"Moderates" are the problem

[Where_r_my_Keys]

German losses 3.3 million, US losses .25 million.

Japanese Losses add another 1.5 million.

And before ya go giving credit to Histler for the Russian Meat grinder, Stalin was responsible for that mess. Total axis losses were 18 million, deduct Stalin's suicidal tactics, resulting in 13.5 million and the Allies did the most killing by nearly half a million.

No no no you said COUNTRY, now you're arguing Axis versus Allied. AND you aren't even taking into account the 6 million Jews that Hitler had slaughtered.

The National WWII Museum New Orleans Learn For Students WWII by the Numbers World-Wide Deaths

The Soviet Union lost 24M people. You gotta lay some of that at minimum on Hitler.

45M civilian deaths. I think we know which side allied/axis caused most of that..

Actually the Jews are accounted for in official casualty records.

The US was "The Allies", absent the US, the Nazis would have prevailed... And minus Conservative Americans, the US would not have produced the millions of aircraft, tanks, cannons, rifles and the billions of tons of textiles that were essential to killing those 5 million German, Italian ... and Japanese that inevitably won the war.

In case ya missed it, killing the most people, breaking the most things, is how wars are won. So... well, you see how it is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

German losses 3.3 million, US losses .295 million.

Japanese Losses add another 1.5 million.

And before ya go giving credit to Histler for the Russian Meat grinder, Stalin was responsible for that mess. Total axis losses were 18 million, deduct Stalin's suicidal tactics, resulting in 13.5 million and the Allies did the most killing by nearly half a million.

Who cares? When I called you Hitler, it wasn't a compliment.

Your concession is AGAIN duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[ChrisL]

German losses 3.3 million, US losses .295 million.

Japanese Losses add another 1.5 million.

And before ya go giving credit to Histler for the Russian Meat grinder, Stalin was responsible for that mess. Total axis losses were 18 million, deduct Stalin's suicidal tactics, resulting in 13.5 million and the Allies did the most killing by nearly half a million.

Who cares? When I called you Hitler, it wasn't a compliment.

Your concession is AGAIN duly noted and summarily accepted.

Okay crazy dude. If some of you extremists would just let it go, then this gay marriage issue could be put behind us to concentrate on more pressing matters, but NO, you all have to try to force your narrow views of the world upon everyone else. Sorry, but your way of life doesn't work for everyone. People are individuals, and this is not a one-size-fits-all world.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

German losses 3.3 million, US losses .295 million.

Japanese Losses add another 1.5 million.

And before ya go giving credit to Histler for the Russian Meat grinder, Stalin was responsible for that mess. Total axis losses were 18 million, deduct Stalin's suicidal tactics, resulting in 13.5 million and the Allies did the most killing by nearly half a million.

Who cares? When I called you Hitler, it wasn't a compliment.

Your concession is AGAIN duly noted and summarily accepted.

Okay crazy dude. If some of you extremists ...

Sweety, you've established yourself as the extremist in this discussion.

You claim that nature has no authority to design the human species... and that your feelings should outweigh the design of the species... . It doesn't get more extreme than that sugar.

 

[ChrisL]

German losses 3.3 million, US losses .295 million.

Japanese Losses add another 1.5 million.

And before ya go giving credit to Histler for the Russian Meat grinder, Stalin was responsible for that mess. Total axis losses were 18 million, deduct Stalin's suicidal tactics, resulting in 13.5 million and the Allies did the most killing by nearly half a million.

Who cares? When I called you Hitler, it wasn't a compliment.

Your concession is AGAIN duly noted and summarily accepted.

Okay crazy dude. If some of you extremists ...

Sweety, you've established yourself as the extremist in this discussion.

You claim that nature has no authority to design the human species... and that your feelings should outweigh the design of the species... . It doesn't get more extreme than that sugar.

I haven't said any of those things. I said that gay people, regardless of their sexuality, deserve to be treated as people and have the same rights and privileges as any other people who are citizens of the United States. If they aren't hurting anyone else, then it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[ChrisL]

I haven't said any of those things. I said th[ose things].

LOL! Now how precious is THAT?

If by precious, you mean true, then okay.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I haven't said any of those things. I said th[ose things].

LOL! Now how precious is THAT?

Don't be altering quotes. Bad, bad, bad, bad...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I haven't said any of those things. I said th[ose things].

LOL! Now how precious is THAT?

If by precious, you mean true, then okay.

"It" is' true that you've demonstrated yourself to be a profound extremist. Despite your coming in here claiming that your opposition was the only example of such.

On that we can agree... but sadly, the point is obvious, so our agreement serves no purpose.

 

[dcraelin]

Cromnibus a winter festival of unrestrained spending Human Events


The new spending bill just passed by Congress is an example that moderates appear to be the problem. Here we have a bill with unrestrained spending, thus upsetting conservatives, and a bill that favors the corporate banking industry, thus inciting the left.

Really it is the best of both worlds. It is a continued path to insolvency, as well as easing corporate restrictions that caused the credit crisis to occur only a few years ago.

I'm tired of these so called "moderates'. Just the mere term makes me nauseated. They should just be renamed the "rapists" of society and maybe send Bill Cosby to the Oval Office in 2016.

For me, moderates have become the most radical extremists of all, since they appear to be sowing the seeds for our ultimate destruction.

I agree. the "moderates" are just those without any principles.....the sell-outs...I'm a leftist but I think wed be better off with a bunch of tea party people than a bunch of corrupt sell-out "moderates".

Part of the problem is our system...it would be better if we had proportional representation.....with more parties represented.

We need to take the money our of the system also.

 

[ChrisL]

Don't be ...

Don't be ... indeed.

Obviously, you don't have any arguments left. All you've been doing here for the past several pages is try to throw around vaguely veiled insults, which don't even make sense, so they just come across as ridiculous rants of a crazy man. I, on the other hand, have made plenty of good points that you have yet to refute. I guess that means . . . I win!

I will gladly accept your concession now.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Cromnibus a winter festival of unrestrained spending Human Events


The new spending bill just passed by Congress is an example that moderates appear to be the problem. Here we have a bill with unrestrained spending, thus upsetting conservatives, and a bill that favors the corporate banking industry, thus inciting the left.

Really it is the best of both worlds. It is a continued path to insolvency, as well as easing corporate restrictions that caused the credit crisis to occur only a few years ago.

I'm tired of these so called "moderates'. Just the mere term makes me nauseated. They should just be renamed the "rapists" of society and maybe send Bill Cosby to the Oval Office in 2016.

For me, moderates have become the most radical extremists of all, since they appear to be sowing the seeds for our ultimate destruction.

I agree. the "moderates" are just those without any principles.....the sell-outs...I'm a leftist but I think wed be better off with a bunch of tea party people than a bunch of corrupt sell-out "moderates".

Part of the problem is our system...it would be better if we had proportional representation.....with more parties represented.

We need to take the money our of the system also.

I agree, the nation would be better off with Americans exclusively serving in government.


But adding parties would only further dilute the number of viable individuals serving in government. Instead of having 50.1% electing a President, adding a third party means that such would be elected with 33.4%, add a th and it goes down to 25.1%.

Very BAD. Very VERY BAD!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Don't be ...

Don't be ... indeed.

Again, it's against USMB rules to alter quoted material. It can change the meaning. Do you even know where the USMB rules page is? You might want to go check it out before you damage yourself any more. Here, let's call a couple of mods over, they can clarify this right now.

AngelsNDemons
theDoctorisIn

 

[ChrisL]

I think that, with the younger generations turning away from the two parties that have been monopolizing control of our government, manipulating and lying to the people, and ruining our country, we will see more viable 3rd party candidates in the future and those who have more libertarian ideals. The only thing I would disagree with libertarians on, is that a lot of them have some strange foreign policy ideals, as if we could go back to being "isolationists" in today's day and age.

 

[dcraelin]

Cromnibus a winter festival of unrestrained spending Human Events


The new spending bill just passed by Congress is an example that moderates appear to be the problem. Here we have a bill with unrestrained spending, thus upsetting conservatives, and a bill that favors the corporate banking industry, thus inciting the left.

Really it is the best of both worlds. It is a continued path to insolvency, as well as easing corporate restrictions that caused the credit crisis to occur only a few years ago.

I'm tired of these so called "moderates'. Just the mere term makes me nauseated. They should just be renamed the "rapists" of society and maybe send Bill Cosby to the Oval Office in 2016.

For me, moderates have become the most radical extremists of all, since they appear to be sowing the seeds for our ultimate destruction.

I agree. the "moderates" are just those without any principles.....the sell-outs...I'm a leftist but I think wed be better off with a bunch of tea party people than a bunch of corrupt sell-out "moderates".

Part of the problem is our system...it would be better if we had proportional representation.....with more parties represented.

We need to take the money our of the system also.

I agree, the nation would be better off with Americans exclusively serving in government.


But adding parties would only further dilute the number of viable individuals serving in government. Instead of having 50.1% electing a President, adding a third party means that such would be elected with 33.4%, add a th and it goes down to 25.1%.

Very BAD. Very VERY BAD!

I dont understand all of your post, americans serving? yes all have to be americans.

but our existing Constitution does have provisions to deal with a president that doesnt have a majority of electoral votes...it goes to congress...not a big deal.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Cromnibus a winter festival of unrestrained spending Human Events


The new spending bill just passed by Congress is an example that moderates appear to be the problem. Here we have a bill with unrestrained spending, thus upsetting conservatives, and a bill that favors the corporate banking industry, thus inciting the left.

Really it is the best of both worlds. It is a continued path to insolvency, as well as easing corporate restrictions that caused the credit crisis to occur only a few years ago.

I'm tired of these so called "moderates'. Just the mere term makes me nauseated. They should just be renamed the "rapists" of society and maybe send Bill Cosby to the Oval Office in 2016.

For me, moderates have become the most radical extremists of all, since they appear to be sowing the seeds for our ultimate destruction.

I agree. the "moderates" are just those without any principles.....the sell-outs...I'm a leftist but I think wed be better off with a bunch of tea party people than a bunch of corrupt sell-out "moderates".

Part of the problem is our system...it would be better if we had proportional representation.....with more parties represented.

We need to take the money our of the system also.

I agree, the nation would be better off with Americans exclusively serving in government.


But adding parties would only further dilute the number of viable individuals serving in government. Instead of having 50.1% electing a President, adding a third party means that such would be elected with 33.4%, add a th and it goes down to 25.1%.

Very BAD. Very VERY BAD!

I dont understand all of your post, americans serving? yes all have to be americans.

but our existing Constitution does have provisions to deal with a president that doesnt have a majority of electoral votes...it goes to congress...not a big deal.

It's a pretty inelegant solution in that case of 269-269 or less. The HOR votes on the President using the Unit Rule, whereas the Senate decides on the VP by simple majority. So, in the case that no one cracks 270 EV, the next Pres and VP could theoretically be from different parties. Imagine 2008, a 269-269 tie in the EV, and the House selects Obama by the unit rule, but for some reason, the Senate picked Palin.

:horror:

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

OF course no one should be stuck in an unhappy situation, but far far too many people bail on situations that 40 years ago, people would have worked through.

Funny story about my grand parents (well funny now, probably wasn't funny at the time) they "met" via mail when my grandmother wrote tomy grand father while he was in the Navy during WWII, when he came home, they got married.

The story is that one time grandpa got mad at grandma , who knows why? , and told her he was going for a drive to cool off, four days later he came home.

How many wives would already have filed for divorce today by the time he got home?

The were married 59 years when she passed away.

Well, I agree, but I think the real problem is that people jump into marriages too quickly without really knowing the other person very well. If those people involved thought the relationship was worth saving, then they would work on it. Obviously, they don't feel it's worth it.

Besides, men could get away with having mistresses back then. That probably has something to do ALSO with why they were so happy with the situation. They had a maid at home (their wives) and their sex kitten that they set up somewhere. Now, your wife can leave you for such things. Of course, the guys would be unhappy. They DO NOT get to have their cake and eat it too anymore. Women have a say in such things.

oh please, you been watching too many reruns of Mad Men. Most men didn't have mistresses.

What about JFK and Marilyn Monroe? Everyone knew they were having a relationship on the side, and no one had a problem with that, and he was the president of the United States at the time, so just because ALL men or even most chose not to do it or never got caught doing it, does not mean it wasn't acceptable practice back then. There were a lot of things that lead me to believe that.

Actually, it was NOT common knowledge back then. Most people didn't realize that JFK was a pill popping womanizer until after his death.

Please, there are plenty of instances of misogyny from the 50s. Even some of the ads. Women were expected to stay home, serve their man and have babies. Women who decided they wanted more than that were considered "hysterical" or some crap. Women, throughout history, have been basically glorified slaves. There is no denying that. They still ARE in some parts of the world, sadly.

Let's stop with the stupid words. Believing that each sex has a distinct role in life is not misogyny. My wife hasn't worked in our time together, she's stayed home and taken care of the kids and the house and a million other things while I served in the military.

Do you imagine that is because I hate her?

 

[dcraelin]

Cromnibus a winter festival of unrestrained spending Human Events


The new spending bill just passed by Congress is an example that moderates appear to be the problem. Here we have a bill with unrestrained spending, thus upsetting conservatives, and a bill that favors the corporate banking industry, thus inciting the left.

Really it is the best of both worlds. It is a continued path to insolvency, as well as easing corporate restrictions that caused the credit crisis to occur only a few years ago.

I'm tired of these so called "moderates'. Just the mere term makes me nauseated. They should just be renamed the "rapists" of society and maybe send Bill Cosby to the Oval Office in 2016.

For me, moderates have become the most radical extremists of all, since they appear to be sowing the seeds for our ultimate destruction.

I agree. the "moderates" are just those without any principles.....the sell-outs...I'm a leftist but I think wed be better off with a bunch of tea party people than a bunch of corrupt sell-out "moderates".

Part of the problem is our system...it would be better if we had proportional representation.....with more parties represented.

We need to take the money our of the system also.

I agree, the nation would be better off with Americans exclusively serving in government.


But adding parties would only further dilute the number of viable individuals serving in government. Instead of having 50.1% electing a President, adding a third party means that such would be elected with 33.4%, add a th and it goes down to 25.1%.

Very BAD. Very VERY BAD!

I dont understand all of your post, americans serving? yes all have to be americans.

but our existing Constitution does have provisions to deal with a president that doesnt have a majority of electoral votes...it goes to congress...not a big deal.

It's a pretty inelegant solution in that case of 269-269 or less. The HOR votes on the President using the Unit Rule, whereas the Senate decides on the VP by simple majority. So, in the case that no one cracks 270 EV, the next Pres and VP could theoretically be from different parties. Imagine 2008, a 269-269 tie in the EV, and the House selects Obama by the unit rule, but for some reason, the Senate picked Palin.

:horror:

Horror?...why?.....one former VP said it isnt worth a warm bucket of spit...........he breaks ties in the senate right?....no big deal...sits in on a few meeting?...might even lead to some more genuine compromise

 

[Statistikhengst]

Cromnibus a winter festival of unrestrained spending Human Events


The new spending bill just passed by Congress is an example that moderates appear to be the problem. Here we have a bill with unrestrained spending, thus upsetting conservatives, and a bill that favors the corporate banking industry, thus inciting the left.

Really it is the best of both worlds. It is a continued path to insolvency, as well as easing corporate restrictions that caused the credit crisis to occur only a few years ago.

I'm tired of these so called "moderates'. Just the mere term makes me nauseated. They should just be renamed the "rapists" of society and maybe send Bill Cosby to the Oval Office in 2016.

For me, moderates have become the most radical extremists of all, since they appear to be sowing the seeds for our ultimate destruction.

I agree. the "moderates" are just those without any principles.....the sell-outs...I'm a leftist but I think wed be better off with a bunch of tea party people than a bunch of corrupt sell-out "moderates".

Part of the problem is our system...it would be better if we had proportional representation.....with more parties represented.

We need to take the money our of the system also.

I agree, the nation would be better off with Americans exclusively serving in government.


But adding parties would only further dilute the number of viable individuals serving in government. Instead of having 50.1% electing a President, adding a third party means that such would be elected with 33.4%, add a th and it goes down to 25.1%.

Very BAD. Very VERY BAD!

I dont understand all of your post, americans serving? yes all have to be americans.

but our existing Constitution does have provisions to deal with a president that doesnt have a majority of electoral votes...it goes to congress...not a big deal.

It's a pretty inelegant solution in that case of 269-269 or less. The HOR votes on the President using the Unit Rule, whereas the Senate decides on the VP by simple majority. So, in the case that no one cracks 270 EV, the next Pres and VP could theoretically be from different parties. Imagine 2008, a 269-269 tie in the EV, and the House selects Obama by the unit rule, but for some reason, the Senate picked Palin.

:horror:

Horror?...why?.....one former VP said it isnt worth a warm bucket of spit...........he breaks ties in the senate right?....no big deal...sits in on a few meeting?...might even lead to some more genuine compromise

Possibly. But unlikely.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I agree, but I think the real problem is that people jump into marriages too quickly without really knowing the other person very well. If those people involved thought the relationship was worth saving, then they would work on it. Obviously, they don't feel it's worth it.

Besides, men could get away with having mistresses back then. That probably has something to do ALSO with why they were so happy with the situation. They had a maid at home (their wives) and their sex kitten that they set up somewhere. Now, your wife can leave you for such things. Of course, the guys would be unhappy. They DO NOT get to have their cake and eat it too anymore. Women have a say in such things.

oh please, you been watching too many reruns of Mad Men. Most men didn't have mistresses.

What about JFK and Marilyn Monroe? Everyone knew they were having a relationship on the side, and no one had a problem with that, and he was the president of the United States at the time, so just because ALL men or even most chose not to do it or never got caught doing it, does not mean it wasn't acceptable practice back then. There were a lot of things that lead me to believe that.

Actually, it was NOT common knowledge back then. Most people didn't realize that JFK was a pill popping womanizer until after his death.

Please, there are plenty of instances of misogyny from the 50s. Even some of the ads. Women were expected to stay home, serve their man and have babies. Women who decided they wanted more than that were considered "hysterical" or some crap. Women, throughout history, have been basically glorified slaves. There is no denying that. They still ARE in some parts of the world, sadly.

Let's stop with the stupid words. Believing that each sex has a distinct role in life is not misogyny. My wife hasn't worked in our time together, she's stayed home and taken care of the kids and the house and a million other things while I served in the military.

Do you imagine that is because I hate her?

I imagine that was a choice she made on her own. Back in the 50s, women didn't have choices. I have nothing against any women who decide that they want to stay home and raise a family. That is wonderful, but it should be a choice.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

oh please, you been watching too many reruns of Mad Men. Most men didn't have mistresses.

What about JFK and Marilyn Monroe? Everyone knew they were having a relationship on the side, and no one had a problem with that, and he was the president of the United States at the time, so just because ALL men or even most chose not to do it or never got caught doing it, does not mean it wasn't acceptable practice back then. There were a lot of things that lead me to believe that.

Actually, it was NOT common knowledge back then. Most people didn't realize that JFK was a pill popping womanizer until after his death.

Please, there are plenty of instances of misogyny from the 50s. Even some of the ads. Women were expected to stay home, serve their man and have babies. Women who decided they wanted more than that were considered "hysterical" or some crap. Women, throughout history, have been basically glorified slaves. There is no denying that. They still ARE in some parts of the world, sadly.

Let's stop with the stupid words. Believing that each sex has a distinct role in life is not misogyny. My wife hasn't worked in our time together, she's stayed home and taken care of the kids and the house and a million other things while I served in the military.

Do you imagine that is because I hate her?

I imagine that was a choice she made on her own. Back in the 50s, women didn't have choices. I have nothing against any women who decide that they want to stay home and raise a family. That is wonderful, but it should be a choice.

Of course but now things are just the opposite, my wife has heard "oh you're JUST a housewife" all of our married lives, by other women, how is that any more degrading than a man telling a woman that's all she can do? And for the record, my wife has a Master's Degree in English Lit and could get a teaching position at nearly school she wanted to , if she wanted to.