|
Post by vosa on Jul 26, 2014 13:04:37 GMT -5
A classy person’s response to U.S. aid to Great Britain. "The lease and lend bill, as the House is aware, became law yesterday when it received immediately the signature of the President. “I am sure the House would wish me to express, on their behalf and on behalf of the nation, our deep and respectful appreciation of this monument of generous and far seeing diplomacy. "The most powerful democracy has, in effect, declared in solemn statute that they will devote their overwhelming industrial and financial strength to ensuring the defeat of Nazism in order that nations, great and small, may live in security, tolerance and freedom. "By so doing the government and the people of the United States have, in fact, written a new Magna Carta which not only has regard to rights and laws upon which a healthy and advancing civilization can alone be erected but also proclaims by precept and example the duty of free men and free nations, wherever they may be, to share the responsibility and burden of enforcing them."Winston L. S. Churchill House of Commons March 12, 1941 An ingrate’s response to U.S. aid to Great Britain. For my money I'll go with the guy who actually lived through those times over a guy who has just read about them in books. Do you want a drum to go with that bugle? Britain paid back every penny of that agreement and stood alone against Hitler for 2 1/2 years while the US desperately tried to keep out of it. Those are two facts that you cannot refute. Your attempt to discredit me does not alter those facts. "Desperately" is an opinion not a fact. Here are some facts: 1. Prior to March 1941, it was against U.S. law to trade in arms and war materials with all parties in a war. (U.S. Neutrality Acts of 1935,1936,1937 & 1939) 2. The U.S. had not fully recovered from the Great Depression thus, Americans were more concerned with domestic issues than foreign affairs. While prior to March 1941 FDR wanted to provide more aid to the Allies than just cash and carry he understood that politics is the art of the possible and that at that time it was not going to be possible to convince the American people that a distraction from the efforts to end the Depression was justifiable. Anyone who is aware of these facts and understands their broader implication knows that chastising the U.S. for failure to get involved in WII earlier than they did is an action that is not warranted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 13:28:15 GMT -5
Do you want a drum to go with that bugle? Britain paid back every penny of that agreement and stood alone against Hitler for 2 1/2 years while the US desperately tried to keep out of it. Those are two facts that you cannot refute. Your attempt to discredit me does not alter those facts. "Desperately" is an opinion not a fact. Here are some facts: 1. Prior to March 1941, it was against U.S. law to trade in arms and war materials with all parties in a war. (U.S. Neutrality Acts of 1935,1936,1937 & 1939) 2. The U.S. had not fully recovered from the Great Depression thus, Americans were more concerned with domestic issues than foreign affairs. While prior to March 1941 FDR wanted to provide more aid to the Allies than just cash and carry he understood that politics is the art of the possible and that at that time it was not going to be possible to convince the American people that a distraction from the efforts to end the Depression was justifiable.Anyone who is aware of these facts and understands their broader implication knows that chastising the U.S. for failure to get involved in WII earlier than they did is an action that is not warranted. Boo fecking hoo . The Brits lost a generation in the Great War (WW1), one of the reasons that there was no appetite for another war in September 1938 when Chamberlain spoke the words "Peace for our time", ultimately, Britain had no option to duck out of the war and fought it anyway. Anyone that does not know those facts but still ridicules Chamberlain for the famous, speech after assurances from Hitler, one year before the outbreak of war in 1939, should perhaps bone up on their history of the wider world at that time and not just the parochial view of the US's reasons for avoiding the war.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 26, 2014 14:53:04 GMT -5
It would be pretty bad to be directly responsible, it is good that Hama's has that honor by keeping civilians near their tunnels, and missiles. But what can you expect from a terrorist organization .Good question, ask the Israelis, that's how Israel was formed, by a bunch of Zionist terrorists. Your statement is in incorrect on two counts. First, Israel was formed 20 centuries ago. The most current version of Israel emerged in the late 1940's. Your statement is also wrong in that modern Israel emerged from an action by a majority of the rest of the world. If you'd like, I can provide you with a link to the vote record.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 26, 2014 14:58:13 GMT -5
You must have been either a lawyer or a politician in your earlier years to engage in this kind of illegitimate word play. My statement, "The US has not given one cent to Hamas", is the only legitimate statement made here, "fungible" that Dude, it is you and yours that are doing the verbal acrobatics, and that is where you'll find your illegitimacy. Your statement is factually incorrect. The US has given money to Hamas in its role as the military arm of the governing authority for the Gaza Strip. And I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of money being fungible. It is a difficult concept to understand and I'm afraid I just helped my BIL move (three flights of stairs!!) and I just don't have the energy today.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 26, 2014 15:00:10 GMT -5
The US was formed i.e., born out of revolution against the Crown. By your logic, all Americans are revolutionaries. I'll ask the question again: If I agree that the Israelis are terrorists, will you agree that the Palestinians are terrorists? I wonder if middleoftheroad will question the legitimacy of of your posting style, will he ask if you were a former politician or lawyer? Nah, something tells me your contortions will get a free pass from him. I agree with you BE. aponderer has referenced the Palestinians, a non-existent state. I'm not sure why. Further, he should have known not to ask you this question, as you don't answer questions posed to you on the forum.
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Jul 26, 2014 15:03:58 GMT -5
Assuming you have paid your taxes, we would all share in that direct responsibility, were such direct responsibility to exist. Who is so naive to think all aid the government shells out makes it to the appropriate designation? The people who vote for democrats. Democrats tell voters its all for them but most of it goes to govt. workers to help vote them back in .
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 26, 2014 15:11:41 GMT -5
Who is so naive to think all aid the government shells out makes it to the appropriate designation? The people who vote for democrats. Democrats tell voters its all for them but most of it goes to govt. workers to help vote them back in . No wonder the Republicans are losing why didn't you say so? (If I wanted to hear Fox News propaganda I would turn on Fox News.) But that wont ever happen.
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Jul 26, 2014 15:20:00 GMT -5
The people who vote for democrats. Democrats tell voters its all for them but most of it goes to govt. workers to help vote them back in . No wonder the Republicans are losing why didn't you say so? (If I wanted to hear Fox News propaganda I would turn on Fox News.) But that wont ever happen. For someone who quotes Fox News a lot it sure seems you watch it ....
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 26, 2014 15:37:22 GMT -5
No wonder the Republicans are losing why didn't you say so? (If I wanted to hear Fox News propaganda I would turn on Fox News.) But that wont ever happen. For someone who quotes Fox News a lot it sure seems you watch it .... Nope, my parents sit in front of the tv and watch Fox News and they say the very same things you post.
|
|
|
Post by stevez51 on Jul 26, 2014 15:42:36 GMT -5
For someone who quotes Fox News a lot it sure seems you watch it .... Nope, my parents sit in front of the tv and watch Fox News and they say the very same things you post. So you are relaying quotes from your parents You are using 2nd hand information to form opinions. I watch ESPN a lot. I don't watch a lot of news shows. Mostly the local news if any. Guess you throw your parents in with the brother you hate ......
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 26, 2014 15:48:19 GMT -5
Nope, my parents sit in front of the tv and watch Fox News and they say the very same things you post. So you are relaying quotes from your parents You are using 2nd hand information to form opinions. I watch ESPN a lot. I don't watch a lot of news shows. Mostly the local news if any. Guess you throw your parents in with the brother you hate ...... I dont hate him, that is something others came up with, what can I say, everyone is flawed, him more so than most. This is a board, you do not know me, I do not know you. No information that I give out would ever be tied to anything. Hell I even took the call letters off the plane I have the luxury of riding in recently But there are the internet creepsters that have no life that have obvious boundary issues. Got to watch out for those types.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Jul 26, 2014 15:56:37 GMT -5
Boo fecking hoo . The Brits lost a generation in the Great War (WW1), one of the reasons that there was no appetite for another war in September 1938 when Chamberlain spoke the words "Peace for our time", ultimately, Britain had no option to duck out of the war and fought it anyway. Anyone that does not know those facts but still ridicules Chamberlain for the famous, speech after assurances from Hitler, one year before the outbreak of war in 1939, should perhaps bone up on their history of the wider world at that time and not just the parochial view of the US's reasons for avoiding the war. Were the Brits aware of this fact on March 3, 1939? "On March 3, 1939, in response to Nazi Germany's defiance of the Munich Agreement and occupation of Czechoslovakia,[5] the United Kingdom pledged the support of itself and France to guarantee Polish independence.
... in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect.
I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Government.
On April 6, during a visit to London by the Polish foreign minister, it was agreed to formalise the guarantee as an Anglo-Polish military alliance, pending negotiations.
This guarantee was extended on April 13 to Greece and Romania following Italy's invasion of Albania."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_allianceSo, on March 3, 1939 the Brits, knowing that they could not effectively prosecute another war at that time due to their losses in WWI, signed an agreement to support Poland & France and then expanded the agreement to include Greece and Romania. In other words, Chamberlain's government was writing checks that the British people couldn't cash. On the other hand, the U.S., knowing that they could not effectively prosecute a war at that time due to other reasons, made no such commitment. Could your criticism of how the U.S. handled the early years of WWII have something to do with deflecting attention away from the mistakes the Brits made prior to WWII? Knowing your history of employing the deflection tactic I'd say the answer is "Yes".
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Jul 26, 2014 15:58:38 GMT -5
For someone who quotes Fox News a lot it sure seems you watch it .... Nope, my parents sit in front of the tv and watch Fox News and they say the very same things you post. When was the last time you called your parents "turds"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 16:15:23 GMT -5
My statement, "The US has not given one cent to Hamas", is the only legitimate statement made here, "fungible" that Dude, it is you and yours that are doing the verbal acrobatics, and that is where you'll find your illegitimacy. Your statement is factually incorrect. The US has given money to Hamas in its role as the military arm of the governing authority for the Gaza Strip. And I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of money being fungible. It is a difficult concept to understand and I'm afraid I just helped my BIL move (three flights of stairs!!) and I just don't have the energy today. Wrong dude, the US has not given one cent to Hamas (West Bank or Gaza) of military assistance. Your tap dancing on "fungible" (yes I do know what it means and I expect that my knowledge of the English language at least matches and probably exceeds yours). I don't know what you want me to concede. I have already agreed that some of the money given to Gaza for economic assistance probably did make its way to Hamas. I will not cede on my original statement that the US has not given a cent to Hamas. If you can't grass that then it is you that can't grasp a simple concept of the most basic of English. Quit trying to demean my intelligence or my knowledge of the English language, you really aren't clever enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 16:18:42 GMT -5
I wonder if middleoftheroad will question the legitimacy of of your posting style, will he ask if you were a former politician or lawyer? Nah, something tells me your contortions will get a free pass from him. I agree with you BE. aponderer has referenced the Palestinians, a non-existent state. I'm not sure why. Further, he should have known not to ask you this question, as you don't answer questions posed to you on the forum. As I said, you give him a free pass. Seriously, shouldn't you consider changing your name, there is very little 'middle of the road' about you.
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 26, 2014 16:18:43 GMT -5
Dayum, who is keeping count of the wars McCain would have us in? Bueller? Bueller?? As of last count none, nor did he abandon 4 in Benghazi while the pos was off & running in Vegas and he didn't feint duck & dodge when border agents were shot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 16:34:18 GMT -5
Boo fecking hoo . The Brits lost a generation in the Great War (WW1), one of the reasons that there was no appetite for another war in September 1938 when Chamberlain spoke the words "Peace for our time", ultimately, Britain had no option to duck out of the war and fought it anyway. Anyone that does not know those facts but still ridicules Chamberlain for the famous, speech after assurances from Hitler, one year before the outbreak of war in 1939, should perhaps bone up on their history of the wider world at that time and not just the parochial view of the US's reasons for avoiding the war. Were the Brits aware of this fact on March 3, 1939? "On March 3, 1939, in response to Nazi Germany's defiance of the Munich Agreement and occupation of Czechoslovakia,[5] the United Kingdom pledged the support of itself and France to guarantee Polish independence.
... in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect.
I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Government.
On April 6, during a visit to London by the Polish foreign minister, it was agreed to formalise the guarantee as an Anglo-Polish military alliance, pending negotiations.
This guarantee was extended on April 13 to Greece and Romania following Italy's invasion of Albania."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_allianceSo, on March 3, 1939 the Brits, knowing that they could not effectively prosecute another war at that time due to their losses in WWI, signed an agreement to support Poland & France and then expanded the agreement to include Greece and Romania. In other words, Chamberlain's government was writing checks that the British people couldn't cash. On the other hand, the U.S., knowing that they could not effectively prosecute a war at that time due to other reasons, made no such commitment. Could your criticism of how the U.S. handled the early years of WWII have something to do with deflecting attention away from the mistakes the Brits made prior to WWII? Knowing your history of employing the deflection tactic I'd say the answer is "Yes". Good God man, what a load of old obfuscatory claptrap. The Brits made plenty of mistakes prior to WW2, but ducking out of it, when the chips were down, was not one of them. Regarding "deflection" your post is just the latest example of your own deflection tactics, as regards your "knowing my history", it is my opinion that you actually know Jack Shyte about me.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Jul 26, 2014 18:54:15 GMT -5
Were the Brits aware of this fact on March 3, 1939? "On March 3, 1939, in response to Nazi Germany's defiance of the Munich Agreement and occupation of Czechoslovakia,[5] the United Kingdom pledged the support of itself and France to guarantee Polish independence.
... in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect.
I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Government.
On April 6, during a visit to London by the Polish foreign minister, it was agreed to formalise the guarantee as an Anglo-Polish military alliance, pending negotiations.
This guarantee was extended on April 13 to Greece and Romania following Italy's invasion of Albania."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_allianceSo, on March 3, 1939 the Brits, knowing that they could not effectively prosecute another war at that time due to their losses in WWI, signed an agreement to support Poland & France and then expanded the agreement to include Greece and Romania. In other words, Chamberlain's government was writing checks that the British people couldn't cash. On the other hand, the U.S., knowing that they could not effectively prosecute a war at that time due to other reasons, made no such commitment. Could your criticism of how the U.S. handled the early years of WWII have something to do with deflecting attention away from the mistakes the Brits made prior to WWII? Knowing your history of employing the deflection tactic I'd say the answer is "Yes". Good God man, what a load of old obfuscatory claptrap. The Brits made plenty of mistakes prior to WW2, but ducking out of it, when the chips were down, was not one of them. Regarding "deflection" your post is just the latest example of your own deflection tactics, as regards your "knowing my history", it is my opinion that you actually know Jack Shyte about me. Where or what is the "obfuscation"? Where or what is claptrap? And what I know about you and your history comes 100% from what you post here. Why are you running away from yourself?
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 26, 2014 19:49:32 GMT -5
Good God man, what a load of old obfuscatory claptrap. The Brits made plenty of mistakes prior to WW2, but ducking out of it, when the chips were down, was not one of them. Regarding "deflection" your post is just the latest example of your own deflection tactics, as regards your "knowing my history", it is my opinion that you actually know Jack Shyte about me. Where or what is the "obfuscation"? Where or what is claptrap? And what I know about you and your history comes 100% from what you post here. Why are you running away from yourself? vosa, I'm tired of arguing with the hairless bird. He refuses to answer questions, refuses to deal in fact and has some canned posts that lend little to the discussion. Just not worth the effort any more.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Jul 27, 2014 13:16:43 GMT -5
Where or what is the "obfuscation"? Where or what is claptrap? And what I know about you and your history comes 100% from what you post here. Why are you running away from yourself? vosa, I'm tired of arguing with the hairless bird. He refuses to answer questions, refuses to deal in fact and has some canned posts that lend little to the discussion. Just not worth the effort any more. I agree that it is tiresome having to deal with BE's "style" but people like him need to be challenged at every turn lest someone start to believe that his postings represent intelligent discourse.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 28, 2014 4:52:05 GMT -5
I agree with you BE. aponderer has referenced the Palestinians, a non-existent state. I'm not sure why. Further, he should have known not to ask you this question, as you don't answer questions posed to you on the forum. As I said, you give him a free pass. Seriously, shouldn't you consider changing your name, there is very little 'middle of the road' about you. Often thought the very same thing BE.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 28, 2014 4:56:56 GMT -5
Where or what is the "obfuscation"? Where or what is claptrap? And what I know about you and your history comes 100% from what you post here. Why are you running away from yourself? vosa, I'm tired of arguing with the hairless bird. He refuses to answer questions, refuses to deal in fact and has some canned posts that lend little to the discussion. Just not worth the effort any more. Or as some would say he basically doesn't agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by kashmir on Jul 28, 2014 5:03:08 GMT -5
vosa, I'm tired of arguing with the hairless bird. He refuses to answer questions, refuses to deal in fact and has some canned posts that lend little to the discussion. Just not worth the effort any more. I agree that it is tiresome having to deal with BE's "style" but people like him need to be challenged at every turn lest someone start to believe that his postings represent intelligent discourse. Or as some would say he basically doesn't agree with you. Such is life in the Right Wing Betaverse.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 28, 2014 9:49:51 GMT -5
Assuming you have paid your taxes, we would all share in that direct responsibility, were such direct responsibility to exist. Who is so naive to think all aid the government shells out makes it to the appropriate designation? A perfect argument for cutting off funds to the government.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 28, 2014 9:52:22 GMT -5
Atta boy!!! Showing those true colors……. So, what's the difference between Britain defending herself against Germany bombing them, and Israel defending herself against Hamas rocketing her?
|
|