Social Justice, Social Engineering, Eugenics; Right or Wrong?

[squarejohn]

The P-39 Bell Aircobra fired a 37mm cannon through the propeller hub. A lot of them were sent to Russia and served well as air support and anti-truck aircraft. The cannon was manufactured by Oldsmobile. It could go through any armor less than a actual tank.

By God, you're right. I would love to see the engineering drawings on the cannon/propeller hub arrangement.

 

[oggbashan]

While I do appreciate the fact that the US was late to the party, and could have been perceived as sissies and lightweights, you have to recall that the American voter at the time still had memories of WWI and they weren't pleasant. Given no American soil, until Pearl Harbor, was at risk, you might understand, with just a little thought, the lack of desire to sacrifice the nation's young men in yet another European agitation. As a matter of fact, more than once, I've heard that exact comment coming from Brits regarding the Iraq and Afghan Wars.

A small comment on part of your post:

Amicus Nullorum attacked the UK for being unwilling to stand up to Hitler in the 1930s.

The UK had lost a much higher proportion of its male population in 1914-18 than the US. Every town and almost every village had suffered casualties in that war and the injured servicemen were visible everywhere. Our country had been bombed and shelled. As an example, my parents' families (my father and mother were neighbouring children at the time) were bombed out of their apartment block by a Zeppelin in 1915. My eldest aunt had lost two fiancés on the Western Front, one in 1914, the other in 1918.

Our memories of the Great War were still very sharp in the 1930s. At the time it was thought that the bombers would always get through and civilian casualties would be horrific. Guernica was quoted as an example of what modern war would bring.

Hitler had been elected, originally, by a democratic process and was seen, not just by Germans, as bringing stability to the country after the massive inflation of the 1920s. Reclaiming the Rhineland was seen by many as justifiable because French claims for reparation were impossible for Germany to meet. Very few people realised the real motives of the Nazis until much later.

The prospect of going to war to prevent Germany reclaiming part of its own country was inconceivable to most UK voters.

By Munich in 1938 the mood was different. War was almost inevitable. The UK was unprepared, rearming as fast as it could, but unable to offer any meaningful help to Czechslovakia without the equivalent of UN peacekeepers and the League of Nations had no teeth at all.

It is easy to understand that the US had no wish to become embroiled in another European war. Their involvement in 1917/8 had been decisive but costly in men and material. Their concern, rightly so, was Japan that was fighting an aggressive war in China.

But the UK had no desire for war either. We had paid a heavy price in the First World War and were unready and unwilling to pay such a price again - until the last possible moment.

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What made Hitler inevitable was the Versailles Treaty ending World War I. By the terms of the treaty the USA got all of Germany's gold, France got all of Germanys agriculture and mineral production, and the British got all of Germanys manufactures. This left Germany impotent and destitute. Jewish communists and socialists ran riot across Germany, trying to foment civil war and association with the Soviet Union. And Hitler organized the Nazis to check the Jews. Hitler himself was 1/4 Jew.

From 1933 on Hitler broke every treaty and agreement Germany had with the Allies, and they merely fussed and bluffed and let him alone.

 

[xssve]

The first Luftwaffe kill was by a P-38.

 

[xssve]

What made Hitler inevitable was the Versailles Treaty ending World War I. By the terms of the treaty the USA got all of Germany's gold, France got all of Germanys agriculture and mineral production, and the British got all of Germanys manufactures. This left Germany impotent and destitute. Jewish communists and socialists ran riot across Germany, trying to foment civil war and association with the Soviet Union. And Hitler organized the Nazis to check the Jews. Hitler himself was 1/4 Jew.

From 1933 on Hitler broke every treaty and agreement Germany had with the Allies, and they merely fussed and bluffed and let him alone.

Which is why we adopted a "nation building" strategy after WWII - although since then we've mostly followed the "puppet dictatorship" model, designed to protect corporate interests rather than spread democracies (that might compete with us) in spite of the massive fail of that policy in Iran.

George Bush broke every treaty we had with anybody from 2000 on, just sayin'.

 

[driphoney]

[....]I do know, that for whatever reason, I find it fascinating and informative to learn of the courage and fortitude of the Brits during that very difficult time and then later when the 'Vengeance' bombs, the V1's began falling from the sky.

Oh, and to the Poster, (ColdDiesel) that gave a personal account, thank you so much for relating your thoughts, feeling and memories for that period of time.

Amicus

A small comment on part of your post:

Amicus Nullorum attacked the UK for being unwilling to stand up to Hitler in the 1930s. [....]


Og

*sigh*

Why am I feeling lectured again?

I know you dislike Amicus with every fiber of your being, but the poster I replied to was responding to JBJ. The European continent is your back porch whether you like it or not. You were forced to deal with it or face the consequences. By your own account, the UK was unwilling and/or unable to step-up until forced to, so even though Ami's earlier comments might have been a bit acrimonious, he wasn't far off?

As for casualties, in both wars the UK in population percentage was much more greatly effected than the US. In WWII though, the numbers for both countries are strikingly low when compared to the Soviet Union, China and a few others. In both wars, your European neighbors owed the UK and the British Commonwealth a debt of gratitude I doubt they've ever fully acknowledged. However, if as JBJ pointed out, Germany had been dealt with more fairly by the Allies at the Treaty of Versailles, perhaps Hilter might not have gained a foothold? As a party to those negotiations, the US did have an accountability and responsibility to later events. But hindsight is 20/20 and all that. At the time few probably saw it.

I'll step away now and just read about the merits of radar and various aircraft.

 

[xssve]

However true it is, the US was equally unwilling to stand up to Hitler, we really didn't give a rats ass what Hitler did, and didn't enter the war until we were bombed by the Japanese, didn't devote all that much attention to Europe until after the battle of Midway.

We basically went to war with Japan, and in fact, a lot of Americans, including apparently ami, were in fact sympathetic to Hitlers cause, to the point they like to establish the Fifth Reich, which is what this thread is all about.

ami has cast himself and his racist, homophobic, chauvinist, fascist, kleptocratic "bretheren" as the Master race, and we're the Jews and the commies and the homosexuals that are perversely keeping him from his rightful place as overlord, it's very obvious to him we're inferior, and utterly maddening to him that we don't recognize it, which he reads as merely another sign of our obvious inferiority - he hates "elitists" because he's an elitist, hates communists because he cant' stand the idea of anyone being his equal.

If he respected anybody, he wouldn't be playing these childish word games, and I wouldn't be forced to waste my time repudiating his bullshit for the record, but that's the price of freedom.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

Hitler made distinctions with Jews; for example, if you earned an Iron Cross during WW1 you were immune from Nazi persecution. Some he personally sponsored for emigration to Britain or wherever. But you were dead meat if you were socialist or communist and Jewish.

Besides, Stalin murdered more people than Hitler and you worship Stalin's memory.

 

[driphoney]

However true it is, the US was equally unwilling to stand up to Hitler, we really didn't give a rats ass what Hitler did, and didn't enter the war until we were bombed by the Japanese, didn't devote all that much attention to Europe until after the battle of Midway.

We basically went to war with Japan, and in fact, a lot of Americans, including apparently ami, were in fact sympathetic to Hitlers cause, to the point they like to establish the Fifth Reich, which is what this thread is all about.

ami has cast himself and his racist, homophobic, chauvinist, fascist, kleptocratic "bretheren" as the Master race, and we're the Jews and the commies and the homosexuals that are perversely keeping him from his rightful place as overlord, it's very obvious to him we're inferior, and utterly maddening to him that we don't recognize it, which he reads as merely another sign of our obvious inferiority - he hates "elitists" because he's an elitist, hates communists because he cant' stand the idea of anyone being his equal.

If he respected anybody, he wouldn't be playing these childish word games, and I wouldn't be forced to waste my time repudiating his bullshit for the record, but that's the price of freedom.

I tend to stay out of the political threads and I should have this one, too. I haven't seen all that you just spelled out about Amicus from his posts here.

But I have seen a lot of hatred. Lots. All the way around.

Lots of people on both sides throwing all kinds of accusations around. And you've all been doing that, I guess, for years and years. The hatred is palpable.

For just fighting "basically" the Japanese, the numbers seem to tip the other direction with 183,000+ military casualties in the Atlantic theater and 108,000+ in the Pacific. Patton, I've read was much more likely to throw away lives than McArthur and I don't know the total serving numbers.

I never thought that having the right to hold and express opposing viewpoints was a price to pay, but rather one of the beautiful freedoms in an equal, free and open society.

Anyway. I hate acrimony of any kind, so I'm truly moving on now. I like a good non-personal debate, but this name calling and hatred is depressing. I like too many of you to get tangled up in it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm re-reading BUREAUCRACY by James Q.Wilson.

Hitler defeated the French inspite of French supremacy in aircraft, tanks, and transport because Hitler knew something important about French bureaucrats: They refused to install radios in the airplanes, tanks, and trucks.

German panzer divisions were huge. Hitler needed 80 trains to move one division to the French border, and one trainload of tanks stretched 70 miles on the road. But the French had no radios to send word back to headquarters! or talk with each other in the field. The Germans used horses to pull wagons and artillery but had plenty of radios.

 

[Boxlicker101]

XSSVE

Hitler made distinctions with Jews; for example, if you earned an Iron Cross during WW1 you were immune from Nazi persecution. Some he personally sponsored for emigration to Britain or wherever. But you were dead meat if you were socialist or communist and Jewish.

Besides, Stalin murdered more people than Hitler and you worship Stalin's memory.

For one thing, Stalin was the enemy of some of our enemies, and therefore a friend. For another, many influential people considered Communism to be the wave of the future, and didn't want to knock an exponent of it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

For one thing, Stalin was the enemy of some of our enemies, and therefore a friend. For another, many influential people considered Communism to be the wave of the future, and didn't want to knock an exponent of it.

Yet I find it amazing that neither Britain nor France declared war on Stalin when he joined Hitler invading Poland. I just read a Russian book about the war, and old Stalin was a mother fucker with his own people; but, God Bless Roosevelt, we loved Old Joe.

 

[xssve]

XSSVE

Hitler made distinctions with Jews; for example, if you earned an Iron Cross during WW1 you were immune from Nazi persecution. Some he personally sponsored for emigration to Britain or wherever. But you were dead meat if you were socialist or communist and Jewish.

Besides, Stalin murdered more people than Hitler and you worship Stalin's memory.

I'm not a communist James, neither was Stalin, just another kleptocrat like Hitler.

In fact, this whole notion that the left reveres Stalin, is one of those bits of bullshit nobody falls for but the righties who invented it - right before they start rationalizing about trains running on time, "at least".

 

[Pure]

notes on Hitler

I'm glad the Hitler Rehabilitation Society of Florida is still up and running. But it's best to stick to the straight facts, not misrepresent them. It would require an army to fact-check all the outpourings, as it would for Fox news, but on a couple points:

JBJ[After WWI] Jewish communists and socialists ran riot across Germany, trying to foment civil war and association with the Soviet Union.

In July 1932, a crucial election where the NSDAP group "nazi party" polled 37%, 13.7 million,

The social democrats (SPD) polled 20% or 8 million, and the communists (KPD) polled 14% or 5 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932.

Now, the number of Jews in Germany was about a half million, so clearly the issue is not simply "JEWISH communists and socialists" running about. Jews--though prominent in some professions-- were only about 1% of the German population, though mixing was common.

====
JBJ Hitler himself was 1/4 Jew.


Historian John Toland, in Adolf Hitler [1976], a standard bio, says,

"There is a slight possibility that Hitler's grandfather was a wealthy Jew named Frankenberger, that Maria Anna [Schicklgruber] had been a maid in this Jewish household. at Graz and that the young son got her pregnant." (p.4)

Cecil Adams at "Straight Dope" reviewed the evidence, which is mostly hearsay, and concluded

But while Hitler probably didn't have any Jewish blood, it can't be completely ruled out. Hitler's father was illegitimate and to this day there is some question about who his grandfather was. [...]
so far as can be determined, Maria Schicklgruber never lived in Graz. Frank's source for the Frankenberger yarn was a distant relation of Hitler's, who supposedly had letters exchanged by the Frankenbergers and Maria Schicklgruber. (It's claimed they gave her child support.) But neither the relative nor the letters have ever surfaced, and chances are it's all a crock.

So who really was Hitler's grandfather? Werner Maser {Hitler scholar} thinks it was the brother of his legal grandfather, one Johann Nepomuk Hiedler.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/797/was-hitler-part-jewish
==

James B Johnson said [After WWI] Jewish communists and socialists ran riot across Germany, trying to foment civil war and association with the Soviet Union. And Hitler organized the Nazis to check the Jews. Hitler himself was 1/4 Jew.
===

Sources

As to Germany's Jewish Population

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005276



According to the census of June 16, 1933, the Jewish population of Germany, including the Saar region (which at that time was still under the administration of the League of Nations), was approximately 505,000 people out of a total population of 67 million, or somewhat less than 0.75 percent. That number represented a reduction from the estimated 523,000 Jews living in Germany in January 1933; the decrease was due in part to emigration following the Nazi takeover in January. (An estimated 37,000 Jews emigrated from Germany during 1933.)

===
Further sources as to Hitler's background.

http://www.helium.com/items/954309-was-hitler-jewish

A closer examination of his family history shows that he had reason to believe he had Jewish ancestry though any definitive answer to this question will probably remain a mystery. [...]

It is possible that Maria worked as a domestic in a house with the name of Frankenberger. The consensus of serious opinion makes Johann Nepomuk the grandfather; the man who raised Alois, though historian Fest writes that Johann Nepomuk eventually claimed his brother was the real father. As biographer Kershaw points out, the question of family in-breeding becomes more obvious if Johann Nepomuk is the grandfather, which would make him the grandfather of both Adolf and his mother Klara Poelzl. Both historians Toland and Fest believe that there was only a slight chance of a Frankenberger or Frankenreither being Alois's father.
====

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Hitler_part_Jewish

Was Hitler part Jewish?
In: Urban Legends, Adolf Hitler
Answer

No. Ian Kershaw covers the matter thoroughly in his excellent two-volume biography of Hitler, pub. in 1999. On pages 7-9 of Vol. 1 Kershaw dispells the myth with overwhelming facts, and explains the origins of the myth.
[...]
Answer

No, he was not. http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/questions/hitler-jewish.shtml "Hitler's grandmother was not Jewish.

Quotation:

There are some rumors hinting that Hitler's grandfather was Jewish. Few, if any, of the reputable historians on the Holocaust believe that this is so. It is more likely that Hitler tried to keep the murky history of his family quite secret because there was a high incidence of insanity and feeble-mindedness in his ancestors.
Rumors die hard, though.

 

[Trudy_Antone]

Eugenics is a repulsive practice.

It was tried in the Balkans, it was tried by Hitler (Some of the aryan daughters I saw in the 60s were Very Very pretty).

I got the impression that this was also practised to some extent by Brigham Young and his Merry Men at one time (if you didn't fit, you were out).

Used by the Australian government until the 50's early 60's. The Stolen Generation, whitish aboriginal children, taken from their families, trained to be servants, in the hopes that the station owner or his white hands would beget children on them, eventually breeding out the black.

Also used to sterilise the intellectually handicapped.

And yes, it IS a repulsive practice.

 

[amicus]

Used by the Australian government until the 50's early 60's. The Stolen Generation, whitish aboriginal children, taken from their families, trained to be servants, in the hopes that the station owner or his white hands would beget children on them, eventually breeding out the black.

Also used to sterilise the intellectually handicapped.

And yes, it IS a repulsive practice.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Thank you for your insight on Australia; something few would know about without your comments.

I added Eugenics almost as an afterthought to emphasize and add clarity to my distate for 'social justice' and 'social engineering', with eugenics being the logical and inescapable conclusion of those who feel they can 'modify' society to their own desired ends.

For the cost/benefit ration of those States with National Healthcare, the inevitable limitations in service will always fall on the imperfect young and the aged, as ethics and morals are ignored and the end result is the only measurement of success.

It is not necessarily the content of my Posts that infuriates some; it is the implication that I understand what the lack of a moral and ethical foundation can lead to, and I make it painfully clear to those with rose colored glasses that they will be called out.

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

A new departure was the mixed paired sculls and fours. In the double sculls the woman faced the man and spread her legs around the man’s hips. As they rowed he thrust into her and she thrust back. The seat was designed to accommodate two asses and slid beautifully. The first practice sessions had been a disaster. Neither rower had been conce
ntrating on the scull’s direction only on the techniques of thrust and counter thrust. Several of the sculls hit the bank with unfortunate consequences for the man’s erection. The fours were similar to the paired sculls but with two couples.

It is sad to report that only the sprint mixed events were successful at this Olympics. If the course could be traversed in less than a minute then this innovation was practical. If the race lasted longer than a minute the man (or men) had ejaculated and was useless. The 5000 meter paired sculls took two hours to complete because the women rowers had to wait for the men rowers to recover each time. The 10,000 meter race was abandoned because all the male rowers were snoring.

 

[Trudy_Antone]

You continually ignore the statistics that prove that the countries with National Health Care have better life expectancies and generally better health AT A LOWER COST.

I have to agree with Og here. I am blessed to live in a country with National Health Care, having been subjected to a number of major medical procedures, as well as my child. I have never paid a cent for any of those treatments - only indirectly, through taxes. Nor have I had to wait days, weeks, or months for those treatments. The latest statistics given last week at a Uni class, were that Aus is now number two in the world, just behind Japan, in terms of life expectancy.

I firmly believe that the principles of capitalism should never be applied to healthcare. Something that should be freely available to all, can never be run as a profit industry. Immediately the system is prejudiced against lower wage earners and pensioners.

And a further note on the Stolen Generation: The long term effects on this country, in terms of racial tension, have been disastrous. Studies show that the majority of stolen generation kids were forced into religious institutions where they were abused by nuns and priests, or were sent to stations or mines as 'workers', read: slaves. Meanwhile, the white australian public were misled to believe that these children were being given opportunities to 'better themselves'. These beliefs are still upheld today despite the overwhelming evidence. In 2007, Kevin Rudd, PM, gave an official 'Sorry' to the Stolen Generation. It was a moving, healing, amazing speech. That was the first day I felt proud to have become an Australian.

 

[ishtat]

Yet I find it amazing that neither Britain nor France declared war on Stalin when he joined Hitler invading Poland. I just read a Russian book about the war, and old Stalin was a mother fucker with his own people; but, God Bless Roosevelt, we loved Old Joe.

Probably because Stalin did not join Hitler in invading Poland. Hitler invaded first and Stalin only joined in about 2 or 3 weeks later when Poland was already effectively beaten. Stalin only wanted an excuse to take territory in Eastern Poland.

Similarly Stalin waited until August 1945 before declaring war on Japan so that he would have an excuse to annex the islands to the north of Japan

 

[driphoney]

Linking National Healthcare to Eugenics is what I have come to expect from you, Amicus. Your statement "the inevitable limitations in service will always fall on the imperfect young and the aged, as ethics and morals are ignored..." is a LIE.

There are limitations in health provision in universal cover but nowhere near as many as in the US's expensive system where much health care except emergencies is totally denied to those without money or insurance. I consider that as unethical and immoral - but it is your country's decision.

You continually ignore the statistics that prove that the countries with National Health Care have better life expectancies and generally better health AT A LOWER COST.

Your stance is immoral and unethical.

Og

Do you know how Amicus' healthcare is covered?

Healthcare costs are rampant, and got that way when lawyers got involved. Malpractice is a huge problem. Pharmaceuticals also seem to get their pay-off for research out of the pocket of the American sick, too. Bureaucratic red-tape required by insurance and the government also piles a lot of expense onto the cost of even a simple visit. Doctors now have to justify every single procedure they perform. The system needs an overhaul. Badly. Those who are unaffected by it, don't see it, but to those who have been, it's a big wake-up call.

But you do know we have Medicare and Medicaid, right? And every state has a program for uninsurable children whose families fall above the Medicaid requirements. Some states are better than others, sadly.

All seniors qualify for Medicare now. All poor qualify for Medicaid (even if they seem to have to battle their way into the system.) Finding a doctor who will accept Medicare and Medicaid is becoming and bigger and bigger problem from what I hear, in certain regions. The government pay-outs are too low for some types of medical care.

The system is broken for the "uninsurable" middle-class American, those with a serious, long-term or chronic disease or disorder, or the underinsured - which is just about anyone with the previously listed serious or long-term health issue.

I do have friends who get free meds from pharma by qualifying by being underinsured, but that's not a guaranteed program.

I just get the impression non-Americans think sick people are dropping like flies in the streets. In spite of all of those negatives, and they aren't pretty, most Americans get the care they need. Even those without insurance.

As to quality. I should walk away from this, but I can't. The United States is one of the few top economic countries in the world that accepts (happily or not) a large number of poor. The poor bring with them healthcare challenges that are not easily fixed. It's more than a doctor visit. It's education and economics, and can't happen overnight. This effects statistical outcomes in healthcare and help to contribute to the US looking less perfect when compared to our "first world" cousins.

In a pluralistic society, none of these issues are easy.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-babiessider_08met.ART.State.Edition1.3568b80.html

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2010-07-01/skiphollandsworth.php

 

[oggbashan]

In a pluralistic society, none of these issues are easy.

We too are a pluralistic society. We too are having difficulties with the numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, and their health needs.

There is an article in today's The Times from an American listing the things he likes about the UK. One of the things he mentions is that on entry he was X-rayed to see whether he had tuberculosis.

He asked what would happen if he had TB. Would he be deported?

"Of course not," was the shocked reply, "We'd treat it."

Our system isn't perfect. No health system is. But in the UK and most European countries treatment for every health condition, even if long standing and persistent, is given without asking whether the patient can pay.

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Lotsa people dont understand how Medicaid and Medicare payments work.

Back in the 60s old folks and poor folks went to the county hospital or old folks home in every county. It was free to the patient but expensive for the county.

So Lyndon Johnson came up with the idea of M & M. Private MDs and hospitals agreed to treat old people and poor people for a discount price based on volume; they made less money per patient but filled the hospitals and offices with paying patients! Pro bono charity vanished.

Over time M & M added money to pay for record keeping and overhead. The MD and hospital still make less money for each patient but they get lotsa extra money to pay for their computers and clerks etc.

This practice is common with many agencies who use private professionals to do essential work for the agency. The professional accepts one bag of gold for however much work the agency sends.

 

[driphoney]

We too are a pluralistic society. We too are having difficulties with the numbers of immigrants, legal and illegal, and their health needs.

There is an article in today's The Times from an American listing the things he likes about the UK. One of the things he mentions is that on entry he was X-rayed to see whether he had tuberculosis.

He asked what would happen if he had TB. Would he be deported?

"Of course not," was the shocked reply, "We'd treat it."

Our system isn't perfect. No health system is. But in the UK and most European countries treatment for every health condition, even if long standing and persistent, is given without asking whether the patient can pay.

Og

Contrary to apparently common belief outside the US, most Americans know how universal government-run health programs work, even if we don't know the nuts-and-bolts of each system. And we also know that free at point of contact is not free. Someone pays.

But I get the impression non-Americans think a large portion of the US population is dying right and left from non-treatment. That's not the case.

From what you write, you appear to believe that once the US adopts universal government-run healthcare, our per-person cost will fall, and our health stats will rise. True?

Is Wiki right, the UK has a 92.1% white? I couldn't find a further breakdown. (US: 79.8% and Texas: 70.6% with only 51% non-Hispanic white for a factoid comparison.)

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]
But I get the impression non-Americans think a large portion of the US population is dying right and left from non-treatment. That's not the case.[...]

Maybe from your point of view.

Empirically, many Americans ARE dying right and left from non-treatment. That's how the life-expectancy figures get skewed downward.

I don't think non-Americans think we are dying right and left from non-treatment. I think they are simply shocked at the immoral foundations of the American healthcare system. It's sobering to realize that the most powerful nation in the world will not even provide basic healthcare for its citizens, preferring to let many of them simply die slow deaths for lack of money to get non-emergency care.

Couple the healthcare stand of the Republicans with their constant xenophobic demogoguery and willingness to start unprovoked wars, break treaties on torture, and deny scientific evidence of environmental disaster in the pursuit of ever-greater profit... That's why non-Americans have concerns. That's why non-Americans gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize - for defeating the Republicans. That feat alone merits the recognition, in terms of world peace and human rights.

 

[Epmd607]

I advocate organized labor entering into insurrection.