If it hadn't been the Germans it would have been the Russians. Stalin was every bit as ruthless as Hitler. Initially Hitler didn't have the resources to fight a large scale war. His invasion of the the Sudetenland gave him some of resources he needed. Stalin could have easily expanded into the into Europe from the Black Sea and the oil in the Mideast. Significant discoveries were made in the 1920's and 1930's. The presence of oil was well known as early as around 1900. However we really didn't need it. An alliance with Japan would be a matter of temporary convenience as most alliances are. The seed was already planted for Japanese expansion. What was or wasn't done by the United States or anyone else was a moot point by the 1920' and 30's. Most of world was concerned with their own problems and until Stalin or the Japanese invaded an industrialized country nobody was was going to stop them. Prior to WWII we had all the oil we needed. Neither Roosevelt nor Chamberlain was going to war over some desert land in the Mideast they had no real interest in. The same goes for Japan. We couldn't have cared less what Japan did in China or southeast Asia. In many ways an alliance between the USSR and Japan would have been more dangerous than the alliance between Italy, Germany and Japan.
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
I kind of thought Mac might comment more. The thread did take an interesting turn though.
Bigwhtcockslut
Male
So, where do I start?....
Democrats are a joke who only appeal to stupid or mentally ill people(European leftist parties are even dumber).
Republicans don't have a radical bone in their body and yet they are the only party that condemns "extremists".
Democrats are a joke who only appeal to stupid or mentally ill people(European leftist parties are even dumber).
Republicans don't have a radical bone in their body and yet they are the only party that condemns "extremists".
Hahaha. I thought that bone was called the tea bag bone. It's that bone that's always in the way. How does one condemn extremists btw? like bombing them? I think there's this democratic president doing that like right NOW?
As somebody fascinated with Modern European history, I think it is great that 100 years after the fact we are discussing this on an interracial sex forum.
I too love modern European history (wish you could read the ww1 book that came out this year here). But recently been fascinated by the Roman empire. The parallels brought up here were not adding up in my mind because of the fact the region was very much driven by trade and competition between nation states. The globalization going on right now in the world we live in resemble much of the Roman times. The political and war efforts have some eerie resemblances sometimes.
Is the book in Dutch? If so, it may get translated because with the 100the anniversary of the start of WWI, there have been a slew of books written and soon to be released in the coming months and years.
Sorry Torp, but I just noticed your comment of Aug 8th. This time of the year is a very busy time in my work because most the businesses I deal with are preparing to make 4th quarter decisions for the next calendar year.
The reason I haven't posted more to this thread, however, is because 3-4 people went in 3-4 different directions with the topic; its kind of difficult to discuss anything when everyone is having their own conversations and waiting for everyone else to shut up. Was there a point that you wanted me to elaborate more on for sake of discussion?
Besides, you can always tell when someone feels they are losing their argument (or don't have a position on an argument) when they start name calling. Bigwhtcockslut posts his opinion and starts labeling people, yet discusses nothing. It's pretty easy to criticize and name call ... that's been going on for 6 years now and taken us nowhere. However, what's his position on specific topics? God knows we have a cafeteria plan of topics ... or is he just anti-government?
Mac
Gee, I swear I can remember when a certain Republican president, when asked where Osama Bin Laden was, said, and I quote him "I don't know where he is, and don't care!" It certainly wasn't our current president; he said he'd bring Bin Laden to justice and busted B-L's ass his first year in office and took pictures. And, I believe it was a Republican trifecta that was in office when rumors were circulating that a terrorist plot was imminent 3 months before 9-11, yet they did nothing to follow up on the rumors.
I think Democrats realize its not the responsibility of the USA to be world police and/or fight the battles for other countries when we have critical domestic issues at home. When an 8,000 Iraqi army drops its guns and weaponry and runs as 800 Isis troops approach them, something's frik'n wrong with this picture. The president said he was going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and he's damn well doing it ... doesn't mean he's going to start another frik'n "UNBUDGETED-FRAUDULENT" war with Iran, Syria, N Korea or even Mexico. Those people in the middle east have been fighting wars since the beginning of time ... read the bible. Its the best history lesson I know on the middle east. Makes no sense in the US going over there and spilling its own ******* for the likes of them.
NOW ... does that give you a REAL PLACE to start, Bigwhtcockslut? Or would you prefer another topic?
MacBigwhtcockslut
Male
You do realize that the entire reason why leftists hate the Tea Party is literally because they are white and(presumably) Christian, right? Leftist racism is up front and center every time they are called "rednecks", "crackers" and even "KKK members"(with no evidence that anyone out of the millions that identify with Tea Party is even related to anyone in that group).
You know damn well where I was going with that, and you also know that this subject is not even in the ballpark. Yes, I called leftists stupid, like the millions and millions of times leftists call rightists stupid while expecting to be heard and taken seriously. Why are leftists so thin skinned when it comes to taking the same crap that they shovel onto others for decades?
Anyway, I can discuss the failures of Democrats and other leftists on foreign policy later(it is laughable that anyone thinks leftists can get anything right). Right now I challenge leftists to defend their status as defenders of civil liberties and promoters of tolerance given their actions, and their clear beliefs about the moral inferiority of white people.
Let's discuss the racism hiding under the banner of so called equality.
Last edited:
http://www.bol.com/nl/p/kleine-geschiedenis-van-grote-oorlog-1914-1918/9200000015479557/
Small history of the great war by Koen Koch was the one that I liked best so far. And indeed there's a whole lot this year!
Always good to complain about a group that they don't have thik skin and they bash your group too much. And then proceed to do the same to that group a couple of lines later. Touché
Life is always full of surprises. This thread took a turn I never anticipated and there was a good discussion that I would have never anticipated when I joined this site
Bigwhtcockslut
Male
Racially attacking the Tea Party and then daring to call the victims racist is definitely the same thing as calling Democrats stupid and racist for doing these things and getting away with them...
The problem is that right wingers' skins are TOO thick and nothing penetrates until the damage is done.
FrancescaEUR
New Member
An honest man in politics shines more there than he would elsewhere (Mark Twain)
He knows nothing and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career (George Bernard Shaw)
He knows nothing and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career (George Bernard Shaw)
Bigwhtcockslut, your lips are moving but I be damned if I can understand a single thing you say. Will you please use examples or something? And no I don't know "where you're going" ...
HUH?
Hummm, ok, now we're cooking. How about these?
- Got women and African Americans the right to vote
- Ended segregation
- Passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts
- Created Social Security & Medicare
- Minimum wage & Workers Rights & Equal Pay Laws
They prefer to make it easier for people to have guns and shoot other people, but make it harder to vote.
Am I headed in the right direction? Should I go on?
Mac
Keep going .... 
Don't stop!
Last edited:
Fact Checker Time:
1) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed the Senate by a margin of 79-18, with 3 abstensions. 49 Democrats voted for it, 16 voted against it. 30 Republicans voted for it, 1 voted against it. (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/s178)
In the House, it passed 328-74, with 19 abstensions, 218 Democrats for it, 54 against it, 109 Republicans for it, 20 against it. (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h107)
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the Senate by a 73-27 margin, 46 Democrats for it, 21 against it, 27 Republicans for it, 6 against it. (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409). In the House, it passed by a margin of 289-126 with 4 abstensions, 152 Democrats for it, 91 against it, 136 Republicans for it, 35 against it. (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182)
2) The Equal Pay Act of 1963 passed the House 362-9 with 62 abstensions, 201 Democrats for, the only 9 votes against, 160 Republicans for it with none against it. (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1963/h29)
For some reason, I cannot locate the Senate breakdown.
3) The 15th Amendment, which granted blacks the right to vote, passed the House 144-44 and 35 abstensions, and the Senate 39-13 with abstensions.
The House Vote breaks down as follows: 144 Republicans for it, 0 Democrats for it, 39 Democrats and 5 Republicans against it. In the Senate, it was 39 Republicans for it, 8 Democrats and 5 Republicans against it.
4) The 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, passed the House 304-89. Republicans voted 200 for, 19 against. Democrats voted 102 for, 70 against. It passed the Senate 56-25, 36 Republicans for, 8 against, 26 Democrats for, 17 against.
5) The Social Security Act of 1935 passed both House overwhelmingly (http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally.html) during FDR's first term, when Democrats had a super majority of both houses of Congress. With that said, it can hardly be asserted that Republicans were "against" this.
6) Medicare, aka the Social Security Act of 1965, passed with Republican opposition in both House, while Democrats held a super majority in both houses (http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally65.html).
7) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 passed the Senate 52-28 and the House 314-97, and once again 291-89 after Senate amendments were made. As I cannot locate the vote breakdown at this moment, I cannot comment on that but only to say that this was during FDR's second term and Democrats still controlled both house of Congress.
8) The term "segregation" is rather ambiguous and unless I know which specific kind of segregation you are referring to I cannot make fair comments.
In closing, to reply to your statement:
And what did Republicans do with all of the above ... opposed every one of them. Imagine life in the USA right now with none of these passed ... Republicans could!
This assertion is rife with your usual partisan hyperbole, however, it is not an accurate reflection. The Republican Party isn't perfect, but they certainly aren't the monsters that you so often paint them to be.
I can't say I am particularly impressed with either party. The only thing that I can say about out current president is that I am sure the Republicans probably don't feel as bad about Bush now.
Excellent reply. Facts make for a much better read than hyperbole and rants.
