I saw this quote on a video I was watching, and it just rings true!
Agree? Disagree?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
Hmmmm
Hmmmm
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
my son
my son
Hmmmm
It's dreadfully true, yes.
This is from the journal of Gustave Gilbert, an intelligence officer at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946:"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."The person speaking was Hermann Goering.
This is from the journal of Gustave Gilbert, an intelligence officer at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946:"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."The person speaking was Hermann Goering.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Hmmmm
I gotta go google Herman Goering! His quote is truth though!
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
my son
my son
Hmmmm
spot;754497 wrote: It's dreadfully true, yes.
This is from the journal of Gustave Gilbert, an intelligence officer at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946:"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."The person speaking was Hermann Goering.
Ok I went and read about Hermann Goering. He made a very enlightening comment during the Nuremberg Trials, but from what I read about him at Wiki, he also seemed to be a very pompous person.
This is from the journal of Gustave Gilbert, an intelligence officer at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946:"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."The person speaking was Hermann Goering.
Ok I went and read about Hermann Goering. He made a very enlightening comment during the Nuremberg Trials, but from what I read about him at Wiki, he also seemed to be a very pompous person.
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
my son
my son
Hmmmm
Pompous? He was an ace pilot during the First World War but he got dragged into politics, that tends to inflate any person's sense of self-worth for no good reason.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Hmmmm
fuzzy butt;754505 wrote: Evil always speaks the truth of itself.May I drop another quote in?
Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country.
George W. Bush, May 5, 2004.
Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country.
George W. Bush, May 5, 2004.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Hmmmm
spot;754504 wrote: Pompous? He was an ace pilot during the First World War but he got dragged into politics, that tends to inflate any person's sense of self-worth for no good reason.
fuzzy butt;754505 wrote: Sheryl the Nuremburg trials gave everyone an insight to a person personal evil.
Evil always speaks the truth of itself.
Ohh ok.
I'm not all that familiar with the Nuremberg trials, and you guys understand the lack of history taught in American classrooms. I know what it was, but details about it, no. So whenever I voluntarily chose to study something about World War II, I always picked something dealing with the Holocaust.
fuzzy butt;754505 wrote: Sheryl the Nuremburg trials gave everyone an insight to a person personal evil.
Evil always speaks the truth of itself.
Ohh ok.
I'm not all that familiar with the Nuremberg trials, and you guys understand the lack of history taught in American classrooms. I know what it was, but details about it, no. So whenever I voluntarily chose to study something about World War II, I always picked something dealing with the Holocaust.
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
my son
my son
Hmmmm
spot;754510 wrote: May I drop another quote in?
Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country.
George W. Bush, May 5, 2004.
:wah: now that's funny!
Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country.
George W. Bush, May 5, 2004.
:wah: now that's funny!
"Girls are crazy! I'm not ever getting married, I can make my own sandwiches!"
my son
my son
Hmmmm
Its interesting of course, of course in the case of Britain in 1939 it was the failure of weak men to realize that the country was facing an outside enemy (which of course Goering was a senior part of) that had every intention of attacking other people's nations and subjugating the people by force that almost cost the British people everything. But in the case of the U.S. I would agree that the greatest danger comes from within, well that and a thermonuclear attack from outside. Its never sensible to generalize about war and peace.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Hmmmm
Abraham Lincoln at the age of 28 said much the same as James Madison's quote from the first post:Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny.
The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions: Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny.
The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions: Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Hmmmm
fuzzy butt;754505 wrote: Sheryl the Nuremburg trials gave everyone an insight to a person personal evil.
Evil always speaks the truth of itself.
I suggest you go away and do a bit more reading about it. The real lesson about the rise of the nazis is the sheer ordinariness of it all and how people got themselves sucked in to the point no one could speak out. To dismiss them as simply evil is not to think about it or kid yourself it couldn't happen again. A look at the history of the nazis in the states might surprise you as well, hitler had his admirers in some surprising places. In particular have a look at how he seized power.
posted by galbally
Its interesting of course, of course in the case of Britain in 1939 it was the failure of weak men to realize that the country was facing an outside enemy (which of course Goering was a senior part of) that had every intention of attacking other people's nations and subjugating the people by force that almost cost the British people everything. But in the case of the U.S. I would agree that the greatest danger comes from within, well that and a thermonuclear attack from outside. Its never sensible to generalize about war and peace.
I don't think it's quite that simple. Don't forget you had an entire generation traumatised by ww1 and there were many powerful people in the UK and elsewhere that liked a lot of what mussolini and hitler were doing-at least in the beginning. Anti semitism was not just a german phenomenon and many politiocians would have liked to lock up all the liberals and shut down the trade unions and workers movements. Churchill was a man of his times. He may have been a great war leader latterly but he was also a man ready to use troops against his open people and was all in favour of doing things like executing ghandi. He was a strong advocate of using poison gas against the Iraqis in the 1920's and while secretary of war authorised it's use. He was an imperialist to the bitter end.
Actually I kind of feel our own freedom in the UK is under threat, we've had them try and hold people for longer without trial and the insane idea of national ID cards is still on the agenda. I suppose you get the kind of politicians we deserve.
Evil always speaks the truth of itself.
I suggest you go away and do a bit more reading about it. The real lesson about the rise of the nazis is the sheer ordinariness of it all and how people got themselves sucked in to the point no one could speak out. To dismiss them as simply evil is not to think about it or kid yourself it couldn't happen again. A look at the history of the nazis in the states might surprise you as well, hitler had his admirers in some surprising places. In particular have a look at how he seized power.
posted by galbally
Its interesting of course, of course in the case of Britain in 1939 it was the failure of weak men to realize that the country was facing an outside enemy (which of course Goering was a senior part of) that had every intention of attacking other people's nations and subjugating the people by force that almost cost the British people everything. But in the case of the U.S. I would agree that the greatest danger comes from within, well that and a thermonuclear attack from outside. Its never sensible to generalize about war and peace.
I don't think it's quite that simple. Don't forget you had an entire generation traumatised by ww1 and there were many powerful people in the UK and elsewhere that liked a lot of what mussolini and hitler were doing-at least in the beginning. Anti semitism was not just a german phenomenon and many politiocians would have liked to lock up all the liberals and shut down the trade unions and workers movements. Churchill was a man of his times. He may have been a great war leader latterly but he was also a man ready to use troops against his open people and was all in favour of doing things like executing ghandi. He was a strong advocate of using poison gas against the Iraqis in the 1920's and while secretary of war authorised it's use. He was an imperialist to the bitter end.
Actually I kind of feel our own freedom in the UK is under threat, we've had them try and hold people for longer without trial and the insane idea of national ID cards is still on the agenda. I suppose you get the kind of politicians we deserve.
Hmmmm
gmc;754665 wrote: I suggest you go away and do a bit more reading about it. The real lesson about the rise of the nazis is the sheer ordinariness of it all and how people got themselves sucked in to the point no one could speak out. To dismiss them as simply evil is not to think about it or kid yourself it couldn't happen again. A look at the history of the nazis in the states might surprise you as well, hitler had his admirers in some surprising places. In particular have a look at how he seized power.
posted by galbally
I don't think it's quite that simple. Don't forget you had an entire generation traumatised by ww1 and there were many powerful people in the UK and elsewhere that liked a lot of what mussolini and hitler were doing-at least in the beginning. Anti semitism was not just a german phenomenon and many politiocians would have liked to lock up all the liberals and shut down the trade unions and workers movements. Churchill was a man of his times. He may have been a great war leader latterly but he was also a man ready to use troops against his open people and was all in favour of doing things like executing ghandi. He was a strong advocate of using poison gas against the Iraqis in the 1920's and while secretary of war authorised it's use. He was an imperialist to the bitter end.
Actually I kind of feel our own freedom in the UK is under threat, we've had them try and hold people for longer without trial and the insane idea of national ID cards is still on the agenda. I suppose you get the kind of politicians we deserve.
No the politics of the 1930s is not simple and hindsignt is a wonderful thing of course, but the lesson of that time is a stark one. As for Churchill, yes he was not the most liberal or likeable person but he was certainy the right man for the right time.
As for the detention times being proposed for the U.K. I tend to agree that I can't see the specific reasons why the police would need to hold people for so long without charging them, though I guess this is a case where you really require the politicians to scrutinize and think individuallty about the proposed legislation and vote according to their own principals on it, thats what the House of Commons is for.
As for the ID card thing, I haven't thought that much about it as we are not proposing it for the ROI at present I think, they do have ID cards on the continent and it seems to run reasonably well, but there are valid arguments against ID cards as well, so thats one that will be interesting.
posted by galbally
I don't think it's quite that simple. Don't forget you had an entire generation traumatised by ww1 and there were many powerful people in the UK and elsewhere that liked a lot of what mussolini and hitler were doing-at least in the beginning. Anti semitism was not just a german phenomenon and many politiocians would have liked to lock up all the liberals and shut down the trade unions and workers movements. Churchill was a man of his times. He may have been a great war leader latterly but he was also a man ready to use troops against his open people and was all in favour of doing things like executing ghandi. He was a strong advocate of using poison gas against the Iraqis in the 1920's and while secretary of war authorised it's use. He was an imperialist to the bitter end.
Actually I kind of feel our own freedom in the UK is under threat, we've had them try and hold people for longer without trial and the insane idea of national ID cards is still on the agenda. I suppose you get the kind of politicians we deserve.
No the politics of the 1930s is not simple and hindsignt is a wonderful thing of course, but the lesson of that time is a stark one. As for Churchill, yes he was not the most liberal or likeable person but he was certainy the right man for the right time.
As for the detention times being proposed for the U.K. I tend to agree that I can't see the specific reasons why the police would need to hold people for so long without charging them, though I guess this is a case where you really require the politicians to scrutinize and think individuallty about the proposed legislation and vote according to their own principals on it, thats what the House of Commons is for.
As for the ID card thing, I haven't thought that much about it as we are not proposing it for the ROI at present I think, they do have ID cards on the continent and it seems to run reasonably well, but there are valid arguments against ID cards as well, so thats one that will be interesting.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Hmmmm
Galbally;754697 wrote: No the politics of the 1930s is not simple and hindsignt is a wonderful thing of course, but the lesson of that time is a stark one. As for Churchill, yes he was not the most liberal or likeable person but he was certainy the right man for the right time.
As for the detention times being proposed for the U.K. I tend to agree that I can't see the specific reasons why the police would need to hold people for so long without charging them, though I guess this is a case where you really require the politicians to scrutinize and think individuallty about the proposed legislation and vote according to their own principals on it, thats what the House of Commons is for.
As for the ID card thing, I haven't thought that much about it as we are not proposing it for the ROI at present I think, they do have ID cards on the continent and it seems to run reasonably well, but there are valid arguments against ID cards as well, so thats one that will be interesting.
We didn't need it during all the IRA attacks-internment in NI arguably did more harm than good. it's simply the govt trying to look as if they are doing something constructive.
As to ID cards? well with all this talk of Britishness having ID cards is most definitely unbritish. If a policeman stops you he needs have a good reason for doing so-that too is very british. two fingers up in the face of authority that is traditionally british.
As for the detention times being proposed for the U.K. I tend to agree that I can't see the specific reasons why the police would need to hold people for so long without charging them, though I guess this is a case where you really require the politicians to scrutinize and think individuallty about the proposed legislation and vote according to their own principals on it, thats what the House of Commons is for.
As for the ID card thing, I haven't thought that much about it as we are not proposing it for the ROI at present I think, they do have ID cards on the continent and it seems to run reasonably well, but there are valid arguments against ID cards as well, so thats one that will be interesting.
We didn't need it during all the IRA attacks-internment in NI arguably did more harm than good. it's simply the govt trying to look as if they are doing something constructive.
As to ID cards? well with all this talk of Britishness having ID cards is most definitely unbritish. If a policeman stops you he needs have a good reason for doing so-that too is very british. two fingers up in the face of authority that is traditionally british.
Hmmmm
gmc;754757 wrote: We didn't need it during all the IRA attacks-internment in NI arguably did more harm than good. it's simply the govt trying to look as if they are doing something constructive.
As to ID cards? well with all this talk of Britishness having ID cards is most definitely unbritish. If a policeman stops you he needs have a good reason for doing so-that too is very british. two fingers up in the face of authority that is traditionally british.
Yes, internment in NI was a disaster in terms of trying to keep the six counties stabilized, in fact it did the opposite. Though this is not quite the same thing as indefinite interment without trial is not being suggested here as far as I am aware. Though I am not advocating for this thing, I don't know enough about the situation, though I have no doubt that the situation in terms of potential British Islamic terrorism is quite serious now, again whats the best way to tackle that is something I am not wise enough to know the answer to.
As for ID cards not being "British" thats all very nebulous you see this is the problem when you don't have a written constitution as essentially there is no legal definition of what institutes "Britishness" or "British Rights" in framing legislation such as this. I am also unsure about whether many of your fellow citizens have any comprehension or interest in what "Britishness" is, in fact many are actively hostile to it. I do completely understand of course why anyone who has thought about it for 5 minutes would be hugely reticent about bringing in ID cards in Britain, though I can also understand why the government is so keen to get them up and running, for both good and bad reasons. If it is true that ID cards are now a necessary for security then I think thats sad, but it may just be a reflection of these darker times we find thrust upon us.
Again, this is what real politics is all about. In all such cases I think the old maxim of "erring on the side of liberty" is the most important. Though when you have a very fragmented society such as Britain, that has become multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious,multi-lingual, and multi-cultural, and also in a world where its possible for large numbers of people to migrate quickly from one country or one region to another with totally different world view, you will find that a lot of the unspoken cultural and ethnic bonds that have kept that society orderly and relatively easy to manage over the years having to be replaced by less agreeable methods, thats the truth I am afraid. You probably don't see that as you live in Scotland, but if you lived in Birmingham, Manchester, or Bradford you might feel differently. What I certainly believe is that if more people worried more about their civil liberties or the nature of the state they live in, and less about who's doing what to who in the Big Brother House (no pun intended) then things would be a little better and liberty would be in a healthier state.
As to ID cards? well with all this talk of Britishness having ID cards is most definitely unbritish. If a policeman stops you he needs have a good reason for doing so-that too is very british. two fingers up in the face of authority that is traditionally british.
Yes, internment in NI was a disaster in terms of trying to keep the six counties stabilized, in fact it did the opposite. Though this is not quite the same thing as indefinite interment without trial is not being suggested here as far as I am aware. Though I am not advocating for this thing, I don't know enough about the situation, though I have no doubt that the situation in terms of potential British Islamic terrorism is quite serious now, again whats the best way to tackle that is something I am not wise enough to know the answer to.
As for ID cards not being "British" thats all very nebulous you see this is the problem when you don't have a written constitution as essentially there is no legal definition of what institutes "Britishness" or "British Rights" in framing legislation such as this. I am also unsure about whether many of your fellow citizens have any comprehension or interest in what "Britishness" is, in fact many are actively hostile to it. I do completely understand of course why anyone who has thought about it for 5 minutes would be hugely reticent about bringing in ID cards in Britain, though I can also understand why the government is so keen to get them up and running, for both good and bad reasons. If it is true that ID cards are now a necessary for security then I think thats sad, but it may just be a reflection of these darker times we find thrust upon us.
Again, this is what real politics is all about. In all such cases I think the old maxim of "erring on the side of liberty" is the most important. Though when you have a very fragmented society such as Britain, that has become multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious,multi-lingual, and multi-cultural, and also in a world where its possible for large numbers of people to migrate quickly from one country or one region to another with totally different world view, you will find that a lot of the unspoken cultural and ethnic bonds that have kept that society orderly and relatively easy to manage over the years having to be replaced by less agreeable methods, thats the truth I am afraid. You probably don't see that as you live in Scotland, but if you lived in Birmingham, Manchester, or Bradford you might feel differently. What I certainly believe is that if more people worried more about their civil liberties or the nature of the state they live in, and less about who's doing what to who in the Big Brother House (no pun intended) then things would be a little better and liberty would be in a healthier state.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
History buff
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:11 am
Hmmmm
Sheryl;754492 wrote: I saw this quote on a video I was watching, and it just rings true!
Agree? Disagree?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
Sheryl, as my username implies I am a History buff. I know a little about James Madison, Father of the Constitution. If you have ever read some of the Federalist papers, you know of his brilliance.
At the time, it was basically 100% correct. Today, it may be questionable. Home grown Timothy McViegh was a tyrant.
We seperated from England in 1776 and did battle again in 1812, so the threat of a foreign invasion by other powers was real. I expect he was seeing a vision that James Monroe then told the world under his Monroe Doctrine.
By the way, if you do not know already, he adorned the 5G $:
Reverse. It appears George Washington is addressing the Constitutional convention, he was President of it.
They also printed a 10G bill and a 100G bill, in 1934-35, ONLY for transfer between federal reserve banks. Thomas Woodrow Wilson adorns it.
Agree? Disagree?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
Sheryl, as my username implies I am a History buff. I know a little about James Madison, Father of the Constitution. If you have ever read some of the Federalist papers, you know of his brilliance.
At the time, it was basically 100% correct. Today, it may be questionable. Home grown Timothy McViegh was a tyrant.
We seperated from England in 1776 and did battle again in 1812, so the threat of a foreign invasion by other powers was real. I expect he was seeing a vision that James Monroe then told the world under his Monroe Doctrine.
By the way, if you do not know already, he adorned the 5G $:
Reverse. It appears George Washington is addressing the Constitutional convention, he was President of it.
They also printed a 10G bill and a 100G bill, in 1934-35, ONLY for transfer between federal reserve banks. Thomas Woodrow Wilson adorns it.
Hmmmm
fuzzy butt;755109 wrote: What the hell are you on about? I'm interested to no how in those few words i typed you got that understanding .....what the hell do I have to go read more for? what are you on about man? And how is anything i typed have anything to do what you've typed?
My comment was in response to this comment by you.
Sheryl the Nuremburg trials gave everyone an insight to a person personal evil.
Evil always speaks the truth of itself.
The rise of the nazis was not due simply to one man's evil and to believe so is to simplify something that was anything but simple and not think about it.
Looking at it I may have read more in to your comment than there was. I could also have put it a bit better so if I gave offence I apologise. I certainly didn't mean to. It's surprising how much meaning is conveyed in the way we say things that is lost when written down and you just have the words.
Fascism was not just a german/italian phenomenon it was world wide as was communism. Hitler had a lot of support in the states (and the UK come to that) and many in the american congress were determined that the UK be given no help at all after the war started. You too had your conflicts between the left and right wings of the political agenda-it still goes on and shaped the world we live in today. Prior to hitler germany was arguably one of the least anti-Semitic countries on the planet.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fasci ... er_US.html
http://www.white-history.com/hwr64iii.htm
Stumbled across the latter site don't know whether it is a white supremacist site or what.
Sometimes history is a mirror people just don't want to look at.
My comment was in response to this comment by you.
Sheryl the Nuremburg trials gave everyone an insight to a person personal evil.
Evil always speaks the truth of itself.
The rise of the nazis was not due simply to one man's evil and to believe so is to simplify something that was anything but simple and not think about it.
Looking at it I may have read more in to your comment than there was. I could also have put it a bit better so if I gave offence I apologise. I certainly didn't mean to. It's surprising how much meaning is conveyed in the way we say things that is lost when written down and you just have the words.
Fascism was not just a german/italian phenomenon it was world wide as was communism. Hitler had a lot of support in the states (and the UK come to that) and many in the american congress were determined that the UK be given no help at all after the war started. You too had your conflicts between the left and right wings of the political agenda-it still goes on and shaped the world we live in today. Prior to hitler germany was arguably one of the least anti-Semitic countries on the planet.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fasci ... er_US.html
http://www.white-history.com/hwr64iii.htm
Stumbled across the latter site don't know whether it is a white supremacist site or what.
Sometimes history is a mirror people just don't want to look at.
Hmmmm
History buff;755137 wrote: Home grown Timothy McViegh was a tyrant.That really is a strange use of the word tyrant. He was a criminal. Maybe he was a conspirator. He broke something, he didn't make a bid for power much less achieve it. Nobody's tried to overthrow the constitutional basis of the USA since it was founded. Getting rid of the inbuilt legal framework of being a two-party confederation would be a neat move but nobody's even tried that yet.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
History buff
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:11 am
Hmmmm
spot;755250 wrote: That really is a strange use of the word tyrant. He was a criminal. Maybe he was a conspirator. He broke something, he didn't make a bid for power much less achieve it. Nobody's tried to overthrow the constitutional basis of the USA since it was founded. Getting rid of the inbuilt legal framework of being a two-party confederation would be a neat move but nobody's even tried that yet.
Tyrant, not in the "accepted" useage of the word, but "in his own mind" he had visions of overthrowing the US government.
Hitler started out as a wannabe, even did time in a German prison for treason, yet rose to become the world's most hated dictator.
Tyrant, not in the "accepted" useage of the word, but "in his own mind" he had visions of overthrowing the US government.
Hitler started out as a wannabe, even did time in a German prison for treason, yet rose to become the world's most hated dictator.
Hmmmm
History buff;755757 wrote: Tyrant, not in the "accepted" useage of the word, but "in his own mind" he had visions of overthrowing the US government.
Hitler started out as a wannabe, even did time in a German prison for treason, yet rose to become the world's most hated dictator.
Perhaps you meant he was a megalomaniac?
Hitler started out as a wannabe, even did time in a German prison for treason, yet rose to become the world's most hated dictator.
Perhaps you meant he was a megalomaniac?
-
History buff
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:11 am
Hmmmm
gmc;755769 wrote: Perhaps you meant he was a megalomaniac?
You forced me to go to the dictionary on that one.
That is a distinct possibility, yes.
You forced me to go to the dictionary on that one.
That is a distinct possibility, yes.
Hmmmm
History buff;755757 wrote: "in his own mind" he had visions of overthrowing the US government.He may have had every desire to see the US government collapse and a hope that his action was one more chip into the foundations - though why he'd have though it would provoke or accelerate the collapse of government baffles me - but I've never heard a word he said which suggested that he had political ambition. There's a lot of his written and spoken word out there, it should be easy to prove me wrong by quoting what he said about it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
History buff
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:11 am
Hmmmm
spot;755807 wrote: He may have had every desire to see the US government collapse and a hope that his action was one more chip into the foundations - though why he'd have though it would provoke or accelerate the collapse of government baffles me - but I've never heard a word he said which suggested that he had political ambition. There's a lot of his written and spoken word out there, it should be easy to prove me wrong by quoting what he said about it.
I was expressing my view of his personal criminal mental state by observation. I never read any statement "word for word" by him where he said he would like to overthrow the government. I base my reasoning on basically 2 points. First, any person who would murder innocent children, as he did, to "get even" with the government, is capable of any satanic devious act, civil or criminal.
Second, when he was in his death chamber, the newspapers/media stated some of his last words were, and I will try to quote here, "If I do go to HELL, I am going to have alot of company"!
A person as evil as this would not hesitate at all to commit treason/espionage etc.
Murdering children to get even with the federal government, although not the legal definition of Treason under the Constitution, is as close as one can get to it, IMO.
I was expressing my view of his personal criminal mental state by observation. I never read any statement "word for word" by him where he said he would like to overthrow the government. I base my reasoning on basically 2 points. First, any person who would murder innocent children, as he did, to "get even" with the government, is capable of any satanic devious act, civil or criminal.
Second, when he was in his death chamber, the newspapers/media stated some of his last words were, and I will try to quote here, "If I do go to HELL, I am going to have alot of company"!
A person as evil as this would not hesitate at all to commit treason/espionage etc.
Murdering children to get even with the federal government, although not the legal definition of Treason under the Constitution, is as close as one can get to it, IMO.
Hmmmm
I could agree with all of that but none of it makes him a tyrant!
Overthrowing the government of the USA takes a lot more than just destroying a building or three, regardless of how symbolic the buildings are.
I think Timothy McVeigh was making a protest.
Overthrowing the government of the USA takes a lot more than just destroying a building or three, regardless of how symbolic the buildings are.
I think Timothy McVeigh was making a protest.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Hmmmm
spot;756274 wrote: I could agree with all of that but none of it makes him a tyrant!
Overthrowing the government of the USA takes a lot more than just destroying a building or three, regardless of how symbolic the buildings are.
I think Timothy McVeigh was making a protest.
Yes perhaps in his inner vocabulary of fear and violence it was a protest, but a pretty despicable one.
Overthrowing the government of the USA takes a lot more than just destroying a building or three, regardless of how symbolic the buildings are.
I think Timothy McVeigh was making a protest.
Yes perhaps in his inner vocabulary of fear and violence it was a protest, but a pretty despicable one.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Hmmmm
What happened to the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist Church at Waco was pretty disgusting too, in all honesty. One was the government, the other was an incensed private citizen, both were outrages.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Hmmmm
spot;756300 wrote: What happened to the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist Church at Waco was pretty disgusting too, in all honesty. One was the government, the other was an incensed private citizen, both were outrages.
Don't equivocate Spot, what McVeigh did was wrong, and other alleged injustices do not make it alright for people to take it upon themselves to murder other innocent people. No more than the murder of 14 civilians by the Parachute regiment in Derry on bloody sunday in 1972 gave the IRA the "right" to blow up two completely innocent kids in Warrington on a saturday afternoon in 1993 or the Real IRA to obliterate 38 people in Omagh in 1998. Unfortunatly some minds work that way, but mine doesn't.
Don't equivocate Spot, what McVeigh did was wrong, and other alleged injustices do not make it alright for people to take it upon themselves to murder other innocent people. No more than the murder of 14 civilians by the Parachute regiment in Derry on bloody sunday in 1972 gave the IRA the "right" to blow up two completely innocent kids in Warrington on a saturday afternoon in 1993 or the Real IRA to obliterate 38 people in Omagh in 1998. Unfortunatly some minds work that way, but mine doesn't.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Hmmmm
fuzzy butt;756452 wrote: Ahhh I see where your coming from . But i wasn't talking about nazis or the rise and fall of them I was talking in terms of truth. (it's my own quote you know)
What I meant was (as discussed ) the Nuremburg trials gave us a look at what really constitutes evil, that's not to say each as an individual but showed an understanding in the thought processes of a whole group who didn't think they were doing evil . It was an overall belief system.
We were given three pages of text at school and we were asked if it made sense and if we believed it and agreed with it. It was edited slightly so we didn't know in what context it was written.
At the time I read it it sounded like the perfect solution to everybodies troubles and I thought whoever wrote it was a genius............well I was kind of right . It was one of Goerings speeches ........the whole class was horrified that we thought it was a good thing.
that's what I mean by evil. It's not an individual or what an individuals intentions are it's the fact that they actually believe what they are saying and can sleep peacefully at night. And that's why evil always speaks the truth of itself. Evil doesn't think it's evil and can convince others to join them.
I think we broadly agree. I don't like the word evil. To me if someone is evil it suggests they somehow have no choice in their actions. Good and evil are not opposite sides in some kind of cosmic war-but that's way off post. Were the British allied pilots good or evil or just doing what was necessary when they fire-bombed German cities? I doubt you would have found many in britain that cared about german cities.
What I find striking about it all is, as you suggest, the sheer innocuous logic of it all. Sounds like you had a good teacher. I had one that did a similar thing but with an argument for apartheid
What I meant was (as discussed ) the Nuremburg trials gave us a look at what really constitutes evil, that's not to say each as an individual but showed an understanding in the thought processes of a whole group who didn't think they were doing evil . It was an overall belief system.
We were given three pages of text at school and we were asked if it made sense and if we believed it and agreed with it. It was edited slightly so we didn't know in what context it was written.
At the time I read it it sounded like the perfect solution to everybodies troubles and I thought whoever wrote it was a genius............well I was kind of right . It was one of Goerings speeches ........the whole class was horrified that we thought it was a good thing.
that's what I mean by evil. It's not an individual or what an individuals intentions are it's the fact that they actually believe what they are saying and can sleep peacefully at night. And that's why evil always speaks the truth of itself. Evil doesn't think it's evil and can convince others to join them.
I think we broadly agree. I don't like the word evil. To me if someone is evil it suggests they somehow have no choice in their actions. Good and evil are not opposite sides in some kind of cosmic war-but that's way off post. Were the British allied pilots good or evil or just doing what was necessary when they fire-bombed German cities? I doubt you would have found many in britain that cared about german cities.
What I find striking about it all is, as you suggest, the sheer innocuous logic of it all. Sounds like you had a good teacher. I had one that did a similar thing but with an argument for apartheid