Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sgtclub]

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...en_i_find.html

Here's what the AP reported:

Austrian historians are challenging California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for telling the Republican National Convention that he saw Soviet tanks in his homeland as a child...

...Recalling that the Soviets once occupied part of Austria in the aftermath of World War II, Schwarzenegger told the convention on Tuesday: "I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes."

Historians, however, are questioning Schwarzenegger's version of postwar history -- if not his enduring popularity among Austrians who admire him for rising from a penniless immigrant to the highest official in America's most populous state.

"It's a fact -- as a child he could not have seen a Soviet tank in Styria," the southeastern province where Schwarzenegger was born and raised, historian Stefan Karner told the Vienna newspaper Kurier.

Schwarzenegger, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, was born on July 30, 1947, when Styria and the neighboring province of Carinthia belonged to the British zone. At the time, postwar Austria was occupied by the four wartime allies, which also included the United States, the Soviet Union and France.

The Soviets already had left Styria in July 1945, less than three months after the end of the war, Karner noted.

And here's what he actually said in the speech:

When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes. I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector. Growing up, we were told, "Don't look the soldiers in the eye. Look straight ahead." It was a common belief that Soviet soldiers could take a man out of his own car and ship him off to the Soviet Union as slave labor.

My family didn't have a car -- but one day we were in my uncle's car. It was near dark as we came to a Soviet checkpoint. I was a little boy, I wasn't an action hero back then, and I remember how scared I was that the soldiers would pull my father or my uncle out of the car and I'd never see him again. My family and so many others lived in fear of the Soviet boot. Today, the world no longer fears the Soviet Union and it is because of the United States of America!

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
No I don't. Yawn.

Uh huh. "Fu," indeed.

Bye for now.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
. . . Qur'anic . . . .

I bet you used "Pei-Ching", too.

Judeo-Christian civilization is built around a book of equal or greater brutality.

Isn't it a waste of time speaking out of context of raw verse, while ignoring current usage? Yeah, both sets are raunchy. Thankfully for us, the bulk of the Judeo-Christian worldview has quietly ignored some of the worst. Unfortunately for them, Allah frowns on such a convenient reading. The practical difference is going to be found in the current state of the religions, the current practices and beliefs and paradigms. It matters not that the Koran (Wade's version, if you will) advocates beating women. What matters is how people react to that passage today. We, the infidels, call it parable. They, the Faithful, call it Word. They are trapped, and kill to remain in place, while we honor only what is convenient, and so are able to progress. I regret that we cannot seem to adopt a working moral code that doesn't require the coercive effects of the supernatural.

In the wake of the dead schoolkids chapter, (sounds like over 600 dead so far, with about 380 of those being kids), there is being heard, ever so timidly, the sound of Islamic commentators condemning such action in the name of their god. It is scarce, and it is rare, but it is there, and I think there will be more. But, the fact remains, the Islamic support for such actions, whether passive or active, is rooted in religion, and that support remains far more widespread than you seem to imply.

I, like Pony, would kill "them all". I would define "them all" differently, though, limiting the group to all who participate, help, support, cheer on, and even those who remain silent but perfectly willing to accept the world domination of Islam should the Islamicists prevail. Unfortunately, they don't all wear signifying funny hats.

[bilmore]

Okay, maybe I'm down to 61% on Kerry:

"Kerry took yesterday off instead of going on a Sunday TV show to jumpstart his campaign. He's done no interviews in more than a month, since the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth TV ads challenged his Vietnam and anti-war record.

Instead, to try to shift to offense, Kerry yesterday put out a statement suggesting a possible Bush cover-up of ties between the Saudi government and 9/11.

Bush spokesman Scott Stanzel called the claim "baseless" and suggested Kerry has hired Michael Moore as his "new foreign-policy adviser." "

(NY Post)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yeah, whatever. You don't believe in reparations for blacks held in slavery, but you want a Special Muslim Apology for 9/11. No collective guilt or responsibility, unless it's someone else who's racially guilty.

"Racially guilty"?

Please don't tell me you favor reparations... I mean, there's being idealistic and over-intellectual, and then there's being just plain unrealistic and ridiculous.

But then again, I guess I don't care. I don't owe anyone since my forebears were immigrants.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But then again, I guess I don't care. I don't owe anyone since my forebears were immigrants.

The Romans owned slaves sebastian. you probably owe all the French and German people you know some $$$. Any Jews you know, you really owe, like dinner or something.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore

I, like Pony, would kill "them all". I would define "them all" differently, though, limiting the group to all who participate, help, support, cheer on, and even those who remain silent but perfectly willing to accept the world domination of Islam should the Islamicists prevail. Unfortunately, they don't all wear signifying funny hats.

Radical Islam gets a pass on its support for terrorism because people never kick the underdog. In the rest of the world where the US is disliked for heavy handed foreign policy, radical Islam, as loathesome as it is, is viewed like the Loyola Marymount team the year Hank Gathers died. I think a lot of people in the moderate Islamic world are torn because they believe Islam does need to assert itself against Westernization, but the methodology presently employed is pretty awful. They want to deride the messenger without slamming the message. This seems to have created a lot of apologists - people who say "Yes, it is awful. But how else can these people stand up to the US?" We're considered unbeatable, and our invincibility provides the excuse for whatever radical Islam does.

All this said, I still think the root of it all is economic, not religious. Religion is a filler for lack of money, which creates lack of hope. Give most of these Islamists a life worth living and they'll drop the Koran like a dirty dishrag. That, however, is a battle we can't wage and can't win. I don't see any way to drag their economies into the new millenium. I'd focus instead on Africa, and try to bring that continent forward, and leave the Arab world to its devices. Pull out, walk away... give them an infidel-free peninsula to behave like barbarians.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The Romans owned slaves sebastian. you probably owe all the French and German people you know some $$$. Any Jews you know, you really owe, like dinner or something.

I do owe a Jew dinner, but it was because I forgot my wallet.

I have no Roman lineage. The English owe me money because I'm Irish.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'd focus instead on Africa, and try to bring that continent forward, and leave the Arab world to its devices. Pull out, walk away... give them an infidel-free peninsula to behave like barbarians.

For any person of moderate intelligence, we have a border-free world. Most of our big-city governments actively interfere with the enforcement of immigration laws. Our rural ag economies are built on illegal labor. Hell, some speak of the "justice" of allowing illegal immigrants to vote. I don't think we can walk away, because they're only a bus ride away from our front door.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
For any person of moderate intelligence, we have a border-free world. Most of our big-city governments actively interfere with the enforcement of immigration laws. Our rural ag economies are built on illegal labor. Hell, some speak of the "justice" of allowing illegal immigrants to vote. I don't think we can walk away, because they're only a bus ride away from our front door.

Yeh, but the crux of the issue is that they don't want us in the Arabian Peninsula. Fine. Give it to them. Let them have whatever backward world it is they desire. Develop a detente wherein we don't walk on their grass and they don't walk on ours.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yeh, but the crux of the issue is that they don't want us in the Arabian Peninsula. Fine. Give it to them. Let them have whatever backward world it is they desire. Develop a detente wherein we don't walk on their grass and they don't walk on ours.

And you'll fill up your Land Rover with what?

Why do you think the Russians give a damn about Chechnya?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
And you'll fill up your Land Rover with what?

Why do you think the Russians give a damn about Chechnya?

I wouldn't own a Land Rover. British trash. Perhaps better now that Germans own it, but nevertheless, I ain't buying one until the Germans have had the company for at least ten years, just to make sure all the British parts are out of the system. The only thing the British do worse than create nations is create cars.

I see no impediment to trading with Islamist states. I don't think the radicals have a problem with us buying their oil - they just don't want us hanging around the gas station and meddling with how things run.

Of course, nothing is solved unless we get to the root of the issue by developing alternative fuels, which will never happen until oil hits $4.00 a gallon.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I bet you used "Pei-Ching", too.

Isn't it a waste of time speaking out of context of raw verse, while ignoring current usage? Yeah, both sets are raunchy. Thankfully for us, the bulk of the Judeo-Christian worldview has quietly ignored some of the worst. Unfortunately for them, Allah frowns on such a convenient reading. The practical difference is going to be found in the current state of the religions, the current practices and beliefs and paradigms. It matters not that the Koran (Wade's version, if you will) advocates beating women. What matters is how people react to that passage today. We, the infidels, call it parable. They, the Faithful, call it Word.

Are you talking about the Islamic Fundamentalists, who are a minority within their religion, or the Christian Fundamentalists, who are also a minority within their religion? All religions have fundamentalist sects. In all religions, they make up a small minority.

I, like Pony, would kill "them all". I would define "them all" differently, though, limiting the group to all who participate, help, support, cheer on, and even those who remain silent but perfectly willing to accept the world domination of Islam should the Islamicists prevail. Unfortunately, they don't all wear signifying funny hats.

So we kill them all and let God sort them out? My goodness, Bilmore. You sound an awful lot like an Islamic terrorist. You say Crusade, they say Jihad.

I say, let's call the whole thing off.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The Romans owned slaves sebastian. you probably owe all the French and German people you know some $$$. Any Jews you know, you really owe, like dinner or something.

On behalf of the Jews, I'll settle for a nice corned beef sandwich at Manny's. Or a cheese steak, provolone, wit at Pat's.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I wouldn't own a Land Rover. British trash. Perhaps better now that Germans own it, but nevertheless, I ain't buying one until the Germans have had the company for at least ten years, just to make sure all the British parts are out of the system. The only thing the British do worse than create nations is create cars.

I see no impediment to trading with Islamist states. I don't think the radicals have a problem with us buying their oil - they just don't want us hanging around the gas station and meddling with how things run.

Of course, nothing is solved unless we get to the root of the issue by developing alternative fuels, which will never happen until oil hits $4.00 a gallon.

Actually, Ford owns it. I'm a deal Timmy.