Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 43

Thread: An End To Authoritarianism and Plutocracy in the United States: It's Up to Us

  1. #1
    Fuck this and fuck that
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:31 PM
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    58,671
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    3,391
    Thanked 6,281 Times in 4,711 Posts


    Rep Power
    143

    An End To Authoritarianism and Plutocracy in the United States: It's Up to Us



    Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson
    Hinckley Institute of Politics
    March 26, 2012

    Let us consider the fundamental guiding principles for the United States of America -- freedom, equal opportunity, compassion, and security.

    Then let us consider how those principles have been severely undermined, and how we, the American people, can restore them so that once again our government is of, by, and for the people, rather than a tool of oppression cynically utilized for the benefit of a small, powerful, abusive, elite political and financial class, to the detriment of the vast majority of U.S. citizens, as well as billions of people around the world.

    We often hear it said that the United States is the greatest nation in the world. What exactly is meant by that? And is it true? The more important question is: Can we, the American people, make this, once again, a great and proud nation -- a nation that lives up to its original promise? We can achieve that -- if only we will.

    Who are we as a people, what do we really believe in, and just what does our nation stand for? How far have we drifted away -- or, rather, bolted away -- from what we once were? And how do we, once again, attain greater freedom, more equal opportunity, compassion, and security for all?

    These questions have never been more vital to consider and confront. Our nation has been transformed in just a few short years -- virtually unrecognizable in fundamental respects when compared to the republic that once proudly proclaimed a constitutional system of checks and balances, the rule of law, and constitutional protections of due process, restraints on war-making, and a truly balanced system of separation of powers among three co-equal branches of government.

    We are at a nation-changing -- even world-changing -- fork in the road. We can continue on the path of becoming more totalitarian, even fascist, with an imperial presidency that continues to accrue to itself unprecedented tyrannical powers; more greedy as a nation and as a people; less capable to compete on a global stage; more empire-building and war-mongering; less equal under the law; more divided, in terms of income and wealth, between a tiny elite financial aristocracy and the rest of our citizenry; more cruel toward men, women, and children, here and abroad, who are not part of the elite political and financial classes; and less secure, as a nation and as individuals, now and in the future.

    Or we can turn things around radically, becoming more free and respectful of the fundamental rights and interests of people in the U.S. and elsewhere, with restraints on executive power -- and accountability for abuses of that power -- as contemplated by the founders and by our Constitution; more generous and helpful as a nation and as a people; more capable of competing with other nations, their students, and their workers; more cooperative and friendly toward other nations; more committed to liberty and justice for all; more prosperous, with a strong, healthy middle class, capable of living rewarding lives through equal opportunity; kinder and more compassionate toward our own citizens, immigrants, and men, women, and children in other nations; and more secure in our homes, our communities, and our nation, presently and in the future.

    The second sentence of the Declaration of Independence sets forth the general guiding principles of the founding of our great nation:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    There could be no stronger affirmation of our nation's guiding principles of freedom, equal opportunity, compassion, and personal, familial, community, and national security.

    These guiding principles ring loudly in the first sentence of our Constitution:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    The guiding principles, then, set forth in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are that people -- all people, not just citizens of the United States -- are created as equals, they all have unalienable rights, including the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to pursue happiness, that we seek to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility (that is, peace), provide for the defense of our nation (that is, security), promote the welfare of everyone, and secure liberty not only for us, but for later generations -- "our posterity".

    It is for each generation to exercise conscientious diligence in sustaining those guiding principles. Sadly -- tragically --, those who were to have represented our interests in Washington, particularly during these past ten years, have severely undermined those principles. And we, the people, have not sufficiently spoken out and acted to return our nation to the principled course set by the Founders. But we can -- if only we will.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  2. #2
    Fuck this and fuck that
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:31 PM
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    58,671
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    3,391
    Thanked 6,281 Times in 4,711 Posts


    Rep Power
    143
    After World War II, the U.S. and its allies prosecuted and convicted Germans for war crimes and crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Tribunal. The chief prosecutor was United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. He made it clear that aggressive war -- that is, a military attack by an aggressor nation against a nation that has not attacked, and is not preparing to attack the aggressor nation -- is a crime, as reflected in a treaty to which the United States is a signatory, the Kellogg-Briand Pact. He emphasized that if the criminal prohibition against war is to have any meaning, it must be applied to all nations, including, as he said, those sitting in judgment at Nuremberg.

    The illegality of aggressive war has been reinforced by the U.N. Charter, which expressly prohibits a military attack by one nation against another unless the target nation has itself illegally attacked, or was about to illegally attack, the other nation.

    Instead of continuing the proud tradition of the Nuremberg principles, and complying with the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter, the United States, during the Bush administration, engaged in the blatantly criminal act of invading and forcibly occupying Iraq, a nation that posed no risk of harm whatsoever to the United States. It was the sort of crime for which people were tried and convicted at Nuremberg. Two Secretaries-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan and Boutros Boutros-Ghali, agreed it was a clear violation of international law -- yet no one has been held to account.

    Making illegal war is the most serious crime because it purports to legalize mass murder, severe injuries, mass property destruction, and societal mayhem. Compounding this most serious crime in our invasion and occupation of Iraq, it was committed in blatant violation of the War Power Clause of the United States Constitution, which provides that Congress has the sole prerogative to decide whether to take our nation to war.

    Congress cannot avoid its highest responsibility by unconstitutionally delegating to the President the authority to make the decision. However, that is exactly what Congress, in cowardly derogation of its constitutional duties, has sought to do repeatedly.

    President Johnson lied to our nation about Vietnam in order to get Congress to allow him to make the decision as to whether we should make war against the North Vietnamese. Likewise, President Bush lied to our nation about Iraq in order to get Congress to pass the resolution allowing him to decide whether to make war against that nation, which had no involvement whatsoever in the attacks on 9/11. Our nation was deceived -- and we were betrayed -- all at an astounding cost in lives, tragedy, and national treasure.

    In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Congress's abdication of perhaps its most important constitutional role was so pathetic that all but a handful of U.S. Senators (including our present Secretary of State) didn't even bother to walk to a secure room in the Capitol Building to read a National Intelligence Estimate, which made clear, contrary to what President Bush and his administration were telling us, that much of the U.S. intelligence community disagreed with claims about Iraq developing a nuclear capability and about its possession of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, just a few months before 9/11, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell independently stated that, following the first Gulf war, Iraq's weapons had been destroyed, it had not re-armed, and it didn't even pose a danger to its neighbors. Senator Bob Graham, who urged his colleagues to read the National Intelligence Estimate, went so far as to warn, correctly, that the security of the people of the United States would be put at great risk if we attacked Iraq, saying to his colleagues that, if they voted to allow the president to make the decision to go to war, blood would be on their hands.

    More than a million innocent Iraqis killed, more seriously injured, and vast hatred and hostility generated throughout the Muslim world toward the United States, making us much less safe for generations to come -- all on the basis of lies. Had Congress done its fact-finding job and met its constitutional responsibility to determine for itself if war against Iraq was justified, none of it would ever have happened.

    Several presidents since Truman have unconstitutionally made war against other nations, and several Congresses have unconstitutionally sought to delegate their war decision-making power to the president. So where have the courts been to make certain that the War Power Clause of the Constitution is followed? That is, after all, how our constitutional system of checks and balances is supposed to work.

    The sad answer that strikes at the heart of our Constitution is that the courts have checked out, making excuses for dodging the question, most often in the form of the court-made "political question" doctrine. The Congress and President both violate the Constitution -- and the courts say, "Sorry, it's a political question and we can't -- or, rather, won't -- do anything about it." In other words, the War Power Clause essentially has been ripped out of our Constitution -- leading to the incredibly dangerous point where one person -- the President -- can make the decision as to whether our nation goes to war. That takes us one giant step closer to the tyranny our Founders sought to prevent.

  3. #3
    Fuck this and fuck that
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:31 PM
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    58,671
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    3,391
    Thanked 6,281 Times in 4,711 Posts


    Rep Power
    143
    Our nation's proud tradition has been that we do not torture -- and we do not permit torture. George Washington ordered his troops to refrain from torturing British soldiers, even when the British were committing such atrocities against colonial soldiers. The Lieber Code forbade torture during the Civil War. The U.S. has court-martialed our own servicemen for torturing, including water boarding -- during the 1900 conflict in the Philippines and during the Vietnam War. Numerous high-ranking members of the military, including Utah's own Brig. Gen. (ret'd) David Irvine, have uniformly called for enforcement of the absolute prohibition against torture, arguing persuasively that torture is productive of misinformation because torture victims will say anything in order to avoid further torture; it creates far more hatred and more enemies; and it creates a more dangerous situation for our own servicemen and servicewomen. Also, of course, it is fundamentally immoral, blatantly illegal, under both international and domestic law, and dehumanizing and demoralizing to those who engage in the torture.

    We know now that President Bush and others in his administration authorized the use of torture. Unbeknownst to us at the time, on the day before President Bush was at the Opening Ceremony for the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympic Games, he signed a memorandum stating, directly contrary to what the Supreme Court later ruled, that the Geneva Convention protections against torture would not apply to people detained in the so-called war on terror. His authorization of torture, and the authorization by others in his administration of torture, constitute war crimes, under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, as well as under laws passed by Congress, including the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the federal anti-torture statute.

    When President Obama said concerning those war crimes -- and about the federal felonies committed by those who engaged in warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications -- that there should be no accountability for the crimes because, in his words, we should look forward and not back, he dangerously contributed to the further deterioration of the rule of law in our nation. His virtual granting of immunity, notwithstanding the requirement in the Convention Against Torture that all signatories must prosecute torture as they do other serious offenses, is completely contrary to all applicable laws -- and characteristic of a dictator who believes that he is the law. It is another major ratcheting up of the imperial presidency -- and another momentous degradation of the rule of law and our constitutional system, in which the president and other members of the Executive Branch are to be constrained by the law and by the other two branches of our government. That evisceration of the rule of law by President Obama and a Congress that has timidly fallen in line with the assertion by the Bush and Abama administrations of unprecedented executive powers take us one more giant step closer to the tyranny our Founders sought to prevent.




    * * * *





    President Bush was not only a "decider," he was an innovator. For the first time in our nation's history, we fought a war, then two wars -- and, at the same time, instead of raising revenues for the wars, he and the complicit Congress gave enormous tax breaks to the very wealthy. It was as if we took out credit cards in the names of our children and charged the costs of the wars on them, while enriching the very rich even more. It was a continuation of a reckless pattern of pandering by so-called conservatives -- aided and abetted by Democrats. Between 1979 and 2006, the top incremental tax rate on earned income was cut in half; capital gains taxes were cut by almost as much; and corporate taxes were reduced by more than 25%. Of course, not many corporations pay according to even that rate because of all the loopholes and deductions their lobbyists have pushed through Congress over the years.

    If the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to expire in 2010, as promised, for people with incomes over $200,000, federal revenues would increase approximately $140 billion during this year. That would be sufficient to cover basic health care needs for those without coverage in the United States. What would the impact be on those making more than $200,000 a year? It would reduce their aftertax incomes, on average, by about 4.5%.

    When offered the choice between health care for all or an elimination of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Congress and the President have chosen less taxes for the wealthy.

    The corrupting influence of money in our political system -- the massive campaign contributions that essentially put Congress and the White House on retainer to the wealthy -- has contributed significantly to what I call the Great Chasm. One of many examples is what Washington politicians -- those who are supposed to be representing all of us -- did for hedge fund managers. Our tax laws now allow hedge fund managers, some of whom make more than a billion dollars a year, to have most of their earnings taxed at the capital gains rate, 15%, while middle class working men and women pay a significantly higher rate. That loophole alone costs the federal government more than $6 billion in lost revenue, which would be enough to provide health care to three million children.[1] Almost $2 billion of that tax boondoggle goes to 25 people.[2]

    Over the past decade, the incomes of the middle class have fallen, while those in the top 1 percent have enjoyed, on average, an increase of 18% in their incomes. And what incredible incomes they are! The top 1 percent in the United States are paid about 25% of the total income -- and they control a whopping 40% of the total wealth. The disparity in income and wealth between the small privileged class of the economic aristocracy and the rest of us in this nation has never been as great as it is now since the 1920's, on the eve of the Great Depression.

    This is not something that just naturally happens because of market forces. It happens because of politicians serving the elite financial aristocracy to the immense detriment of the public interest.

    How did we build a strong, healthy middle class and a prosperous economy following the Great Depression -- and what is taking us back now to the gross inequality and tremendous insecurity for most people reminiscent of the Gilded Age?

    As Paul Krugman[3] describes, in the 1920s, there was a vast political polarization and an enormous income and wealth disparity -- very much like today. However, political reform -- public policy geared toward making life better for the vast majority of Americans -- made all the difference. There was a vast narrowing of the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the nation -- what Krugman calls "The Great Compression." It was entirely the opposite from today's Great Chasm.

    Incomes for the very wealthy actually decreased from the 1920's to the 1950's, while the incomes for middle class families about doubled. The middle class also had greater security, with employers offering new benefits like health insurance and retirement plans. The federal government also provided unemployment insurance and Social Security for retirees.

    It all equated to a major economic democratization of American society, with much narrower differences between the pay for executives and line workers, and much narrower differences between employees with formal education and manual laborers. Just the opposite of what we're experiencing today.

    Much of the Gilded Age class consciousness was gone by the 1950s. And now it has returned. Many of the wealthy turn their backs on the quality of public education as they enroll their children in private schools. Many of the wealthy live only among themselves, providing for their own security, as they isolate themselves in gated communities. Only the best in medical care for the wealthy, while 50 million people go without basic health care coverage -- and, even if the Obama plan is fully implemented 23 million men, women, and children will be without essential medical coverage, unlike any other nation in the developed world. And 700,000 bankruptcies each year are attributable to enormous medical bills -- again, a tragedy unknown throughout the rest of the industrialized world.

    Much of the change came about because of taxes. In the 1920s, the top income tax rate was only 24%. The top income tax rate rose to 63 % during the first Roosevelt administration, and 79 % in the second. By the mid-fifties, the top tax rate had risen to 91% -- and that was under the Republican administration of Dwight Eisenhower. Today's top tax bracket -- applicable only to income in excess of $388,000 -- is only 35%, yet listen to the wealthy and their lapdogs in Congress howl when anyone has the temerity to suggest that perhaps they should pay their fair share to help reduce the accumulated debt and tremendous interest burden we will hand off to our children and later generations -- and to lend a hand up to those living in poverty, including 22% of our nation's children.

    The average corporate tax rate increased from less than 14% in 1929 to more than 45 percent in 1955 and 48% in 1979. Today's corporate tax rate is 35%, but the average corporation pays no more than 15%, and many corporations, like General Electric, taking advantage of massive loopholes and deductions corporate lobbyists have pushed through Congress, pay nothing at all.

    The same thing happened with estate taxes -- what the Republicans, with the aid of the spin-meister Frank Luntz, would have us call "death taxes." Estate taxes went from 20% in the 1920's to 45%, then 60%, then 70%, and up to 77%. Today, the estate tax, applicable only to estates in excess of $5.12 million, is 35%. Yet listen to some of the wealthy whine -- as if their descendants are somehow entitled to more than $5 million without any taxation, while 22% of the children in the United States live in poverty.

    If, following the 1920s, taxes accounted for the decrease in wealth for the very rich, what accounts mostly for the increase in wealth and income for most of the rest? In large part, it was the union movement. By the end of World War II, more than a third of nonfarm workers were union members. Strong union advocacy means higher wages, better benefits, and a rippling effect that raises wages for others. It also brings into focus the disparity between the pay of top executives and average workers.

    Also, during the war, the Roosevelt administration set wages and, given the values of that administration, it tended to set the wages in such a way that the lower paid workers received more increases than others.

    The increase in taxes for the wealthy, a strong union movement, and wage controls that shrunk the gap between the wealthy and the middle class led to a much more equal distribution of the total income for thirty years -- as well as unprecedented prosperity. Just the opposite of what we're experiencing today.

    The gross inequalities today are alarming -- and tragic. As of 2007, the top 10% owned 84% of the financial wealth in the United States.[4] The bottom 80% owned just 7% of all financial wealth.

    Between 1983 and 2004, in large part because of tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions, of all the new financial wealth created in the U.S., 43% of it went to the top 1%. Ninety-four percent of it went to the top 20% -- meaning that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all new financial wealth generated in the United States during the strong economic years of the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s.[5] In short, as working people produced more because of greater efficiencies, they shared in almost none of the gains -- while investors and top executives took almost all of it.

    One factor contributing to this gaping disparity is yet another outrage: the average executive pay as compared with the average factory worker pay. CEO pay by 102 major companies was about 40 times that of average full-time workers in the U.S. By the early 2000s, CEO pay averaged 367 times the pay of the average worker.[6] In 2007, the ratio between CEOs and factory workers was 344:1, while in Europe it was about 25:1.[7]

  4. #4
    Fuck this and fuck that
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:31 PM
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    58,671
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    3,391
    Thanked 6,281 Times in 4,711 Posts


    Rep Power
    143
    What can we, the American people, do? First, recognize that the Democratic and Republican Parties are a democracy-destroying political duopoly, which has joined forces in shafting the vast majority of Americans, who are struggling every day to just get by, while serving politicians' campaign contributors, including Wall Street bankers, for-profit insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, hedge fund managers, for-profit colleges (many of which are owned by investment banks), and anti-union forces. These Democrats and Republicans deregulated the financial industry and looked the other way while financial institutions and their officers engaged in wholesale fraud -- all of which led to the economic melt-down from which we are still reeling, while the perpetrators are still lining their pockets with multi-million dollar bonuses, derived from government bail-outs.

    They are the same duopoly that has caved to the fossil fuel industry in failing to provide essential international leadership to prevent the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. They have become so craven that President Obama even vetoed the EPA's effort to reduce the emission of ground level ozone and has now paved the way for the southern leg of the Keystone XL Pipeline and vastly expanded offshore oil drilling.

    They are the same duopoly that thinks so little of our democracy that they have made it almost impossible for any new party or independent candidate to get on several states' ballots -- and, through their total control of the Presidential Debate Commission, which hijacked the presidential debates from the League of Women Voters, have prevented any non-plutocratic voices from being heard by the electorate during presidential debates.



    In short, each of us can say: "We're not going to take it any more. We have drawn our line -- and won't budge from it.

    We won't support anyone who disregards our Constitution and the rule of law.
    We won't support anyone who tortures, authorizes torture, or opposes accountability for those who torture.
    We won't support anyone who targets U.S. citizens for assassination.
    We won't support anyone who will not work to stop the insane and inhumane incarceration of 2.3 million people, many of them for non-violent offenses -- an incarceration rate far greater than any other nation on earth and which is applied with a vengeance toward African-Americans and Latinos.
    We won't support anyone who fails and refuses to face up to the need for rational, compassionate immigration reform.
    We won't support anyone who will not commit to provide our students with an equal opportunity to obtain a higher education and equip themselves to be competitive globally with students and employees in other nations.
    We won't support anyone who asserts the power to kidnap and indefinitely detain people, including U.S. citizens, without charges, trial, assistance of legal counsel, or right of habeas corpus -- perhaps the most subversive, anti-American stance ever taken by a Congress or a President in our nation's history.
    We won't support anyone who takes, or purports to authorize a president to take, our nation to war without a finding by Congress that war is justified -- and without compliance with the U.N. Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory.
    We won't support anyone who allows the continuation of Bush's budget-busting tax breaks for the wealthy.
    We won't support anyone who makes it more difficult for working men and women to organize.
    We won't support anyone who continues to allow multi-national corporations to profit by depriving U.S. workers of their jobs while exporting millions of jobs with nearly slave conditions in other nations.
    We won't support anyone who refuses to implement programs like the Works Progress Administration to hire millions of people to build up our nation's rapidly deteriorating infrastructure.
    We won't support anyone who refuses to strengthen, rather than undermine, the safety nets provided by Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.
    We won't support anyone who fails to provide crucial leadership on climate change and a thriving clean energy economy.
    We won't support anyone who refuses to commit to do everything possible to rid our government and electoral system of the corrupting influence of money.
    And we won't support anyone who refuses to join the rest of the industrialized world in providing a health care system that costs much less, produces far better medical outcomes, and is available to everyone.



    For those who are cynical, for those who are resigned to not being able to overcome the corruption and perversity of the influence of money in our plutocracy -- that is, government of, by, and for the wealthy --, I urge you to find inspiration in our own nation's long history of progressive social movements, as well as from recent examples in the Arab world.

    Major movements, such as the anti-slavery movement, the women's suffrage movement, the labor movement, and the civil rights movement, all succeeded because of the tenacious, passionate commitment and activism by people, organized at the grass roots level. And there was a lot of money aligned against many of them -- yet they prevailed.

    Consider also that people in the Arab world -- for instance, in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya -- recently organized, utilizing the democratized means of communication offered by social media, and succeeded in overthrowing long-time oppressive dictators. So, too, can the people of the United States, organize together, take a principled, courageous stand, and overthrow the corrupting influence of money in our government, including our electoral system, and achieve the restoration of the rule of law, a recommitment to fundamental constitutional principles, the reestablishment of the system of checks and balances essential to our republic, and a recommitment to the core values that will make this country great again: freedom, equal opportunity, compassion, and security.




    * * * *





    Ben Franklin was approached by a woman as he was leaving the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. She asked him, "Doctor, what do we have -- a monarchy or a republic?" Franklin responded, "A republic, ma'am, if you can keep it."

    It's up to us. If we don't take action, and insist on a return to the practices and policies that reaffirm our most fundamental values, our republic and all it stands for could be lost forever. However, if we will, we can restore our republic and breathe life once again into our Constitution and recommit to all that can make this nation once again what the Founders, and those who have given their lives for our freedoms and values, intended and expected.



    [1] Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal (W.W. Norton & Company: New York London: 2007), p. 250.

    [2] Id.

    [3] Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal.

    [4] "Financial wealth" means net worth minus the value of one's home.

    [5] G. William Domhoff, "Wealth, Income, and Power," www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html?print, citing E. N. Wolff (2007) "Recent trends in household wealth in the United States: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze. Working Paper No. 502. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

    [6] Paul Krugman, supra, at 142.

    [7] G. William Domhoff, supra.

  5. #5
    Dr. Lulz
    ROTH ARMY SUPREME
    Dr. Love's Avatar
    Member No
    124
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    03-02-2020 @ 09:51 PM
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,825
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    488
    Thanked 1,443 Times in 997 Posts


    Rep Power
    43
    FORD, I support what you're doing. I hope more people in this forum recognize that Bush, Romney and Obama all represent the same path for the country, and vote to change that. Meet the new boss ... same as the old boss.

    The two party choice is no choice at all.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  6. 2 users say thank you to Dr. Love for this KICKASS post:

    ELVIS (06-24-2012),FORD (06-23-2012)


  7. #6
    ROTH KILL!
    ROTH ARMY ELITE
    BITEYOASS's Avatar
    Member No
    175
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    01-17-2021 @ 08:52 PM
    Location
    Montgomery, AL
    Age
    44
    Posts
    6,531
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    952
    Thanked 708 Times in 517 Posts


    Rep Power
    34
    Here's the two-party system in a nutshell, as explained by Bill Hicks:

    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  8. 2 users say thank you to BITEYOASS for this KICKASS post:

    jhale667 (06-23-2012),Nitro Express (06-24-2012)


  9. #7
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    Seshmeister's Avatar
    Member No
    11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:43 AM
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    35,078
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,815
    Thanked 9,347 Times in 6,031 Posts


    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by FORD View Post

    We often hear it said that the United States is the greatest nation in the world.
    I have heard that said often but only ever by Americans.

    You hardly ever hear other nationalities say it about themselves, I think it's a complacent thing to say and not helpful to you at all.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  10. #8
    Dr. Lulz
    ROTH ARMY SUPREME
    Dr. Love's Avatar
    Member No
    124
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    03-02-2020 @ 09:51 PM
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,825
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    488
    Thanked 1,443 Times in 997 Posts


    Rep Power
    43
    Most empires throughout history have probably said it about themselves. When 1 nation can push around the rest, they tend to think themselves the greatest.

  11. #9
    Fuck this and fuck that
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:31 PM
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    58,671
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    3,391
    Thanked 6,281 Times in 4,711 Posts


    Rep Power
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by Seshmeister View Post
    I have heard that said often but only ever by Americans.

    You hardly ever hear other nationalities say it about themselves, I think it's a complacent thing to say and not helpful to you at all.
    Considering how big the British Empire once was, I'm sure somebody must have said words like that somewhere along the line, not so long ago. (And since Scotland is still occupied by the British, I'm sure you would have told them to fuck off if you heard them say it)

    Myself, I'd rather see the claim being made about the US for reasons of actual leadership in doing things that actually benefit the planet, rather than leading the destruction of it. Sadly, I don't think there's one legitimate area we could really claim to be the "greatest" in at the moment.

  12. #10
    Rice Cooker
    Crazy Ass Mofo
    knuckleboner's Avatar
    Member No
    120
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    03-07-2024 @ 03:10 PM
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    2,927
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 241 Times in 190 Posts


    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Love View Post
    FORD, I support what you're doing. I hope more people in this forum recognize that Bush, Romney and Obama all represent the same path for the country, and vote to change that. Meet the new boss ... same as the old boss.

    The two party choice is no choice at all.
    there's a pretty stark difference between the parties at this point.

    it doesn't mean they don't have effectively similar positions on a number of things.

    but there are a fairly large gap on a lot of issues. health care. funding education or transportation or the social safety net. environmental protections. women's issues. how to best to get the budget under control.

    it doesn't mean that either of the 2 parties should appeal to anybody. i certainly get frustrated by both at times. but they're not the same...
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  13. Thanked knuckleboner for this KICKASS post:

    Nickdfresh (06-24-2012)


  14. #11
    Dr. Lulz
    ROTH ARMY SUPREME
    Dr. Love's Avatar
    Member No
    124
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    03-02-2020 @ 09:51 PM
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,825
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    488
    Thanked 1,443 Times in 997 Posts


    Rep Power
    43
    I didn't say the parties, I said Obama, Bush and Romney.

  15. #12
    Banned
    REPENT AND SINS NO MO!

    Member No
    14
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    11-04-2021 @ 07:27 PM
    Location
    China
    Posts
    44,120
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,838
    Thanked 3,233 Times in 2,449 Posts


    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    They are the same when gay marriage, health insurance, the social safety net, environmental propaganda and womens issues are the main differences...

    The similarities between the parties far out weigh any perceived differences...


    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  16. #13
    Rice Cooker
    Crazy Ass Mofo
    knuckleboner's Avatar
    Member No
    120
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    03-07-2024 @ 03:10 PM
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    2,927
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 241 Times in 190 Posts


    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Love View Post
    I didn't say the parties, I said Obama, Bush and Romney.
    you said the two party choice was no choice at all. i pointed out some of the differences. and, everything i said is applicable to the candidates. yes, you can point out similarities. sometimes significant. but their proposals will be different enough.

    the social side is night and day. and the domestic investment side. yes, you'll say wiretapping. or gitmo. (i wouldn't quite say the wars, because i think obama was slower than he promised, but we did wind down combat operations in iraq, which i don't think would've gone the same way with president mccain. however, i never said they were 180 degree opposites. just that there's significant differences.

    there's still plenty of reasons to dislike both. just not always the same reason...

  17. Thanked knuckleboner for this KICKASS post:

    Guitar Shark (06-26-2012)


  18. #14
    Rice Cooker
    Crazy Ass Mofo
    knuckleboner's Avatar
    Member No
    120
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    03-07-2024 @ 03:10 PM
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    2,927
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 241 Times in 190 Posts


    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by ELVIS View Post
    They are the same when gay marriage, health insurance, the social safety net, environmental propaganda and womens issues are the main differences...

    The similarities between the parties far out weigh any perceived differences...


    you left out the budget issues, which are NOT insignificant. how we choose to fund or not fund transportation, education, water treatment plants, etc. is not a minor issue.

  19. #15
    Banned
    REPENT AND SINS NO MO!

    Member No
    14
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    11-04-2021 @ 07:27 PM
    Location
    China
    Posts
    44,120
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,838
    Thanked 3,233 Times in 2,449 Posts


    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    And those should be strictly state issues...

  20. #16
    Banned
    REPENT AND SINS NO MO!

    Member No
    14
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    11-04-2021 @ 07:27 PM
    Location
    China
    Posts
    44,120
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,838
    Thanked 3,233 Times in 2,449 Posts


    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by knuckleboner View Post

    the social side is night and day.

    There should be no social side to the federal government...

    there's still plenty of reasons to dislike both. just not always the same reason...

    And there's no reason to trust either side as each tries to sell you on the social issues of the day while they're busy strong arming the rest of the world...


  21. #17
    Dr. Lulz
    ROTH ARMY SUPREME
    Dr. Love's Avatar
    Member No
    124
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    03-02-2020 @ 09:51 PM
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
    Age
    43
    Posts
    7,825
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    488
    Thanked 1,443 Times in 997 Posts


    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by knuckleboner View Post
    you said the two party choice was no choice at all. i pointed out some of the differences. and, everything i said is applicable to the candidates. yes, you can point out similarities. sometimes significant. but their proposals will be different enough.

    the social side is night and day. and the domestic investment side. yes, you'll say wiretapping. or gitmo. (i wouldn't quite say the wars, because i think obama was slower than he promised, but we did wind down combat operations in iraq, which i don't think would've gone the same way with president mccain. however, i never said they were 180 degree opposites. just that there's significant differences.

    there's still plenty of reasons to dislike both. just not always the same reason...
    Maybe I'm looking at it in terms of what is actually done versus proposed and talked about.

    At the end of the day both parties at the federal level vote to do the same thing ... whatever the republicans want. :P
    Last edited by Dr. Love; 06-24-2012 at 01:17 PM.

  22. #18
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Nitro Express's Avatar
    Member No
    7682
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:53 AM
    Location
    Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Posts
    32,703
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 3,991 Times in 3,230 Posts


    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by knuckleboner View Post
    there's a pretty stark difference between the parties at this point.

    it doesn't mean they don't have effectively similar positions on a number of things.

    but there are a fairly large gap on a lot of issues. health care. funding education or transportation or the social safety net. environmental protections. women's issues. how to best to get the budget under control.

    it doesn't mean that either of the 2 parties should appeal to anybody. i certainly get frustrated by both at times. but they're not the same...
    I think the parties are divided on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and that sort of thing. They really are the same more than they differ. Republicans say they are for small government but under Republican rule the government has intruded into our lives more and more and has spent more and more. The Democrats say they are the party of peace, transparency, and liberal freedom. They support war, are very secret, and want to take your right to free speech away.

    Both parties want to control us by taking our money, not giving us any say in what they do, they want to shut us up, and say they own everything and we are to do what we are told. This is where they are the same. How they sell themselves to the public with their lies is what differs.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  23. #19
    Rice Cooker
    Crazy Ass Mofo
    knuckleboner's Avatar
    Member No
    120
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    03-07-2024 @ 03:10 PM
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    2,927
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 241 Times in 190 Posts


    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by ELVIS View Post

    There should be no social side to the federal government...

    so you oppose the defense of marriage act?

  24. 2 users say thank you to knuckleboner for this KICKASS post:

    FORD (06-24-2012),jhale667 (06-24-2012)


  25. #20
    Rice Cooker
    Crazy Ass Mofo
    knuckleboner's Avatar
    Member No
    120
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    03-07-2024 @ 03:10 PM
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    2,927
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 241 Times in 190 Posts


    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Love View Post
    Maybe I'm looking at it in terms of what is actually done versus proposed and talked about.

    At the end of the day both parties at the federal level vote to do the same thing ... whatever the republicans want. :P
    the recovery act was far from perfect, but it did have some significant federal investment that today's republicans never would've supported. and the house republicans keep voting to dramatically change medicare. if there was a republican senate and a republican president right now, the only thing stopping serious changes would be the possiblity of a democratic filibuster.

    though, i would have to agree, the republicans, vote-our-way-or-we'll-burn-the-house-down policy has been...effective...

  26. #21
    Fuck this and fuck that
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:31 PM
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    58,671
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    3,391
    Thanked 6,281 Times in 4,711 Posts


    Rep Power
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by ELVIS View Post
    And those should be strictly state issues...
    Transportation should be a state issue?

    I think you and I both know that if Eisenhower had left the Interstate Highway system up to "the states", there probably wouldn't be one. Except for maybe I-5 on the West Coast. And maybe I-95 on the East Coast. Which would probably start at the Canadian border in Maine, and end at the Virginia state line.

    And even the US highway system which preceded it wouldn't have existed. No Highway 99 in the west. No Route 66, for fucks sake!

    Well if you ever plan to motor west..... fuck it, you can't get there from here, because us red state asshat governors don't believe in funding roads that lead to librul sodomite California!


  27. Thanked FORD for this KICKASS post:

    jhale667 (06-25-2012)


  28. #22
    Banned
    REPENT AND SINS NO MO!

    Member No
    14
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    11-04-2021 @ 07:27 PM
    Location
    China
    Posts
    44,120
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,838
    Thanked 3,233 Times in 2,449 Posts


    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    I don't see your point...

  29. #23
    Cunning Linguist
    DIAMOND STATUS
    jhale667's Avatar
    Member No
    7379
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    04-07-2016 @ 01:20 AM
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    20,929
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    8,152
    Thanked 4,110 Times in 2,874 Posts


    Rep Power
    82
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  30. #24
    Banned
    REPENT AND SINS NO MO!

    Member No
    14
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    11-04-2021 @ 07:27 PM
    Location
    China
    Posts
    44,120
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,838
    Thanked 3,233 Times in 2,449 Posts


    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by knuckleboner View Post
    so you oppose the defense of marriage act?
    of course...

    I oppose any federally unconstitutional act...

    The federal government needs to stay out of such things...

  31. Thanked ELVIS for this KICKASS post:

    Dr. Love (06-24-2012)


  32. #25
    Banned
    REPENT AND SINS NO MO!

    Member No
    14
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    11-04-2021 @ 07:27 PM
    Location
    China
    Posts
    44,120
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,838
    Thanked 3,233 Times in 2,449 Posts


    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jhale667 View Post

  33. #26
    Fuck this and fuck that
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:31 PM
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    58,671
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    3,391
    Thanked 6,281 Times in 4,711 Posts


    Rep Power
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by ELVIS View Post
    of course...

    I oppose any federally unconstitutional act...

    The federal government needs to stay out of such things...
    I don't remember you objecting when the 5 BCE appointees on the Federal Supreme Court decided that Florida didn't have the right to count ballots (December 12,2000).

    Or when the idiot who occupied the White House because of that decision decided he would declare war on someone who "tried to kill my daddy" (which, in reality he didn't), depsite the very clear language in the Constitution that spells out that only Congress can declare war.

    Or when 4 of those same Supreme Court flunkies, and the extremely unqualified corporatist Opie looking shill (who replaced the pill popping dead racist Rehnquist) declared that corporations were "people" and that money was "speech" (Shittyzens United)

  34. #27
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Nitro Express's Avatar
    Member No
    7682
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:53 AM
    Location
    Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Posts
    32,703
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 3,991 Times in 3,230 Posts


    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    94
    We can thank Adolf Hitler for the interstate highway system. Eisenhower just made a cheap copy of the Autobahn. Like the internet it was built for military purposes, the public just get to enjoy the use of it.

  35. #28
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Nitro Express's Avatar
    Member No
    7682
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:53 AM
    Location
    Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Posts
    32,703
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 3,991 Times in 3,230 Posts


    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by FORD View Post
    I don't remember you objecting when the 5 BCE appointees on the Federal Supreme Court decided that Florida didn't have the right to count ballots (December 12,2000).

    Or when the idiot who occupied the White House because of that decision decided he would declare war on someone who "tried to kill my daddy" (which, in reality he didn't), depsite the very clear language in the Constitution that spells out that only Congress can declare war.



    Or when 4 of those same Supreme Court flunkies, and the extremely unqualified corporatist Opie looking shill (who replaced the pill popping dead racist Rehnquist) declared that corporations were "people" and that money was "speech" (Shittyzens United)
    I think Saddam was working for daddy and then daddy double crossed him. He did yell on the way to the gallows he had been double crossed. At least Saddam died like a man. A Bush if put in his situation would be a whimpering crybaby.

  36. #29
    Fuck this and fuck that
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:31 PM
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    58,671
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    3,391
    Thanked 6,281 Times in 4,711 Posts


    Rep Power
    143
    If Adolf had stopped after the Autobahn and the Volkswagen, he might have been remembered as one of the greatest innovators of the 20th Century. Unfortunately he had to throw in that whole "let's execute 12 million people in concentration camps and try to invade the whole fucking planet" thing.

  37. #30
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Nitro Express's Avatar
    Member No
    7682
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:53 AM
    Location
    Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Posts
    32,703
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 3,991 Times in 3,230 Posts


    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by ELVIS View Post
    of course...

    I oppose any federally unconstitutional act...

    The federal government needs to stay out of such things...
    Here's one for you. Mormon temple marriages are not legally recognized by the state. Civil marriages are not recognized by the LDS Church as far as counting towards their eternal becoming gods program. So what Mormons do is get civilly married by buying the license and having the proper paperwork notarized and then they get married in the Mormon temple. So essentially they are married twice to satisfy both state and religious authorities.

    So lets just call the legal part of marriage a civil union and then people can add whatever else they want to it. That's what the Mormons do. If a church decides they don't want gay marriage then fine. But legally we could have civil unions to cover the whole custody, visitation rights, and who gets what crap.

  38. #31
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Nitro Express's Avatar
    Member No
    7682
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:53 AM
    Location
    Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Posts
    32,703
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 3,991 Times in 3,230 Posts


    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by FORD View Post
    If Adolf had stopped after the Autobahn and the Volkswagen, he might have been remembered as one of the greatest innovators of the 20th Century. Unfortunately he had to throw in that whole "let's execute 12 million people in concentration camps and try to invade the whole fucking planet" thing.
    When Adolf couldn't get into art school he should have gone into the automobile business. The man really did have a talent there. He wasn't so good at taking over the world. He had a great military machine financed by bankers like grand daddy Bush and great generals, micromanaged his way to failure. If he would have just stuck to cars and transportation, he would have done better.

  39. #32
    Loon
    SUPER MODERATOR

    Nickdfresh's Avatar
    Member No
    8719
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:40 AM
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Age
    53
    Posts
    49,064
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    3,454
    Thanked 4,560 Times in 3,448 Posts


    Rep Power
    116
    Ferdinand Porsche designed the Beetle, not Adolph....
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  40. Thanked Nickdfresh for this KICKASS post:

    SunisinuS (06-24-2012)


  41. #33
    Banned
    REPENT AND SINS NO MO!

    Member No
    14
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    11-04-2021 @ 07:27 PM
    Location
    China
    Posts
    44,120
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,838
    Thanked 3,233 Times in 2,449 Posts


    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    Hitler used mind control to make Porsche do it...

  42. #34
    Loon
    SUPER MODERATOR

    Nickdfresh's Avatar
    Member No
    8719
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:40 AM
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Age
    53
    Posts
    49,064
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    3,454
    Thanked 4,560 Times in 3,448 Posts


    Rep Power
    116
    Well, he must have had some serious powers because Porsche designed a lot of weapons for the Third Reich, including a version of the Tiger tank that was rejected and later used as a chassis for a giant tank destroyer called the Elefant...

    The military version of the Beetle was known as the Kubelwagen (later the civilian version was called "The Thing") and was the German counterpart to the US Jeep...

  43. #35
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Nitro Express's Avatar
    Member No
    7682
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:53 AM
    Location
    Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Posts
    32,703
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 3,991 Times in 3,230 Posts


    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    94


    The coolest military derivative of the beetle was the Schwimvagen. Looking at the YouTube videos it looks like quite a few in Europe have been restored.

    I saw a thing parked along the side of the road with a For Sale sign on it. The guy wanted too much money for it thinking it was more collectable than it really was.
    Last edited by Nitro Express; 06-24-2012 at 10:22 PM.

  44. #36
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Nitro Express's Avatar
    Member No
    7682
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:53 AM
    Location
    Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Posts
    32,703
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 3,991 Times in 3,230 Posts


    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    Ferdinand Porsche designed the Beetle, not Adolph....
    Porsche was the engineer but Hitler wanted the car streamlined like a beetle and the original drawing Hitler hashed out still exists. Hitler was who designed the program that made the Volkswagen. The car had to travel 80 miles an hour, hold two adults and five children, and be manufactured at a maximum cost of 1000 marks. It was the Work for Joy program and you got a book and you bought stamps for five marks and when you filled the book with stamps you went and picked up your new car. Of course the war got in the way of that and nobody got their car. Hitler built the largest car plant in the world in Wolfsburg. It's still there. He chose the location and it turned out to be a good one with it's access to the railroad and canal system. Some say Porsche just copied the Tatra which was a streamlined rear engined air cooled car.



    Streamlined cars were all the rage in that part of Europe in the 30's. It could be Hitler was just following the trend and Porsche made it happen but really that design of car was done by Tatra first.
    Last edited by Nitro Express; 06-24-2012 at 10:40 PM.

  45. #37
    Fuck this and fuck that
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:31 PM
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    58,671
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    3,391
    Thanked 6,281 Times in 4,711 Posts


    Rep Power
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro Express View Post
    Here's one for you. Mormon temple marriages are not legally recognized by the state.
    Technically speaking, NO religious marriage is. The only thing that is recognized by the state is a piece of paper with signatures on it. One of which may very well be the minister who performed the ceremony. But it's still that piece of paper which makes it official, and not the ritual played out before God, and all your family and friends.

    And that's exactly how it should be. Separation of church and state - which Thomas Jefferson AND Jesus Christ both preached about - is the answer here. And because of that, churches have no right to say who can and can not get a marriage license. And the state has no right to tell a church/synagogue/mosque/coven/etc what kind of religious ceremony they can perform (as long as it isn't something otherwise illegal like human sacrifice or some fucking weird thing like that)

  46. Thanked FORD for this KICKASS post:

    jhale667 (06-25-2012)


  47. #38
    ALABAMA CHROME!
    Head Fluffer
    qikgts's Avatar
    Member No
    27766
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Online
    04-11-2017 @ 03:00 AM
    Location
    IKH
    Posts
    498
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    237
    Thanked 79 Times in 58 Posts


    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitro Express View Post
    Porsche was the engineer but Hitler wanted the car streamlined like a beetle and the original drawing Hitler hashed out still exists. Hitler was who designed the program that made the Volkswagen. The car had to travel 80 miles an hour, hold two adults and five children, and be manufactured at a maximum cost of 1000 marks. It was the Work for Joy program and you got a book and you bought stamps for five marks and when you filled the book with stamps you went and picked up your new car. Of course the war got in the way of that and nobody got their car. Hitler built the largest car plant in the world in Wolfsburg. It's still there. He chose the location and it turned out to be a good one with it's access to the railroad and canal system. Some say Porsche just copied the Tatra which was a streamlined rear engined air cooled car.



    Streamlined cars were all the rage in that part of Europe in the 30's. It could be Hitler was just following the trend and Porsche made it happen but really that design of car was done by Tatra first.
    Great video! I had never seen or heard of a Tatra before this. Thanks for sharing it!

    Pretty forward thinking in that car. As Jay points out, a lot of similarities to the Tucker. I dig that air cooled, Hemi headed V8!
    Last edited by qikgts; 06-25-2012 at 03:22 PM.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  48. Thanked qikgts for this KICKASS post:

    Nitro Express (06-26-2012)


  49. #39
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Nitro Express's Avatar
    Member No
    7682
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:53 AM
    Location
    Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Posts
    32,703
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 3,991 Times in 3,230 Posts


    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by FORD View Post
    Technically speaking, NO religious marriage is. The only thing that is recognized by the state is a piece of paper with signatures on it. One of which may very well be the minister who performed the ceremony. But it's still that piece of paper which makes it official, and not the ritual played out before God, and all your family and friends.

    And that's exactly how it should be. Separation of church and state - which Thomas Jefferson AND Jesus Christ both preached about - is the answer here. And because of that, churches have no right to say who can and can not get a marriage license. And the state has no right to tell a church/synagogue/mosque/coven/etc what kind of religious ceremony they can perform (as long as it isn't something otherwise illegal like human sacrifice or some fucking weird thing like that)
    Exactly. You buy the license and then have the documents notorized so your partner can visit you in the hospital, take care of your affairs as a family member and get half your gross assets when you get divorced. The church can sprinkle all the extra hocus pocus on it. The government is suppossed to stay out of that anyways, they just need to make sure it's legal and the joined partners have legal rights in the union as dictated by the law.

  50. #40
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Nitro Express's Avatar
    Member No
    7682
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 02:53 AM
    Location
    Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Posts
    32,703
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 3,991 Times in 3,230 Posts


    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by qikgts View Post
    Great video! I had never seen or heard of a Tatra before this. Thanks for sharing it!

    Pretty forward thinking in that car. As Jay points out, a lot of similarities to the Tucker. I dig that air cooled, Hemi headed V8!
    I never cared for Jay as a late night talk show host but when it comes to cars he knows his shit and really has an interesting collection of cars. What I like about Jay is he restores them to drivable condition and drives them. Yeah you take a risk of getting in an accident but machinery is so much better to see and hear it running than just sitting static. It is amazing how advanced some of the old cars really were for their time. I actually ordered the book on Tatras. It's an interesting read if you are into that sort of thing.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. R.I.P. The United States of America
    By FORD in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 226
    Last Post: 07-25-2011, 03:24 AM
  2. domestic (United States) or import CDs
    By Steve Savicki in forum House of Music
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-20-2004, 08:40 AM
  3. Any Fans of Newcastle United here?
    By Don Corleone in forum ALinChainz' Locker Room - Sports Central
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-26-2004, 06:38 PM
  4. what will happen to united states now?
    By frenchie in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-04-2004, 02:57 PM
  5. Italy 95, United States 78
    By ALinChainz in forum ALinChainz' Locker Room - Sports Central
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-04-2004, 08:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •