civil war before we passed civil rights laws (and many more years before some states even attempted to enforce them) is something far less than "great", IMO, and the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was the epitome of violating the rights of Americans for "safety" reasons. Wiretapping would only seem to represent yet another violation of our rights.

S'what I'm sayin.

We've screwed shit up in the past. These were egregious mistakes in our history of civil rights. They just seemed like good ideas at the time, and due to political/social climate, they were an easy sell. Just like scaling back the BOR seems (to some) like a good idea, and when coupled with horrific images of terror, are an easy sell today. Still doesn't make it right.

The current path we're on is just setting the stage for another "OOOPS!" that we'll regret in the future.

When you remove the checks and balances from the System of Checks and Balances, what exactly do you have left?

[Diogenes]

Where were you when OJ needed you?

Probably on the golf couse...same place I'll be in a few minutes here.

And I see you missed my point. I stated that I was completely in favor of giving our investigators every tool they need to execute warrants instantaniously. If that means they need to have a judge right there on site to sign warrants upon reviewing evidence, then that's what should happen. As quickly as possible.

And yet if they deliberatly avoid calling for a warrant because they know their PC is susspect, perform an illegal search and seizure, and lie under oath after the fact about it...

Where is the defender of the fourth amendment speaking up?

Actually I did.

You on the other hand don't really give a shit about the BOR, just your nutjob ideology.




I guess you care so much about the first amendment you support doing away with the spurious 'wall of seperation' between church and state, which is a 19th century abortion of a concept devised (from a deliberate misreading of a Jefferson letter) to oppress the Mormon church from practicing the tenets of their religion?

Wait, I'm alone there too.

Fuck you and your 'defender of the BOR' hypocritical bullshit.

[Dinsdale]

And how funny is this thread? At various times, I've been labelled everything from a "lefty" to a "liberal," and alllllll kinds of other stuff. Yet here I am, defending the Bill of Rights...I'm standing here as the voice of pure, unadulterated conservatism.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it YOU who started off by comparing the "similarities" between the Bush administration and Hitler?

I'm not sure what it has to do with the current state of the topic, but yes...I did.

You can boil these similarities down even further by simply stating that both are just absolutely flaming examples of "liberal" leaders. Another similarity would be both of their abilities to take liberties with the status quo (hence, the term "liberal") and have people take a passive stance towards it.

Yet somehow, any time you use the names Bush and Hitler in the same paragraph, the reactionaries put their brains away and come out in force. Both were/are leaders of large nations that were undergoing extreme political unrest during their tenures, and one can certainly compare and contrast how the two very different leaders of the two very different countries dealt with the ever-changing political climate in their respective nations...BUT WAIT!!! That would be making a Bush/Hitler comparison, which obviously wouldn't be approprite...if you're an unobjective retard. Our Right to Free Spech apparently ends with using the names Hitler and Bush in the same sentence, or at least in the minds of some of the "geat Americans" here.

[Diogenes]

<<<<<<<<Grammar Alert>>>>>>>>>

I meant suppress, not oppress.

<<<<<<<End Grammar Alert>>>>>>>

[Dinsdale]

I guess you care so much about the first amendment you support doing away with the spurious 'wall of seperation' between church and state, which is a 19th century abortion of a concept devised (from a deliberate misreading of a Jefferson letter) to oppress the Mormon church from practicing the tenets of their religion?

I'm just going to have to go ahead and ask for the link to where I advocate suppressing anyone's right to practice their chosen religion?

I think the Mormons are a bunch of gullible dweebs. But the BOR says they have a right to practice their stupidity, and I don't just support the parts of the BOR that I like -- I support them ALL. Knock yourselves out, Mormons, assuming it doesn't infringe on others' persuit of happiness and whatnot.

You know Dio, when I was teeing off on the tards who try to put all kinds of other words in my mouth because they don't like what I have to say, THIS is the retardation I was alluding to.

Were you fresh out of counterpoints on the actual subject, or at least something associated with it? If so, that's OK...just don't drop your nonsequiturs in lieu of anything relevant.

[Diogenes]

You can boil these similarities down even further by simply stating that both are just absolutely flaming examples of "liberal" leaders.

Weimar represented liberalism, which is why the Nazis and Communists united in opposing them.

Kind of like the neo-communist Dems and the neo-mercantilist Buchannanites are united in their Anti-Bush rhetoric now, since you like 'similarities' so much.

[Mississippi Neck]

Too much for just a RACK

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. And a true American. What's popular isn't always what's right.

And so are you. I try to be consistent in my beliefs.

Now, continue slapping around these guys..I gotta grill a steak or six.

[Diogenes]

I guess you care so much about the first amendment you support doing away with the spurious 'wall of seperation' between church and state, which is a 19th century abortion of a concept devised (from a deliberate misreading of a Jefferson letter) to oppress the Mormon church from practicing the tenets of their religion?

I'm just going to have to go ahead and ask for the link to where I advocate suppressing anyone's right to practice their chosen religion?

I think the Mormons are a bunch of gullible dweebs. But the BOR says they have a right to practice their stupidity, and I don't just support the parts of the BOR that I like -- I support them ALL. Knock yourselves out, Mormons, assuming it doesn't infringe on others' persuit of happiness and whatnot.

I didn't put words in your mouth, mearly asked if you were as opposed to the bullshit 'wall of seperation' as you are to anything Bush does (all within the Constitution) to defend this country.

And I asked if you were as offended by the illegal actions of the police and DA in the OJ case as you are by Bush's legal actions.

Wall of seperation is trash, glad to have you onboard.

When you're done golfing, you can let me know if you agree Clark, Van Adder and CO. all belong in prison.

[Dinsdale]

the Nazis and Communists united

Awfully big historical stretch to make a point that really has nothing to do with anything, don't you think?

Fair enough to say that the Nazis and the KPD both opposed the Weimar Republic, but to say they were "united" is flat out stupid, which is pretty evident from that whole deal where the Nazis hunted down the KBR and imprisoned them, wouldn't you say?

It's irrelevant, regardless.

[Diogenes]

the Nazis and Communists united

Awfully big historical stretch to make a point that really has nothing to do with anything, don't you think?

Fair enough to say that the Nazis and the KPD both opposed the Weimar Republic, but to say they were "united" is flat out stupid, which is pretty evident from that whole deal where the Nazis hunted down the KBR and imprisoned them, wouldn't you say?

It's irrelevant, regardless.

It's a historical fact.

Or does the fact that Hitler invaded Russia mean the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact never existed?

[Dinsdale]

Or does the fact that Hitler invaded Russia mean the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact never existed?

I think what it means is that you quit even trying to make whatever stupid point it was you were trying to make a long time ago, and you're now attempting to deflect the fact your arguments have fallen flat on their face by wowing the crowd with some vast (and inaccurate) knowledge of history, none of which has one iota to do with the topic at hand.

[Van]

Again, Dins rules...

Who else but Dins would interject serious seeming diatribes snagged from Animal House and Fast Times At Ridgemont High...

"I will not stand here while the United States of America is....yada, yada..."

~cue The Battle Hymn Of the Republic~

Dean Wormer never knew what hit him. Classic backpedal tactics, that.

"Live it...learn it....love it!"

Indeed!!

"BRAd, thIs Is NoT THe BEsT mEaL I'vE eVEr HaD... :mad: "

This country is the shit! Comedy abounds! Mirth shall prevail!

Subterfuge? Parody? Winking spin??

P.T. Barnum, alive and well...in the U&L!!

Oh, and Dins, please, since you keep on typing it, the word you want is "breach", not "breech".

Pretty sure you don't mean to keep talking about pants...

[Van]

the Nazis and Communists united

Awfully big historical stretch to make a point that really has nothing to do with anything, don't you think?

Fair enough to say that the Nazis and the KPD both opposed the Weimar Republic, but to say they were "united" is flat out stupid, which is pretty evident from that whole deal where the Nazis hunted down the KBR and imprisoned them, wouldn't you say?

It's irrelevant, regardless.

It's a historical fact.

Or does the fact that Hitler invaded Russia mean the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact never existed?

Molotov-Ribbentrop existed, yes.

The Nazis and the communinsts united? No, such a scenario never existed. M-R was purely a smokescreen meant to buy Hitler time until his long planned betrayal came to fruition when without provocation the Werhmacht inevitably marched to the U&R... (Dins parlance, dontchaknow...)