(June 20, 2019 at 3:00 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 20, 2019 at 2:44 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: No, what Really tipped things in their favour was their opposition to the Young Plan, which would have lowered their WW1 debt at the expense of taking more time to pay it. Which sounds a lot like the alarmism the Tea Party had over the prospect of Obama putting Obamaca into action.

there is a major difference between obama care and the debt owed by germany via the treaty of versailles... The cost of the reperations for WWI germany owed was a fixed price.

Obama care in one term doubbled the national debt and the cost where only going up... do you understand the term doubled the national debt? it means to spend all of the money every administration before him from washington to bush 2 in a 4 year period... What sane person would allow this? what sane person would allow the next administration to continue down this same path!

You Republicans didn’t mind when Reagan did it.

The national debt went up 74% under Obama, the 5th largest increase percentage-wise. It went up about 101% under his predecessor and the economy crashed near the end of his last term. Obama got beat out for percentage increase by FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, and GW Bush. Seems like one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement left.

(June 20, 2019 at 4:39 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The national debt went up 74% under Obama, the 5th largest increase percentage-wise. It went up about 101% under his predecessor and the economy crashed near the end of his last term. Obama got beat out for percentage increase by FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, and GW Bush. Seems like one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement left.

Looking at the official numbers from the treasury, the last president to reduce the national debt was Eisenhower (for the 1955-7 fiscal year) and the last one to leave America with less debt than he inherited was Coolidge.

It’s almost like “small government” is just a meaningless buzzword that Republicans use to get voters, just like Drich seems to think socialism is and how Hitler actually used the word.

Source: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo...stdebt.htm

(June 20, 2019 at 12:59 pm)Drich Wrote:

(June 20, 2019 at 12:46 pm)Shell B Wrote: No, I'm not trying to make you seem like a bad guy. You didn't quote Hitler. You were giving your narrative of the events and used the words stabbed in the back. You may have quoted him elsewhere, but those words were not a quote, so I interpreted it to mean you think the Jews stabbed the Germans in the back. If you don't feel like that was the catalyst, I misunderstood you.

not only did I quote hitleri change the font and put a quote tag around it:

The Great war and German Defeat -- the rise of Nazism:
Their defeat in World War I gravely accelerated anti-Semitism among the German people. Many German writers and public figures (encouraged by the German Army General staff) explained the defeat with the "stab in the back" argument -- that Jews and communists had undermined morale at home when the army was still winning the fight in the field. This was of course far from the truth, for the German army was collapsing by November 1918 and much of the navy was already in mutiny. But thousands of Germans, unwilling to believe that defeat was inevitable after 1917, accepted the argument.
No person embraced the stab-in-the-back thesis with more enthusiasm than Adolf Hitler.
"...if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."

Quote: Wrote:Adolf Hitler, Speech to the Reichstag, January 30, 1939.

http://web.mnstate.edu/shoptaug/AntiFrames.htm

Then even left a link to the page where i got the quote

---

the sabbed in the back was the platform hitler used to described what they jews did to them according to the minnasots state university paper i direct quoted from in different font and provided a link to!

I see. At one point, you referred back to a link that I didn't read by saying "stabbed in the back," which wasn't quoted in that instance. My mistake.

Yeah, as fucked up as Drich can be, with his own racial blind spots (we all got 'em), it's safe to assume he's most likely not one of the many Neo-Nazis who support Trump. A useful idiot for them, perhaps, but not exactly one of them.

Yeah, I thought that was pretty fucking insane. Mea culpa

To be fair, the wording was a bit dodgy, but I'm willing to invoke Heinlein's razor here and assume he was trying to write it as what they thought and failed to properly clarify that was his intention. I've done that a couple times, though with the Nazis, I always try to be careful. As someone who's likely writing through emotion and not intellect, I suspect he's just been careless.

(June 20, 2019 at 8:25 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Yeah, as fucked up as Drich can be, with his own racial blind spots (we all got 'em), it's safe to assume he's most likely not one of the many Neo-Nazis who support Trump. A useful idiot for them, perhaps, but not exactly one of them.

That’s only because they would never take a half breed like him, although that doesn’t bother him and he would do their bidding without any payment or reward.

You sure about that?

Just as jewish police patrolled the ghettos, for a time.  White supremacy has -long- exploited cooperative non whites, and has even used that cooperation as the criterion for honorary whiteness.  

The original boogeymen of the south were poor (then) non white irish and scots who could ride a horse and hunt a person. No one was inviting them to the dinner party, but the opportunity to advance even slightly beyond ones own station was a compelling offer - and they had no particular love for africans - nor did they wish to continue to be compared to them.

It was the buy in for whiteness. Still took another century or so to get there. Cooperating non whites have far greater propaganda value than the members of The Race™. They signal power and authority, and not for nothing..they remind the non whites that they can't even trust each other to stand together when the boogeyman comes screaming through the moss.