Roosevelt/WWII

[editec]

We caused world war 2. Even the most novice historian knows as much. We casued the holocasut, too.

Just because you ignorant morons here never knew these facts, don't kill the messenger. You ever heard of the madagascar plan? It would have went through had we not been bankrolling, as well as using other means of supporting, all of Germany's enemies by guess who? The USA.

I have yet to read Buchannan's books on the Second World War, but I look forward to doing so.

Pat comes at these issues with a novel approach, and unlike you nondeplume, he doesn't appear to me to be motivated to look a history from the stance of an jew-hater.

HOWEVER...I agree with you that WWII could have been prevented

I think it not completely unreasonable to suggest that we (meaning the Western Powers) DID CAUSE WORLD WAR II, as well, but likely not for the same reasons you might.

First of all the Treaty of Versailles was a cruel joke played not only on the German people, but on many people throughout the world, including, for example, the Arabs who were our ALLIES in that conflict.

Secondly, the reparations demanded of the German people were absurd and guaranteed to destroy that people's ability to recover from the war.

We can mostly blame the FRENCH for this, but ENGLAND deserves it's share of the blame, too.

No, I do not blame the USA for that mess since they'd pretty much given up in disgust of their former allies for being such dickheads as to destroy Europe's best hope for peace. (which would have been a viable democractic Germany)

Finally, we can blame both England AND France for pussying out when Hitler began rearming, taking back the disputed territories, and for the destruction of Czechoslokia, too.

Had France stood up to Hitler when he rolled into Alsace-Lorraine (the French outnumbered the Germans troops considerably and could have crushed that move easily) Hitler would likely have been removed from office by the German military establishment by a coupe d' etat and there would NOT have been second world war.

 

[jillian]

That was Orin Kerr.

How about Randy Barnett?

News Flash: The Constitution Means What It Says - WSJ.com

I read the first sentence. He's wrong. It wasn't exemplary in its reasoning and it didn't mean the constitution "means what it says". Scalia didn't even adddress the issue of militia.

That was simply insulting...and horrific reasoning.... even if the result got to the right place.

To me? That decision was yet another F-U to the next president whose supreme court nominees are going to be saddled with some of the worst caselaw ever to come out of the court.... no matter how the right wants to spin it.

I think I asked you this earlier...I could be wrong.... but do tell me if McCain will be whining about judicial review today?

 

[Annie]

I read the first sentence. He's wrong. It wasn't exemplary in its reasoning and it didn't mean the constitution "means what it says". Scalia didn't even adddress the issue of militia.

That was simply insulting...and horrific reasoning.... even if the result got to the right place.

To me? That decision was yet another F-U to the next president whose supreme court nominees are going to be saddled with some of the worst caselaw ever to come out of the court.... no matter how the right wants to spin it.

I think I asked you this earlier...I could be wrong.... but do tell me if McCain will be whining about judicial review today?

I'm not discussing Obama's walking away from the 'Constitutionality of the DC ban', why bring up McCain?

I can respect your opinion for 'interpretation', but not your contempt for many distinguished opinions on the opposite side. Considering that Kerr was cited by both the majority and minority, both Volokh and Barnett too were cited, there seems to be some good grey cells to rub together?

 

[jillian]

I'm not discussing Obama's walking away from the 'Constitutionality of the DC ban', why bring up McCain?

I can respect your opinion for 'interpretation', but not your contempt for many distinguished opinions on the opposite side. Considering that Kerr was cited by both the majority and minority, both Volokh and Barnett too were cited, there seems to be some good grey cells to rub together?

I have contempt for those opinions because they go against 200 years of Constitutional interpretation. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, Kathianne, but I know it when I see it. I didn't know the answer on the gun issue, and frankly, I had little more than an intellectual curiousity about it. However, like much of his writing, Scalia starts from an incorrect premise to get to a result he wants.

Scalia has total and complete contempt for everyone else... the fact that he refused to deal with the militia issue was insulting and the fact that the spinners on the right are ignoring that lapse doesn't endear me to their facile editorials on the case.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Obama ever made a statement that didn't recognize that gun ownership, in some form, was guaranteed by the Constitution. McCain, however, a week ago, was a whining, sniveling baby complaining that the High Court had the temerity to review legislation..... pathetic to anyone who knows anything about the law.

Again, Bush's court is saddling the next Court with some of the worst precedents in history.... and intentionally so.

 

[Annie]

I have contempt for those opinions because they go against 200 years of Constitutional interpretation. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, Kathianne, but I know it when I see it. I didn't know the answer on the gun issue, and frankly, I had little more than an intellectual curiousity about it. However, like much of his writing, Scalia starts from an incorrect premise to get to a result he wants.

Scalia has total and complete contempt for everyone else... the fact that he refused to deal with the militia issue was insulting and the fact that the spinners on the right are ignoring that lapse doesn't endear me to their facile editorials on the case.

I could be wrong, but I don't think Obama ever made a statement that didn't recognize that gun ownership, in some form, was guaranteed by the Constitution. McCain, however, a week ago, was a whining, sniveling baby complaining that the High Court had the temerity to review legislation..... pathetic to anyone who knows anything about the law.

Again, Bush's court is saddling the next Court with some of the worst precedents in history.... and intentionally so.

He backed the idea of 'no guns' in cities. He also acknowledges that it doesn't work. What to make of that?

Barack Obama on Gun Control

Oh and before you go off on 'bias', may I suggest you take a look at the homepage? I gave you the direct link to positions and sources.

 

[Annie]

A recent post by Barnett, links at site:

The Volokh Conspiracy - -

[Randy Barnett, June 27, 2008 at 5:40am] Trackbacks
So What Gun Regulations Are Reasonable? Perhaps the question most commonly asked by reporters about yesterday's decision in Heller, is how it will affect the constitutionality of other gun laws. I believe Justice Scalia signaled that regulations short of a ban should be scrutinized the way we do "time, place, and manner" regulations of speech when he equated the Second Amendment with the First: "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not."

An article by Gary Barnett, a rising 3L at Georgetown Law, just appeared in the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy contending that the doctrines construing the individual rights in the First Amendment should be applied analogously to the rights protected Second Amendment. (This is what he calls the Common Law Constructive Method.) He provides a very useful survey of First Amendment doctrines and then considers how they might need to be altered or refined to work in the Second Amendment context.

His article, The Reasonable Regulation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms can be downloaded from SSRN here. Here is the abstract:

The Supreme Court has recently held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That decision, however, is only the beginning of the inquiry. Individual rights, via the police power, are subject to reasonable regulation. The difficult question remaining is whether a particular regulation is unreasonable, unduly infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms, and is therefore unconstitutional. This note proposes a workable analytic approach to addressing this question. Guided by the Common Law Constructive Method, this note takes First Amendment time, place, and manner doctrine and transposes it onto the Second Amendment.​

Here is a taste of his analysis (which I have edited to omit references to First Amendment cases discussed elsewhere in the article):

The Common Law method of construction teaches an important lesson about the reasonable regulation of the right to keep and bear arms. If the very same degree of scrutiny that is applied to restrictions on speech in a pubic forum were applied to restrictions on guns in a public forum, far more gun laws would be upheld as constitutional than laws restricting speech. This is because, with gun laws, the government can almost always provide a safety rationale for enacting a particular regulation. In other words, any gun restriction can be justified on the grounds of safety. This effectively eliminates the half of the test requiring a significant government interest. In contrast, in First Amendment law, absent a clear and present danger, speech rarely threatens health and safety in the same way. This inability of the government to have an ever-present safety rationale creates an inherent protection for speech within First Amendment law. In other words, because it is more difficult for the government to articulate a significant interest, it can enact fewer restrictions. This lack of protection in the Second Amendment law should be supplemented by requiring a law be the least intrusive means to achieving the government’s stated end. . . .

Determining whether a regulation is narrowly tailored . . . is a difficult task. This is where the wisdom embedded within First Amendment law is quite useful. The Supreme Court . . . has already promulgated a feasible approach: if a government restriction results in a substantially adverse effect on the non-target group from effectively asserting their Second Amendment rights, then that restriction would be unreasonable. For example, a trigger lock requirement on a handgun, intended to combat the social harm of accidental firearm use, would most likely have a deleterious effect on an individual’s ability to protect herself effectively against an armed robber. The non-target group, those wanting to exercise their right of self defense, would, for all intents and purposes, be prohibited from effectively acting in self-defense, a constitutionally protected end. Such a requirement would not be narrowly tailored . . . and therefore would be unconstitutional. . . .

The second requirement for a government restriction to not infringe an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and thus be reasonable, mirrors the third prong of the First Amendment analysis—that any restriction leave open ample alternative channels of communication. This requirement is designed to safeguard against the encroachment on the protected ends of the First Amendment. To ensure that this requirement is satisfied, a law must allow for the continued accomplishment of the constitutionally protected end. The same is true of the Second Amendment. Although it does not expressly protect any specific means, it does protect specific ends. Therefore, as in First Amendment law, a restriction must leave ample means of accomplishing the ends protected by the Second Amendment.​

This article is a useful starting point for anyone who wants to think seriously about how to distinguish reasonable from unreasonable gun laws.

 

[Gunny]

We caused world war 2. Even the most novice historian knows as much. We casued the holocasut, too.

Just because you ignorant morons here never knew these facts, don't kill the messenger. You ever heard of the madagascar plan? It would have went through had we not been bankrolling, as well as using other means of supporting, all of Germany's enemies by guess who? The USA.

The fact that we supported Germany's enemies logistically in no way means we caused WWII. WWII was in fact in motion WITHOUT us. We were one of if not the last to enter the war and only after Pear Harbor.

Please clarify your stance ... is it that you just hate Jews? Think Nazi Germany was right in just taking whatever the Hell Hitler felt like he wanted? Or both?

Again for the slow ... the US was attacked FIRST by Japan. We declared war on Japan and Germany declared war on the US in keeping with its mutual defense alliance with Italy and Japan. That's just the way it was. The US was not active participants in WWII until those events took place.

What caused WWII was a couple of dictators and a military run amock having alligator mouthes and bumblebee asses. They got those bumblebee asses waxed. Tough shit.

 

[nomdeplume]

The fact that we supported Germany's enemies logistically in no way means we caused WWII. WWII was in fact in motion WITHOUT us. We were one of if not the last to enter the war and only after Pear Harbor.
.

You keep babbling the same tired, ignorant bullshit. You just don't get it: WW2 didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because of how WW1 ended.

 

[Annie]

You keep babbling the same tired, ignorant bullshit. You just don't get it: WW2 didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because of how WW1 ended.

Either you ARE Pat Buchanan or you're channeling him.

 

[nomdeplume]

Either you ARE Pat Buchanan or you're channeling him.

Maybe he speaks the truth. You believe what you need to believe so that little head of yours gets plenty of sleep at night.

 

[Annie]

Maybe he speaks the truth. You believe what you need to believe so that little head of yours gets plenty of sleep at night.

Closest you've come to admitting your 'ideas' are from someone else.

 

[nomdeplume]

Closest you've come to admitting your 'ideas' are from someone else.

I don't get any of my 'ideas' from anyone else. I leave that up to memes like you.

 

[Gunny]

You keep babbling the same tired, ignorant bullshit. You just don't get it: WW2 didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because of how WW1 ended.

Odd, I was thinking the same thing about the shit dribbling out of your flap.

WW1 didn't cause WWII. The dissatisfaction with terms from the Treaty of Versailles by the Germans was used as a catalyst in the fascist movement in Germany, and naturally being the losers, they sucked it up.

The fact is, Germany lost and Germany agreed to terms. So what you're saying is it's okay to break your given word later if you decide later you don't like the terms. Why pay for your car then?

WWII was caused by German and Japanese aggression, period. Hitler was appeased far more than I would have given him and he STILL had to have more.

So you need to take your little anti-American books and be a good little Nazi and burn them as they did at Reflections on Nazi Book Burning 75 Years Later

 

[nomdeplume]

Odd, I was thinking the same thing about the shit dribbling out of your flap.

WW1 didn't cause WWII. The dissatisfaction with terms from the Treaty of Versailles by the Germans was used as a catalyst in the fascist movement in Germany, and naturally being the losers, they sucked it up.

The fact is, Germany lost and Germany agreed to terms. So what you're saying is it's okay to break your given word later if you decide later you don't like the terms. Why pay for your car then?

WWII was caused by German and Japanese aggression, period. Hitler was appeased far more than I would have given him and he STILL had to have more.

So you need to take your little anti-American books and be a good little Nazi and burn them as they did at Reflections on Nazi Book Burning 75 Years Later

I'm getting really tired of having to explain this shit to you like you are a two year old, just because you want to stay drunk on your bigoted jingoism of America being able to do no wrong.

The only reason Germany lost WW1 is because of our support, which first was clandestine and despicable. We were supporting britian and helping blockade goods from going into Germany. They were still winning. Then we entered the war ourselves, and then was just too much fire power to combat. We had no good reason to get into WW1, but we did. At first cowardly and clandestinely, and then totally. If Germany would have won WW1, WW2 would have never happened. There also would not have been deep resentment enough for the Jews that a group like the Nazis could ever bribe and kill to get themselves into power.

Pretty fucking simple, even for an apparent simpleton.

 

[manu1959]

I'm getting really tired of having to explain this shit to you like you are a two yearr old, just because you want to stay drunk on your bigoted jingoism of America being able to do no wrong.

The only reason Germany lost WW1 is because of our support, which first was clandestine and dispicable. We were supporting britian and helping blockade good from going into Germany. They were will winning. Then we entered the war ourselves, and then was just too much fire power to combat. We had no good reason to get into WW1, but we did. At first cowardly and clandestinely, and then totally. If Germany would have won WW1, WW2 would have never happened. There also would not have been deep resentment enough for the Jews that a group like the Nazis could ever bribe and kill to get themselves into power.

Pretty fucking simple, even for an apparent simpleton.

did america trick germany into starting ww1 just so they could kick their ass twice?.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You keep babbling the same tired, ignorant bullshit. You just don't get it: WW2 didn't happen in a vacuum. It happened because of how WW1 ended.

And we NEVER ratified the treaty that ended the war because WE did not agree with Reparations. Technically we remained at war with Germany until the end of WW2 if one wants to get technical.

 

[nomdeplume]

We in the USA are always given a bullshit version of history. It's mostly due to Jews owning most publishing companies, hence they only release things that support their agenda.

As an undergrad I scanned every history book this state has for every highschool. Somewhere around 25 different books. Every single one of them detailed the "Japense internment" in some detail. But, some dirty little details were left out. The fact that thousands of German and Italian americans were also detained. They also do not distinguish "relocation" camps with interment camps. It was a big difference as those that were relocated could have easily avoided being taken to the camps and could leave the camps ANY TIME THEY WANTED if they could show they had some place to live that was not withinsome set of miles off the west coast(I think it was 500 miles, maybe 1000). 90% of the Japenese were relocated, not interned. They also all got a day in court, if they wanted it. None of the Germans or Italians got that right.

They also did not mention that while the Japenese americans got monetary compensation for their ordeal, yet none of the German or Italian Americans got it for going through an even worse ordeal. The Germans and Italians never received an apology either, while the Japanese did.

And get this: the German americans were largely held for a YEAR after the war was fucking over! The Japenese nor the italians were held the additional year. WHY?? The Japanese were the ones that attacked us, right?

You don't want to know why. Cause Jews own this country and felt like kciking around a few Germans. If they actually include this stuff in hsitory books, people start asking critical questions. And the powers that be, the United States of Israel, just don't want you stupid goyim asking any questions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We in the USA are always given a bullshit version of history. It's mostly due to Jews owning most publishing companies, hence they only release things that support their agenda.

As an undergrad I scanned every history book this state has for every highschool. Somewhere around 25 different books. Every single one of them detailed the "Japense internment" in some detail. But, some dirty little details were left out. The fact that thousands of German and Italian americans were also detained. They also do not distinguish "relocation" camps with interment camps. It was a big difference as those that were relocated could have easily avoided being taken to the camps and could leave the camps ANY TIME THEY WANTED if they could show they had some place to live that was not withinsome set of miles off the west coast(I think it was 500 miles, maybe 1000). They also all got a day in court, if they wanted it. None of the Germans or Italians got that right.

They also did not mention that while the Japenese americans got monetary compensation for their ordeal, none of the German or Italian Americans got it. The Germans and Italians never recieved an apology either, while the Japanese did,

And get this: the German americans were largely held for a YEAR after the war was fucking over! The Japenese nor the italians were held the additional year. WHY?? The Japanese were the ones that attack us, right?

You don't want to know why. Cause Jews own this country and felt like kciking around a few Germans. If they actually include this stuff in hsitory books, people start asking critical questions. And the powers that be, the United States of Israel, just don't want you stupid goyim asking any questions.

Provide a source for your claim.

 

[nomdeplume]

Provide a source for your claim.

Internment of German Americans in the United States during World War II

Did I also mention we were even shipping Germans americans BACK TO GERMANY to be blown up in war? Your country, your history, hidden from you.

But don't ask question. Watch american idol, drink some pepsi, listen to cRAP music and be happy.

 

[BrianH]

We in the USA are always given a bullshit version of history. It's mostly due to Jews owning most publishing companies, hence they only release things that support their agenda.

As an undergrad I scanned every history book this state has for every highschool. Somewhere around 25 different books. Every single one of them detailed the "Japense internment" in some detail. But, some dirty little details were left out. The fact that thousands of German and Italian americans were also detained. They also do not distinguish "relocation" camps with interment camps. It was a big difference as those that were relocated could have easily avoided being taken to the camps and could leave the camps ANY TIME THEY WANTED if they could show they had some place to live that was not withinsome set of miles off the west coast(I think it was 500 miles, maybe 1000). 90% of the Japenese were relocated, not interned. They also all got a day in court, if they wanted it. None of the Germans or Italians got that right.

They also did not mention that while the Japenese americans got monetary compensation for their ordeal, yet none of the German or Italian Americans got it for going through an even worse ordeal. The Germans and Italians never received an apology either, while the Japanese did.

And get this: the German americans were largely held for a YEAR after the war was fucking over! The Japenese nor the italians were held the additional year. WHY?? The Japanese were the ones that attacked us, right?

You don't want to know why. Cause Jews own this country and felt like kciking around a few Germans. If they actually include this stuff in hsitory books, people start asking critical questions. And the powers that be, the United States of Israel, just don't want you stupid goyim asking any questions.

While I agree with your discontent of the subject, I do not beileve that this is "being hidden"...considering any joe blow (not meaning you) can google it on the internet. The reason you haven't found it in school history books is because unfortunately, history is the most informative subject there is. And also unfortunately, the people who write curriculum have to wade through years of potential information and eventually settle on the most logical to teach students. It is already difficult for history teachers to cramm 250 years of American history into 187 days. World History teachers have it the worst, by attempting to cram millions of years into 187 days. I believe that teacher should mention Italian and German internment camps while teaching about Japanese Internment camps, but to dedicate an entire week to it would be asking a little too much, given time limits. There is however, a recent push for teachers to not just give students information and expect them to learn it, but teach them to do what we all (on this message board) do. We use the internet and other sources to find out information. One of my goals as a teacher is to attempt to delve deeper into subject matter...