posted May 27, 2009 10:46 AM         

Could it be you are just a deliberate troublemaker out to cause dissention and strife among the LL membership...like some others I could name?

Or acoustic, are you just posting without any intent to express an opinion based on any factual content whatsoever. If so, why should anyone take anything you say seriously...or even respond to your posts?

posted May 27, 2009 11:47 AM         

With regard to behavior, I've already had to step in with you twice in this thread. First, was regarding your authority stance on what would happen with the detainees if they came here, and second when you went into Hitler mode again (and that's twice within the last couple weeks you've slipped with that sh!t).

posted May 27, 2009 01:03 PM         

You still have yet to state one rational reason to bring terrorist prisoners to the United States and place them in US prisons...when we already have a state of the art facility to house them in Guantanamo Bay. Care to take a shot at that?

posted May 27, 2009 02:26 PM         

quote:

---

You still have yet to state one rational reason to bring terrorist prisoners to the United States and place them in US prisons...when we already have a state of the art facility to house them in Guantanamo Bay. Care to take a shot at that?

---

Once again, I'm not compelled to make this argument. I've already stated my opinion on this.

quote:

---

You still have yet to state one rational reason for releasing trained terrorists in the general population of the United States. Care to take a shot at that?

---

posted May 27, 2009 02:43 PM         

But, Hitler was a Socialist, admitted he was a Socialist, named his political party in Germany The National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Anyone with 2 braincells would get it immediately acoustic. But, you're in denial. Even the Socialist speak contained within the name...by calling German employees...Workers is a tipoff. Straight Socialist buzzword speak. Socialists just hate the idea of employees acoustic. Employees imply employers and that's private sector speak Socialists hate. Employees work in private enterprise for employers. Workers work for the government and Socialists would like to see everyone working for the government.

posted May 27, 2009 04:19 PM         

Leftists, get over it. Your guys were murdering slugs and not only Hitler and Mussolini but Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho, the tag team father and son insanity in North Korea and also Fidel..oh and let's not forget Saddam Hussein, another murderous Socialist dictator. Every one a Socialist and every one a murdering slug.

posted May 27, 2009 05:03 PM         

To try to call any of these people Socialists is to change the definition of what a Socialist is. A Socialist isn't someone who adheres to a smidge of Socialism.

posted May 28, 2009 01:51 PM         

History records the fact they were Socialists and the ones still with us are Socialists.

You do have a problem with definitions don't you acoustic. I'm attempted to tutor you repeatedly but you continue to ignore even dictionary definitions...while claiming you are right.

All communists of every stripe are Socialists. All collectivists of every stripe are Socialists. Not all Socialists are Communists. Socialism is the umbrella under which they all reside.

Now acoustic, when are you going to come up with some rational reasons why terrorists at Gitmo should be transferred to US prisons?

When are you going to come up with some rational reasons trained terrorists at Gitmo should be released into the general population of the United States?

posted May 28, 2009 06:35 PM         

quote:

---

Now acoustic, when are you going to come up with some rational reasons why terrorists at Gitmo should be transferred to US prisons?

---

I could make that argument quite easily if I were interested, but I'm really not, which is why I haven't. When are you going to come up with some rational reason why I should be compelled to make such an argument?

quote:

---

When are you going to come up with some rational reasons trained terrorists at Gitmo should be released into the general population of the United States?

---

Exactly how many times do I have to tell you that I've already answered this question before you stop asking? (I don't appreciate your framing the question with descriptors you can't logically justify either. )

quote:

---

History records the fact they were Socialists and the ones still with us are Socialists.

---

History records Hitler as a Fascist. Sorry to burst your bubble there, bub.

quote:

---

You do have a problem with definitions don't you acoustic. I'm attempted to tutor you repeatedly but you continue to ignore even dictionary definitions...while claiming you are right.

---

That's funny, because as I recall the only time definitions are brought in to the conversation, you lose big. Like a lot of things in life you assign meanings that aren't there. Same principle applies to words.

It's a shame I lost my original post. Now I have to decide whether I want to point you in the right direction on Socialism yet again. Would it suffice to say that Socialism, as an economic theory, has intended consequences which aren't violent in nature. If a so-called Socialist comes to power, and the only thing this "Socialist" does it take control of the economy disregarding the other intended consequences of Socialism (namely equality), then they're not really conforming to the economic theory of Socialism, are they? On the other hand, when nations such as Norway DO adhere to Socialist theory, they do alright.

posted May 28, 2009 06:53 PM         

Right, hahaha I get it acoustic, you would if you could but you can't so you won't.

posted May 28, 2009 07:02 PM         

Either way, it's doubtful you'd understand as you're not particularly interested in rationality, practicality, or being reasonable.

posted May 28, 2009 07:04 PM         

quote:

---

Socialism is coercion, intimidation and/or force, including the force of bullets out of the muzzles of guns and murder if necessary.

---

posted May 28, 2009 11:14 PM         

"Socialism is coercion, intimidation and/or force, including the force of bullets out of the muzzles of guns and murder if necessary."

You're really a lost little puppy aren't you acoustic? I never suggested that was a DEFINITION FOR SOCIALISM

posted May 29, 2009 01:27 AM         

I was a little surprised to see these posts, perhaps it's because I don't post often on GU/GU 2.0.

I stick to my original point of view.

D

posted May 29, 2009 10:04 AM         

"I think it is a BIG MISTAKE"
"I stick to my original point of view."

An excellent point of view D.

posted May 29, 2009 12:23 PM         

I see a lot of Christians don't turn the other cheek, do unto others as they would have them do unto you, love their enemies

I see a lot of Christians full of self righteous hypocrisy. I don't see them as real Christians based on the teachings of Jesus. I think that they are more the Old Testament types and not the New Testament types.

posted May 29, 2009 12:46 PM         

Leftists, and Socialists certainly are leftists, always attempt to use the powers of government against the citizenry...to force their beliefs and their policies on the rest of the citizenry who in general find those policies utter madness and bullshiit. Like O'Bomber's Socialist policies.

"Coerce People Out of Their Cars"

"I think we can change people's behavior"

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/000058.html

posted May 29, 2009 07:43 PM         

quote:

---

I think it's clear you absolutely cannot make a rational argument for bringing terrorists to US prisons..or releasing trained terrorists into the United States. You would if you could but you can't so you won't.

---

What's absolutely clear to anyone who actually READS what I've said is that I have made the rational argument on the Uighurs behalf, and that I've chosen not to define for you the very easy and rational, but not reasonable for bringing the Guantanamo detainees to America.

quote:

---

You're really a lost little puppy aren't you acoustic? I never suggested that was a DEFINITION FOR SOCIALISM.

---

You said, "Socialism is..." You created a definition, which is wrong. It's quite plain.

quote:

---

These are the effects of Socialism as more than 200,000,000 citizens of Socialist states could attest...if they hadn't been murdered by Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

---

No. Those are the effects of the perpetrators as Socialists in Norway would happily tell you.

quote:

---

What they're really attempting to do is "change the subject".

---

posted May 29, 2009 08:09 PM         

I suppose that's what passes for rational thought on the far radical left.

"These are the effects of Socialism as more than 200,000,000 citizens of Socialist states could attest...if they hadn't been murdered by Lenin, Stalin and Mao."

Wrong, I described the effects of Socialism. I did not define Socialism. Socialists were and are the perpetrators of murder, torture, coercion and naked force.

quote:

---

Said the guy who brought a discussion of Socialism into this thread...acoustic

---

posted May 29, 2009 09:57 PM         

My stepfather's brothers and sisters love in in Holland (they're not murderers) ... what's the big deal with socialism? Is capitalism just sooooo much better? lol. If you've never lived in a socialist country and have only lived in one place your whole life, I really don't care what you say since you really have no idea what's 'better' since none of the arguments are grounded in real life experience, they're all speculation, and one worst case scenario after another.
Get out there and live it and then come live here. Then we can talk.
Trashing another place's system is nothing more than a pi$$ing contest as far as I'm concerned.

posted May 29, 2009 11:27 PM         

May 29, 2009
The Shot That Changed A Republic
Randall Hoven

In 1967, a West Berlin police officer shot and killed an unarmed demonstrator. It was a turning point in German politics, ushering in left-leaning governments for the next generation or two. Now it turns out that the police officer was a Stasi spy for East Germany. Oops.

It must have hurt, but the New York Times reports:

"The killing provided the clear-cut rationale for the movement's opposition to what its members saw as a violent, unjust state, when in fact the supposed fascist villain of leftist lore was himself a committed socialist."

"I would never, never, ever have thought that this could be true," said Stefan Aust, the former editor in chief of Der Spiegel.

And the killer, Karl-Heinz Kurras, is still alive. In an interview, Mr. Kurras confirmed that he was in the East German Communist Party. "Should I be ashamed of that or something?" he asked.

No more than Bill Ayers, I guess.

It's nice to know that, just every so often, the truth will out. And the world makes sense.

Let's repeat that line from the New York Times:

"The supposed fascist villain of leftist lore was himself a committed socialist."

posted May 30, 2009 12:53 AM         

quote:

---

Good God. You've made the case for releasing trained terrorists in the United States...from the trained terrorists point of view...the Uighurs point of view? hahaha, insanity.

I suppose that's what passes for rational thought on the far radical left.

---

In the absense of ANYONE proving anything in contradication, yes, I would say it passes as rationality just fine. Are you going to PROVE these Uighurs are trained terrorists?

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Kind of like when you merely assert something without any proof, and expect that it will be accepted by reasonable people.

quote:

---

Wrong, I described the effects of Socialism.

---

No you didn't. You defined Socialism according to your own opinion, which is not based in a realistic understanding of what Socialism is. You redefined it, and fashioned it in the way you wish to see it. It already has an established definition, however, so redefining it on your own terms is neither reasonable nor rational.

quote:

---

Said the guy who brought up the Socialist Hitler in this discussion.

---

I didn't bring up a "Socialist" Hitler. I brought up the "actual" Hitler, and compared your dictatorial demand to him.

posted May 30, 2009 10:01 AM         

I can understand what the trained terrorists gain from being released in the United States acoustic...but, exactly what is the benefit to the American people in having trained terrorists walking around in our general population?

Now you acoustic, you who find terrorists ballsy and drool with admiration for terrorists as brave warriors...brave warriors who hide behind the skirts of women and children and use them as shields..you may be willing to take the word of the Supreme Court that these trained terrorists are no threat to US citizens or the US. You may be willing to overlook the facts that NO court has adjudicated these trained terrorists not guilty but rather ordered them released on procedural grounds but that's not a rational reason to bring them to the United States and release them in the general population of US citizens. Nor is it rational to give trained terrorists welfare, food stamps, government housing etc...because their terrorist training doesn't qualify them for gainful employment in the United States.