Recent Comments

1. over 13 years ago on Clay Jones

   The point I was making was apparently something that slid right over your narrow point of view is simply that you can give anyone 5 minutes and Wikipedia can say Hitler wore pink bunny splits and snorted cocaine with Madonna. It never has been and never will be accepted as a legitimate source of debate in any academic setting or even common sense though apparently neight apply to dealing with your logic. When the opponent views socialism as the right instead of the left which Hitler proclaimed himself as a socialist then you have a skewed way of thinking..

   But if you want some sources then: Davidson, Gienapp, Heyrman, Lytle, and Stoff

   Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, paperback, p. 41

   ibid., p. 80

   Thomas Sowell, The Economics and Politics of Race, p. 83

   ibid., p. 85

   David Welch, The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda, p. 103 7C.C. Aronsfeld, The Text of the Holocaust, p. 23

   Take your mindless rhetoric elsewhere because when your opponent has actually bothered to read the topics which you espouse false knowledge of then they can only conclude that you are an misinformed idiot who is running their mouth when they should be using their mind. Google and wikipedia are hardly solid sources of knowledge but hey someone printed it online so it has to be correct, is that the logic?

2. over 13 years ago on Clay Jones

   As a professor once said, “When you have to quote wikipedia, then you have already lost the arguement.” When you are composing a list of leftist movements that may oppose one another, merely assuming that because some are more centrist than others that they are of the opposition party or conservative does little to change the fact of where their baseline principles lay. When your options are National Socialist, Socialist Democratic and Communist then you are merely dealing of different factions within the same political philosophical slant. Its like saying a child molester is different than someone who sleeps with a 14 year old girl. The difference is merely semantics without a solid ground of differentiation. Look up Hitlers philosophy and distribution ideations within a centralized government and you will realize that it is a far stretch from the right. We can debate this all night long but if you want to utilize wikipedia as you political resource then you are merely wasting both of our time.

3. over 13 years ago on Clay Jones

   Actually your right, I am in the higher income bracket now. While I was in school using my hazelwood act, I paid a significantly lower amount when I had to pay. I do have one issue that may lead to service related disability eventually because of a hip injury I sustained and I have filed the paperwork but as you know its time consuming.

   Please note I do agree that you should have received a COLA increase, my grandmother is in the same boat and SS isn’t enough fortunately I only live a few hosue away and can help financially and do home repairs for her which allows her to get by.

   I can’t disagree that the current Healthcare Repeal is posturing because I realize that even if it gets through the Senate intact it will be Vetoed and then they won’t have the votes to override it.

4. over 13 years ago on Clay Jones

   Well if you actually had to pay your bill Dtroutma then you would see that the increase letter sent out to all service members included a 9 dollar per prescription increase and a 32 dollar per visit increae.

   Other than that your information on party priority and the VA is greatly lacking but I don’t expect you to let fact get in the way. Your dogma only carries so far.

5. over 13 years ago on Clay Jones

   The Defense of Marriage Act doesn’t significantly increase my costs so I am apathetically neutral towards it, despite the views of my gay friends.. Obamacare does increase my expenses, by any average of 320 a month to be specific. Between the increase in VA medicine cost and my personal insurance which I pay for in order to provide coverage for my family (Company plan) causes me to be far moe concerned with killing this stupid health care law than the other act because as all people I tend to act in my own self-interest. I just don’t hide it behind a PC agenda.

   Another example is the department where my brother works as an officer of the law. They are looking to shift their increase insurance costs to the officers by forcing them to pay 100% of the insurance instead of splitting the cost 50/50 as they did prior. In the end we are paying more for less,while others will get a free ride. Spread the wealth and all that I suppose. I make alot of sacrifices to provide for my family and to have that endangered by this law is fundamentally wrong.

   I would also have to agree with WBR, if they the Marriage Act is unconstitutional so is outlawing poligamy after all any man or woman shoiuld have the right to be as miserable as they choose though the only logical route here would be to put marriage as an institution of the church and grant legalized unions to the government and grant equal tax breaks and insurance options to both unfortunately this does not necessarily adhere to the morale proximity aspect of law in general. So in the end unless you seperate the two and provide different jurisdiction you are at an empasse.

6. over 13 years ago on Clay Jones

   Well actually Pirate if you wanted to understand Neocons then you would need to read 10 Things You Can’t Say In America by Larry Elder. The author of Mein Kampf was a part of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei and that would be a left wing socialist group.

   Cheers

7. over 13 years ago on Clay Jones

   The only purpose of providing citizens with guns and not restricting the conditions of that right is to provide them a method to defend the country, themselves and their rights when unusual and dangerous circumstances present themselves.

   We won’t even try to get into intent of the 2nd amendment under the criteria in the federalist and anti-federalist papers.

8. over 13 years ago on Michael Ramirez

   Um Jade Let me provide you something. When Clinto was President and we had those great times and in the early Bush years when things were still good here is the congress and senate break downs. Then things started sliding under Bush as you put it. Look at the split of Congress and Senate below and tell me what party had control during the “good” years and what party took control when things started sliding down hill. As you will notice the time when everything was great under Clinton it may seem weird but the Republicans controlled the House and Senate.

   If you doubt it just google it.

   103rd (93-95) Senate R: 53 & D: 47 Congress R: 230 & D: 204 104th (95-97) Senate R: 55 & D:45 Congress R: 228 & D:208 105th (97-99) Senate R: 55 & D: 45 Congress R: 227 & D: 207 106th (99-01) Senate R:54 & D: 46 Congress R:222 & D:210 107th (01-03) Senate R: 51 I:1 & D: 48 Congress R: 205 & D 229

9. over 13 years ago on Bob Gorrell

   Dtroutma, While we often disagree, I’m going to have to assume that your oversimplification of Reganomics as merely you being facetious because I know your not so dumb as to actually believe that is how that policy was set up or worked.

   and Bluejayz, I am of the opinion that Congress and Senate do get paid to much and their is something broken about being the power that votes for ones own pay raise.

10. over 13 years ago on Stuart Carlson

    Snow? Whats that? Its like 82 degrees outside. ;) Well except at night it seems to hit a balmy 62.. Only problem is the same as its always been, its too bleeep hot in the summer. Thank Willis Haviland for our salvation. ;)