"If al Qaeda wants to destroy the America we know they'd better hurry up before Obama beats them to it."
"If al Qaeda wants to destroy the America we know they'd better hurry up before Obama beats them to it."
It is my understanding that he is not a member of the CFR nor the TC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buick Electra
Look, Romms may not be a "bad," guy. But I'm not alone in this hold your nose, and pull the lever mess.
TPTB shoved a demopublican down our throats last time, and I will say right up front, that LAST demopublican wore his countries uniform, so hats off.
The so called, and coveted undecideds, or middle roaders, when given the choice between a real democrat, and a demopublican, go democrat, every time.
I know it SOUNDS like I don't like the guy, and I've never met him, but just going on the facts from here; almost identical to his opponent in policy, is a member of a controversial Religious sect, gives large sums to them, but otherwise publicly distances himself from those values, as in right to life, which just makes him look like an oily and dishonest person.
And he besides being a member, who is not comfortable OWNING up to his Religion, he is going to be painted as a 1% kind of guy, NOT FAIR, I will grant you.
There is NO chance in hecks kitchen this guy will EVEN get as many votes as McCain. Sorry. just is.
Bams can run his "campaign," from the wot' house, or vacation.
There is nothing more to see here, move along.
Sux, but we sat by and let this happen, now we EAT the sh:shock:t sandwich.
I REFUSE to get behind someone who has nothing in common with my values, and the few that he SHOULD have in common, he REFUSES to stand up for.
Fudge em'
This is helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
<snip>
Multiple incompatible definitions
As social Darwinism has many definitions, it is hard for some to be either for or against it; some of the definitions oppose the others. As The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states
Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist.[31]
Laissez-faire individualism, Nazism, eugenics, fascism, imperialism
Therefore, Fascist and National Socialist ideology subscribed to a different form of social Darwinism than the laissez-faire version because they were not advocates for an individualist order of society, rather they advocated racial and national struggle where the state planned and controlled human breeding through science and eugenics—a program that no proponent of laissez-faire could consistently endorse.[32] Darwinist Collectivism or Reform Darwinism, rather than the individualist form of Darwinism, are more accurate terms for these ideologies.[3]
Some pre-twentieth century doctrines subsequently described as social Darwinism appear to anticipate state imposed eugenics [3] and the race doctrines of Nazism. Critics have frequently linked evolution, Charles Darwin and social Darwinism with racialism, nationalism, imperialism and eugenics, contending that social Darwinism became one of the pillars of fascism and Nazi ideology, and that the consequences of the application of policies of "survival of the fittest" by Nazi Germany eventually created a very strong backlash against the theory.[33][34]
As mentioned above, Social Darwinism has often been linked to nationalism and imperialism.[35] During the age of New Imperialism, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of "lesser breeds without the law" by "superior races."[35] To elitists, strong nations were composed of white people who were successful at expanding their empires, and as such, these strong nations would survive in the struggle for dominance.[35] With this attitude, Europeans, except for Christian missionaries, seldom adopted the customs and languages of local people under their empires.[35]
<snip>
"An angry mob is an ugly thing - and it's about time we had one"!Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG06
Looosely quouted from Young Frankenstein
axlerod reminds me of that dr phil fellow and he dr phil is one fellow who I absolutly cannot abide to even listen to.
I have never , not once found the smallest redeeming quality in him, nor do i in axelrod / zero etc.
I think "snake oil Salesman" when I see em.
Good golly that Ulsterman is an idiot.
But...
He's exactly what we're up against. The majority of people don't see it either. He is typical of this generation coming up. They are blind to what is happening. The boiling frog is right.
Is all hope lost?
I wasn't raised in NAZI Germany's generation, but I see all the signs. It's for those with eyes to see.
MM