McCain is a commie asset!!!

[mraynrand]

Humility: That isn't what he said. Nice twist though.

Socialism: Hmm, i notice that you conservs always want capitalism when things are good..but want the socialism net when things go wrong..bear stearns, etc.

Humility is Obama's general stance and you know it. I find it humorous that you argue this point when it's essentially what you liked about Andrew Sullivans' commentary. About Bear Stears - who knows? Was it right or wrong? Did it save/help the economy or not? We'll see. I'm not a financial expert, but I know that Obama is in favor of punitive redistribution of wealth, and he knows and has admitted it will harm the economy. That's extreme socialism, worse by far than bailing out a financial institute ostensibly with the motivation of preventing a further collapse of the economy. Conservatives (not necessarily Republicans) in general want less government involvement in the affairs of Americans, Obama wants more.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Humility: That isn't what he said. Nice twist though.

Socialism: Hmm, i notice that you conservs always want capitalism when things are good..but want the socialism net when things go wrong..bear stearns, etc.

Humility is Obama's general stance and you know it. I find it humorous that you argue this point when it's essentially what you liked about Andrew Sullivans' commentary. About Bear Stears - who knows? Was it right or wrong? Did it save/help the economy or not? We'll see. I'm not a financial expert, but I know that Obama is in favor of punitive redistribution of wealth, and he knows and has admitted it will harm the economy. That's extreme socialism, worse by far than bailing out a financial institute ostensibly with the motivation of preventing a further collapse of the economy. Conservatives (not necessarily Republicans) in general want less government involvement in the affairs of Americans, Obama wants more.

No, at Saddleback...what he was saying wasn't that. He was saying that we have to be careful about trying to do good because often it has led to problems.

Pretty much the old idiom: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Socialism: Look, you can hem and haw all you want...but, when things get tight...conservs aren't leading the charge against bailouts..bear stearns, freddy/fannie, airlines, etc. That my friend is gov't intrusion and socialism. Like i said, conservs always want the socialism net. But, they just don't want it to fetter their unbridled greed.

Economy: So, basically you are admitting you are in favor of socialism when it helps the economy. LOL

[bobblehead]

Socialism: Hmm, i notice that you conservs always want capitalism when things are good..but want the socialism net when things go wrong..bear stearns, etc.

Personally I was for letting stearns fail, its called risk reward. The reason they didn't let it fold is because a lot of institutional money (ie, your pension fund, 401k money ect) was tied into it. It was also cheaper to the GDP to fund the bailout then to let it fail. The problem is that now the correction that should have taken place won't....people being fully aware of their money and where it is at.

[mraynrand]

Economy: So, basically you are admitting you are in favor of socialism when it helps the economy. LOL

No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote that I thought that the bail out of financial institutions was being carried out ostensibly to prevent economic collapse, which is far better than punitive wealth redistribution that is known to harm the economy. I also wrote that I didn't know whether the bail out was the correct path, but as a rule I am opposed to government intrusion.

[mraynrand]

No, at Saddleback...what he was saying wasn't that. He was saying that we have to be careful about trying to do good because often it has led to problems.

Pretty much the old idiom: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Obama:
"Evil does exist. I mean, we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil in parents have viciously abused their children and I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world...Now, the one thing that I think is very important for us is to have humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, but, you know, a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil...And I think one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that, you know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good..."

You're 'road to hell paved with good intentions' is a wonderful platitude. Do you think the Jews liberated from concentrations camps thought the Americans were traveling towards hell with good intentions? How about this: The road to hell is paved by evil people. Thank God there have been brave Americans in every era with the good intentions to oppose evil people.

[sheepshead]

http://commieobama.com/

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Economy: So, basically you are admitting you are in favor of socialism when it helps the economy. LOL

No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote that I thought that the bail out of financial institutions was being carried out ostensibly to prevent economic collapse, which is far better than punitive wealth redistribution that is known to harm the economy. I also wrote that I didn't know whether the bail out was the correct path, but as a rule I am opposed to government intrusion.

Excuse me, but when the bail out happened...we had no certainty of wealth redistribution. Funny, i guess every bail out occurs when redistribution is imminent.

Intrusion: Of course you are. Like i said, you favor it when it is a safety net.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

http://commieobama.com/

https://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com

https://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/cin_declassified_landing.htm

[Tyrone Bigguns]

No, at Saddleback...what he was saying wasn't that. He was saying that we have to be careful about trying to do good because often it has led to problems.

Pretty much the old idiom: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Obama:
"Evil does exist. I mean, we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil in parents have viciously abused their children and I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, you know, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world...Now, the one thing that I think is very important for us is to have humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, but, you know, a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil...And I think one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that, you know, just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good..."

You're 'road to hell paved with good intentions' is a wonderful platitude. Do you think the Jews liberated from concentrations camps thought the Americans were traveling towards hell with good intentions? How about this: The road to hell is paved by evil people. Thank God there have been brave Americans in every era with the good intentions to oppose evil people.

Platitudes: you mean like compassionate conservatism? LOL

Wow. Your analogy is so far off base it is hilarious.

I will spell it out for you....in terms you can understand. Their are evil tyrants out there, but by replacing them (which is the good) we must take care not to create misery...kinda like what happened in iraq.

But, as for the jews...take a look in the mirror buddy. How long did our gov't do nothing. Might wanna do some reading on the St. Louis.

Memo from Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long, to State Department Officials dated June 26, 1940, outlining effective ways to obstruct the granting of U.S. visas

June 26, 1940.
A-B - Mr. Berle
PA/D Mr. Dunn

Attached is a memorandum from Mr. Warren. I discussed the matter with him on the basis of this memorandum. There are two possibilities and I will discuss each category briefly.

Non-immigrants

Their entry into the United States can be made to depend upon prior authorization by the Department. This would mean that the consuls would be divested of discretion and that all requests for nonimmigrant visas (temporary visitor and transit visas) be passed upon here. It is quite feasible and can be done instantly. It will permit the Department to effectively control the immigration of persons in this category and private instructions can be given the Visa Division as to nationalities which should not be admitted as well as to individuals who are to be excluded.

This must be done for universal application and could not be done as regards Germany, for instance, or Russia, for instance, or any other one government because it would first, invite retaliation and second, would probably be a violation of some of our treaty arrangements. The retaliation clause is in connection with Germany because it could mean the closing of our offices in almost all of Europe.

Immigrants

We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls, to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas. However, this could only be temporary. In order to make it more definite It would have to be done by suspension of the rules under the law by the issuance of a proclamation of emergency--which I take it we are not yet ready to proclaim.

Summing Up

We can effectively control non-immigrants by prohibiting the issuance of visas
unless the consent of the Department to obtained in advance for universal application.

We can temporarily prevent the number of immigrants from certain localities such as Cuba, Mexico and other places of origin of German intending immigrants by simply raising administrative obstacles.

The Department will be prepared to take these two steps immediately upon the decision but emphasis must be placed on the fact that discrimination must not be practiced and with the additional thought that in case a suspension of the regulations should be proclaimed under the need of an emergency, it would be universally applicable and would affect refugees from England.

The Canadian situation and travel across that border we can handle through
an exception to the general rule and so advise our consuls In Canada.

Letter from Margaret E. Jones, an American Quaker working with European Jews hoping to emigrate to the U.S., expressing her distress at the impact of Breckinridge Long's memo.

Memo to Clarence E. Pickett from Margaret E. Jones

Re,--Visa situation in Vienna

Because I am deeply disturbed over present visa difficulties in Vienna, I want thee to have this memorandum for thy information.

Last July, en route from Geneva back to the Vienna Center, I stopped in Zurich and had an interview with Mr. Strom, at the U.S. Consulate. He told me of recent orders from Washington which would severely limit the number of visas ordinarily issued month by month from the various Consulates. I asked him if this was an attempt on the part of the State Department to offset any move by Congress to stop immigration entirely. Mr. Strom at once asked me with whom I had been talking to get that impression, and then said that he "did not think it was". Later in Vienna, Mr. Hohenthal told me too about the new stringent regulations, and was also obviously interested when I raised the same question with him. About the middle of August, the Consulate--always, as I have repeatedly said, working most cooperatively and sympathetically with me and the Quaker Center--telephoned to say the Mr. Warren, Mr. Morris and Mr. Hohenthal and I talked that afternoon about the new regulations concerning emigration. Mr. Warren began by saying, "Miss Jones, you Quakers will be doing a straight relief job for the non-Aryans here from now on." I said, "No more non Aryans to go to the U.S.?" Warren replied- "Not just non-Aryans--but no more aliens." Then I asked him the same question --was this an attempt to forestall Congress and prevent an out and out closing of immigration by making so severe a cut that the State Dept. could assure Congress they had the situation in hand. Mr. Warren said not Congress, but the President just did not want any more aliens coming to the U.S. and would like to have it closed especially for aliens coming from Germany. The State Dept. asked to be allowed to taper it all off gradually, and he, Warren, was touring Europe as far east as Moscow to check up with the consulates and to make plans accordingly. He explained it somewhat casually--increasing anti-Semitism in the U.S.; some refugees had already been traced to 5th column activities; the need to give visas to England and so forth. He told me that during July, 4000 visas had been granted to England,--many to English people, and many to German refugees in England, and he said that he also hoped additional visas would be granted to Shanghai, to help the refugee situation there. He told me Stuttgart had only given 3 visas during July. Vienna had issued that month about 100, but the number would be greatly reduced. I asked him what the State Dept. planned to do about reuniting families, and also about children. Warren implied that they would carefully consider cases where reuniting families was an issue, and that surely some children would be allowed to emigrate from Germany. But his whole idea was that emigration for German Jews coming from Germany was practically finished.

Thee may recall that as soon as I get to Geneva, in September, on my way home from Vienna, I wrote about this and indicated just how awful it was, because the Consulate kept encouraging people to do everything required of them, and then at the final interview decided the person would "become a public charge" and therefore could not get a visa. I now know that about 3 or 4 visas are issued each week, and that supposedly with each, the Consulate evaluates the candidate according to Mr. Warren's instructions, "What outstanding contributions can he make to the U.S.A.?" No one can imagine what trouble the men and women must go through to finally get to the Consulate for the last interview--all sorts of severe local requirements must be met before permission to leave is given by the Nazi authorities. Each step takes weeks, and also Marks. (This entirely apart from the heartbreaking anxiety over affidavits and steamship tickets. With every thing in order, the candidate learns now from the Consulate that he must have a new certificate notarized (20 to 40 Marks) indicating that at least two friends can vouch that he is an upright man and not engaged in espionage activities. This in addition to the usual Police certificate, which would be sufficient. (I should think the Consulate would know, if they suspect every applicant for a visa as a potential spy, that the applicants could get anyone to sign such a statement if they wanted to do so.) Furthermore, the candidate for the visa in his final interview faces a board of Consuls, who ask questions ( I was told in the Consulate in Vienna that this questioning HAD to last 40 minutes and that often the two men doing the questioning just couldn't fill in the time!) and a stenographer takes down the answers in short hand. Now very few non-Aryans in Germany entirely trust the German members of the U.S. Consular staff, and to reply to questioning in a way which would damn the Nazi government, and to know that those replies are being taken down by a German, naturally terrified the applicant. On the other hand, if he doesn't say what he thinks about the Nazi gov't, he feels that the U.S. Consuls will judge him potential 5th Column material and refuse the visa accordingly.

Perhaps I feel too strongly about this--but I know only too well what the life of the Jew in Vienna is today. I know of the terror and despair, and of the unbelievable difficulties each man and woman endures, and tries to solve, in connection with obtaining the U.S. visa. I want to say again that the Vienna Consulate has on its Visa Division staff men of ability and sympathy, who work as much as possible with the individual in mind, but they can only do what the U. S. immigration law permits. (I cannot endorse the physician at the Consulate, but his attitude is subject for another memorandum!) But it seems to me that if the U.S. wants to make a new ruling due to the war, etc., that it must make it openly and give the reasons. We cannot continue to let these tragic people go on hoping that if they comply with every requirement, if they get all the special documents required (Marks are increasingly needed by the Jews just to live), if they nerve themselves for the final interview at the Consulate, they may just possibly be the lucky ones to get visas when we know that practically no one is granted visas in Germany today. As thee knows, the whole question of affidavits is involved --irrevocable trust funds as required by the Consulate--we can't go out to individuals in this country for this basic cooperation when we know that regardless of what we or the applicant does, he is not going to get the visa.

Thee understands that this is a confidential report for thee to have as background. I do hope that the question can be given very careful study, and a decision reached which will in some measure allay the mental suffering of so many persons. We could alleviate a lot of the mental suffering , of course, by restoring the normal visa program for the applicants in Germany.

Naturally I am fully aware of the almost insuperable difficulties of travel from Germany. Greece is now closed to those who would have attempted to go via that country through the Mediterranean to Lisbon. Spain now refuses a transit visas to anyone with a "J" on his passport. The route via Siberia and Japan is the only one open, and it offers tremendous difficulties. But our government should make its own position absolutely clear , and I do hope the several refugee committees can get this matter satisfactorily outlined.

Margaret E. Jones

I guess we are evil as well.

Yep, Roosevelt did all he could to stop the holocaust. Do i need to post info on when we knew about extermination and our tepid battle plan.

To even suggest that we rolled through europe to help the jews is beyond the pale.

You really shouldn't post about history, because it has a funny way of biting you on your ass.

You are treading very close to Tex territory.

[mraynrand]

I will spell it out for you....in terms you can understand. Their are evil tyrants out there, but by replacing them (which is the good) we must take care not to create misery...kinda like what happened in iraq.

But, as for the jews...take a look in the mirror buddy. How long did our gov't do nothing.

I guess we are evil as well.

These quotes sum up your position - and Obama's, and the likes of Howard Zinn, and the moral relativists of the left. You think that short term misery in Iraq means we shouldn't have toppled Saddam. You think that our delay in stopping Hitler (who we absolutely knew to be evil and to be engaged in the extermination of ethnic minorities) means that the far greater good of defeating him is somehow negated. You think we are all evil - and on and on with your moral equivalence. I think that the U.S. has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind. What do you think? Need not answer - you agree with Andrew Sullivan - we are no better than anyone else.

[mraynrand]

Economy: So, basically you are admitting you are in favor of socialism when it helps the economy. LOL

No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote that I thought that the bail out of financial institutions was being carried out ostensibly to prevent economic collapse, which is far better than punitive wealth redistribution that is known to harm the economy. I also wrote that I didn't know whether the bail out was the correct path, but as a rule I am opposed to government intrusion.

Excuse me, but when the bail out happened...we had no certainty of wealth redistribution. Funny, i guess every bail out occurs when redistribution is imminent.

Intrusion: Of course you are. Like i said, you favor it when it is a safety net.

Again, my position is that I am opposed to intervention. Again, I wrote that the intent of those involved in the bailout was to rescue the economy, whereas Obama's position is to engage in punitive taxation, which he knows will hurt the economy. I did not say I thought the bailout was justified (I said I didn't know), only that the intent is completely different than Obama's. (Can't you read? Are you so blinded by ideology that you can't understand?)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I will spell it out for you....in terms you can understand. Their are evil tyrants out there, but by replacing them (which is the good) we must take care not to create misery...kinda like what happened in iraq.

But, as for the jews...take a look in the mirror buddy. How long did our gov't do nothing.

I guess we are evil as well.

These quotes sum up your position - and Obama's, and the likes of Howard Zinn, and the moral relativists of the left. You think that short term misery in Iraq means we shouldn't have toppled Saddam. You think that our delay in stopping Hitler (who we absolutely knew to be evil and to be engaged in the extermination of ethnic minorities) means that the far greater good of defeating him is somehow negated. You think we are all evil - and on and on with your moral equivalence. I think that the U.S. has been the greatest force for good in the history of mankind. What do you think? Need not answer - you agree with Andrew Sullivan - we are no better than anyone else.

Short term: Can you prove that it will be short term. Nope. Nor, did i ever say we shouldn't. But, we didn't go into Iraq to solve misery. Nice change up. We went in: Al Queda, smoking gun..and then we changed positon...or do you not remember our prez, etc. saying we aren't in the biz of nation building.

Hitler: Oh, we knew...you just hang yourself as we didn't do all we could to stop him or save lives. Guess that emigration policy was made up.

Evil: No, i think that evil can be perpetrated by good people. Yep, infested blankets to the indians, tuskegee institute, etc.

History aint' on your side.

[mraynrand]

Hitler: Oh, we knew...you just hang yourself as we didn't do all we could to stop him or save lives. Guess that emigration policy was made up.

Evil: No, i think that evil can be perpetrated by good people. Yep, infested blankets to the indians, tuskegee institute, etc.

History aint' on your side.

Again, your position is crystal clear - because we aren't perfect, the good we do is negated. You show your true nature, and by extension, those of your heroes - Barack and Sullivan. You have the proctologists' view of American history. Tuskegee - lol - in your view that negates the sacrifice of 600,000 Americans to eliminate slavery. Blankets - lol - that covers up every savagery of the American Indian - for example, those who defeated Custer cut off the penises of the soldiers - while still alive - and stuffed them down their throats, choking them to death. But those were noble native Americans, right? We're all the same, right? So you're a multiculturalist. Tell me then, why should the U.S. have defeated Nazi Germany? Isn't that just another culture? Aren't they no better than the U.S. as you and Andrew Suillivan claim. Didn't we cause more misery - like you claim in Iraq - by defeating them? I assume, based on your reasoning, that Germany should have been left alone. Or should we have allowed the emigration of the entire country into the U.S.? Please explain.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hitler: Oh, we knew...you just hang yourself as we didn't do all we could to stop him or save lives. Guess that emigration policy was made up.

Evil: No, i think that evil can be perpetrated by good people. Yep, infested blankets to the indians, tuskegee institute, etc.

History aint' on your side.

Again, your position is crystal clear - because we aren't perfect, the good we do is negated. You show your true nature, and by extension, those of your heroes - Barack and Sullivan. You have the proctologists' view of American history. Tuskegee - lol - in your view that negates the sacrifice of 600,000 Americans to eliminate slavery. Blankets - lol - that covers up every savagery of the American Indian - for example, those who defeated Custer cut off the penises of the soldiers - while still alive - and stuffed them down their throats, choking them to death. But those were noble native Americans, right? We're all the same, right? So you're a multiculturalist. Tell me then, why should the U.S. have defeated Nazi Germany? Isn't that just another culture? Aren't they no better than the U.S. as you and Andrew Suillivan claim. Didn't we cause more misery - like you claim in Iraq - by defeating them? I assume, based on your reasoning, that Germany should have been left alone. Or should we have allowed the emigration of the entire country into the U.S.? Please explain.

Nope. That isn't what i'm saying. There is a huge difference between knowlingly doing evil acts...blankets, tuskegee...vs. doing evil unintented.

Tuskegee: What are you talking about. Our gov't knowingly experimented on people. That is evil.

interning the japanese was evil. Care to point out all the japanese spies. Or care to explain why germans and italians didn't get rounded up.

You want to compare to savages. did i say they were noble? Sorry, but that is weak. We are supposed to be the force for good...the beacon on the hill. You lose that position if you sink to their level.

I have never negated anything. all i have said is that approaching a situation with humility is fine.

Germany: Nice switchup. First, we went because they were evil. No, we should have attacked earlier because they were evil and we should have attacked because they threatened us. Has nothing to do with culture.

Emigration: No, not the whole country...nobody expects that. But, a few jews woulda been fine.