This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Prager on 25 August 2016 - 16:08
Hundmutter do not confuse stating historical facts with moving goal posts. Hitler was appointed and not elected into his position. I have learned this in 5th grade.
by joanro on 25 August 2016 - 16:08
That hillerobama will succeed in their quest to bring this 'cultural enrichment' to this country...http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/08/25/islamic-state-executes-four-men-including-two-suspicion-homosexuality/
by joanro on 25 August 2016 - 19:08
Not my fear, but hilleroma is desperately fearful and has no legitimate argument against her opponent...and she can't 'un-do' what millions of Americans have learned about her crime family, thanks to Breitbart's 'Clinton Cash'....
by Hundmutter on 25 August 2016 - 19:08
Obviously I cannot call you a liar about what you were taught in 5th grade, Hans, but if that is true, you were not taught well, or in adequate detail.
Do you want me to run through the whole story of between-the-wars German politics or will you take my word for it that the Nazis had a majority of Parliamentary Seats in the Reichstag by the end of 1932 (and Hitler as their Leader), and although they then lost seats in '33, by that time he had established himself enough to decide to 'appoint' HIMSELF Chancellor (following Herr Schlecker), aided in that by President Hindenberg and the previous Chancellor von Papen, neither of them National Socialists or indeed any kind of socialist, as well as other factors (eg the Wall St crash, subsequent Economic Depression, the US calling in loans, and even the aftermath on the German electorate of the Treaty of Versailles). In which Hindenberg & von Papen offered the VICE-Chancellorship, and Adolf instead seized the Chancellorship - perfectly legally, at that time.
Do you want me to run through the whole story of between-the-wars German politics or will you take my word for it that the Nazis had a majority of Parliamentary Seats in the Reichstag by the end of 1932 (and Hitler as their Leader), and although they then lost seats in '33, by that time he had established himself enough to decide to 'appoint' HIMSELF Chancellor (following Herr Schlecker), aided in that by President Hindenberg and the previous Chancellor von Papen, neither of them National Socialists or indeed any kind of socialist, as well as other factors (eg the Wall St crash, subsequent Economic Depression, the US calling in loans, and even the aftermath on the German electorate of the Treaty of Versailles). In which Hindenberg & von Papen offered the VICE-Chancellorship, and Adolf instead seized the Chancellorship - perfectly legally, at that time.
by Noitsyou on 25 August 2016 - 21:08
@Prager, when you were snooping around the internet trying to get information about me you should have paid closer attention. I am not the only person with my name (first and last) and if the person you are referring to is the person who I think it is then you should have noticed he doesn't even live in the USA. Sherlock Holmes, you ain't.
@beetree, this is an excerpt from the transcript of that speech by Rand:
"But now, as to the Indians, I don’t even care to discuss that kind of alleged complaints that they have against this country. I do believe with serious, scientific reasons the worst kind of movie that you have probably seen—worst from the Indian viewpoint—as to what they did to the white man.
I do not think that they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages. Americans didn’t conquer; Americans did not conquer that country.
Whoever is making sounds there, I think is hissing, he is right, but please be consistent: you are a racist if you object to that [laughter and applause]. You are that because you believe that anything can be given to Man by his biological birth or for biological reasons.
If you are born in a magnificent country which you don’t know what to do with, you believe that it is a property right; it is not. And, since the Indians did not have any property rights—they didn’t have the concept of property; they didn’t even have a settled, society, they were predominantly nomadic tribes; they were a primitive tribal culture, if you want to call it that—if so, they didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.
It would be wrong to attack any country which does respect—or try, for that matter, to respect—individual rights, because if they do, you are an aggressor and you are morally wrong to attack them. But if a country does not protect rights—if a given tribe is the slave of its own tribal chief—why should you respect the rights they do not have?
Or any country which has a dictatorship. Government—the citizens still have individual rights—but the country does not have any rights. Anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in this country and neither you nor a country nor anyone can have your cake and eat it too.
In other words, want respect for the rights of Indians, who, incidentally, for most cases of their tribal history, made agreements with the white man, and then when they had used up whichever they got through agreement of giving, selling certain territory, then came back and broke the agreement, and attacked white settlements.
I will go further. Let’s suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages, which they certainly were not. What was it that they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their right to keep part of the earth untouched, unused, and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves about.
Any white person who brings the elements of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it is great that some people did, and discovered here what they couldn’t do anywhere else in the world and what the Indians, if there are any racist Indians today, do not believe to this day: respect for individual rights."
Not only is this a very racist position to take (calling Indians savages, for example) it is also based on historical inaccuracies. She clearly knew very little about American history, in particular with regard to the Indians, yet she chose to comment on it as though she had a clue. In this same speech she mentions that the US was the first country to abolish slavery. That too was factually incorrect. She was also incorrect when she stated that the concept of individual rights did not exist until the United States came up with it.
Note that it is her judgement of what is or isn't civilized that she bases someone's right to exist on. That is no different than the moral certitude we find in religious thought. And for those apologists in your link who claim she didn't support genocide only the dispossession of the lands where Indians lived they miss some important points one being that genocide was the vehicle to dispossess them of their lands. They also ignore this sentence in her speech: "I do not think that they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages." Note that she said they don't have any right to live in a country. That is no different than saying they don't have a right to live. Rand is morally justifying taking the land by force and that did indeed result in genocide.
@beetree, this is an excerpt from the transcript of that speech by Rand:
"But now, as to the Indians, I don’t even care to discuss that kind of alleged complaints that they have against this country. I do believe with serious, scientific reasons the worst kind of movie that you have probably seen—worst from the Indian viewpoint—as to what they did to the white man.
I do not think that they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages. Americans didn’t conquer; Americans did not conquer that country.
Whoever is making sounds there, I think is hissing, he is right, but please be consistent: you are a racist if you object to that [laughter and applause]. You are that because you believe that anything can be given to Man by his biological birth or for biological reasons.
If you are born in a magnificent country which you don’t know what to do with, you believe that it is a property right; it is not. And, since the Indians did not have any property rights—they didn’t have the concept of property; they didn’t even have a settled, society, they were predominantly nomadic tribes; they were a primitive tribal culture, if you want to call it that—if so, they didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.
It would be wrong to attack any country which does respect—or try, for that matter, to respect—individual rights, because if they do, you are an aggressor and you are morally wrong to attack them. But if a country does not protect rights—if a given tribe is the slave of its own tribal chief—why should you respect the rights they do not have?
Or any country which has a dictatorship. Government—the citizens still have individual rights—but the country does not have any rights. Anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in this country and neither you nor a country nor anyone can have your cake and eat it too.
In other words, want respect for the rights of Indians, who, incidentally, for most cases of their tribal history, made agreements with the white man, and then when they had used up whichever they got through agreement of giving, selling certain territory, then came back and broke the agreement, and attacked white settlements.
I will go further. Let’s suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages, which they certainly were not. What was it that they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their right to keep part of the earth untouched, unused, and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves about.
Any white person who brings the elements of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it is great that some people did, and discovered here what they couldn’t do anywhere else in the world and what the Indians, if there are any racist Indians today, do not believe to this day: respect for individual rights."
Not only is this a very racist position to take (calling Indians savages, for example) it is also based on historical inaccuracies. She clearly knew very little about American history, in particular with regard to the Indians, yet she chose to comment on it as though she had a clue. In this same speech she mentions that the US was the first country to abolish slavery. That too was factually incorrect. She was also incorrect when she stated that the concept of individual rights did not exist until the United States came up with it.
Note that it is her judgement of what is or isn't civilized that she bases someone's right to exist on. That is no different than the moral certitude we find in religious thought. And for those apologists in your link who claim she didn't support genocide only the dispossession of the lands where Indians lived they miss some important points one being that genocide was the vehicle to dispossess them of their lands. They also ignore this sentence in her speech: "I do not think that they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages." Note that she said they don't have any right to live in a country. That is no different than saying they don't have a right to live. Rand is morally justifying taking the land by force and that did indeed result in genocide.
by Hundmutter on 26 August 2016 - 07:08
Does that mean that by Rand's definition Trump has no rights over the properties he has bought but rarely lives in ?LOL
by beetree on 26 August 2016 - 09:08
@Noitsyou. If you could elaborate on the finer points of history with some facts that prove her understanding wrong, that would be helpful for me to make sense and perhaps reconcile her words and philosophy stated at the start of her West Point appearance speech. It is not clear to me how one can conclude what you do without negating everything she claims to be standing for as the champion of the rational mind, before capitalism and before the rights of the individual. She specifically included the disclaimer of violence as a means to end, as well. And the question was stated as cultural genocide, originally, too.
by Noitsyou on 26 August 2016 - 22:08
Rand was wrong when she said that Indians did not recognize property rights. She was wrong when she said that Indians would make treaties with whites then violate them but the reverse wasn't true. She was wrong when she said that the US was the first nation to end slavery. She was wrong when she said that the concept of individual rights was born in the US.
She may have made that disclaimer but it only serves to prove further the incongruities and hypocrisies of her views. Ask yourself how one commits a cultural genocide against an unwilling person or people. How do you dispossess a people of their land without violence? She claimed she stood for the rights of the individual but her dogma clearly states that the superior, more advanced culture, has a greater right to exist than an "inferior" one. A human does not have the right to exist as a "savage?" And who was she to decide which culture lives and which dies? Like I said, it's the same moral certitude that we see in religion. It is fundamentalism.
The irony is that she talks about her culture as being less primitive and savage than the Indians however, the methods used to eradicate the Indian "problem" were primitive and savage. In fact, one of the most primitive behaviors humans engage in is the violent taking of another people's land.
Finally, Rand liked to say she was more of an American than those who were born here. That was one of the chips on her shoulder. If she were an American she would have had more respect for the Indians and their culture as it is part of American culture. She saw the Indians like the actors she saw portraying them in old westerns. If she were a real American she would have known that Indians have fought for this country. There are many "white" Americans with Indian blood. History happens and it isn't always nice but a real American would at the very least be sympathetic toward the fate of the Indians, the fate of our fellow Americans.
She may have made that disclaimer but it only serves to prove further the incongruities and hypocrisies of her views. Ask yourself how one commits a cultural genocide against an unwilling person or people. How do you dispossess a people of their land without violence? She claimed she stood for the rights of the individual but her dogma clearly states that the superior, more advanced culture, has a greater right to exist than an "inferior" one. A human does not have the right to exist as a "savage?" And who was she to decide which culture lives and which dies? Like I said, it's the same moral certitude that we see in religion. It is fundamentalism.
The irony is that she talks about her culture as being less primitive and savage than the Indians however, the methods used to eradicate the Indian "problem" were primitive and savage. In fact, one of the most primitive behaviors humans engage in is the violent taking of another people's land.
Finally, Rand liked to say she was more of an American than those who were born here. That was one of the chips on her shoulder. If she were an American she would have had more respect for the Indians and their culture as it is part of American culture. She saw the Indians like the actors she saw portraying them in old westerns. If she were a real American she would have known that Indians have fought for this country. There are many "white" Americans with Indian blood. History happens and it isn't always nice but a real American would at the very least be sympathetic toward the fate of the Indians, the fate of our fellow Americans.
by joanro on 27 August 2016 - 14:08
That the hillirapist will continuing raping the us citizens on an even greater scale than this ;
by Noitsyou on 27 August 2016 - 14:08
Sorry Joan but that article is crap. Osorio did not receive any money that came from tax payers and a simple 60 seconds of googling would tell you that. The question is why did the authors of that article choose to post that lie.
Google Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). It is privately funded.
What's funny is how you, and that article, want to point out how Osorio had connections to the Clintons yet, your god Trump does as well. I doubt you are coherent enough to even realize the irony.
Google Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). It is privately funded.
What's funny is how you, and that article, want to point out how Osorio had connections to the Clintons yet, your god Trump does as well. I doubt you are coherent enough to even realize the irony.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top