The Politics of Christopher Gambino/America

ItalianStallion

ISAW wrote:

communism was the greatest threat we have ever faced. ...but the cause of communism has killed more people in the last century then anything except abortion.

I would point to the fact that one can claim Imperialism did more damage than communism. In particular "imperialism" can encompass Mao and Stalin as well as the US French British germans Belgians Dutch, Japanese etc. some were democracies, some dictatorships some monarchies but all sought to extend their political and ecomomic control over others. I wonder where you get your abortion stats but I would remind you that theUS and China have legal abortion. Ireland doesn't!

We have strayed from the point of violent crime as opposed to non violent crime. Are you really suggesting that hitting drug pushing overlord is worse than his running his business without actually physically attacking anyone?[/QUOTE]

are you actually trying to argue that aggravated volient crimes are only as bad as federal ones? how do you think sentencing should opperate? what about though crimes like they have in france?

ISAW

ItalianStallion wrote:

ISAW wrote:

Double plus ungood you beginning [I suggest you contact some military historians at West Point and ask is Napoleon was a joke as a general. Dont judge results by Google. ever search under "WMD" and hit the "I feel lucky" button?]
bing an enlisted man in the FCA for a few years makes you no athority.

I have eleven years national service not a few years! It included border duty. I didn't claim that I was an authority I suggested you ask your own West Point authorities.
Your snob attitude to rank is misplaced as 1. you are not aware of several members of my family who were career military, indeed I took a US officer out to dinner last week. 2. there were reasons for my choice which you also do not know, one of which was being able to compete at all ammy level. 3. I have studied some West Point text writers history, in particular Washington and Alexander. I have also practiced strategy wargaming for the last twenty years and been beaten by the best of them (particularly in Napoleonics).

I did read Caesar's Gallic Wars but I also studied Roman History. Finally I did not claim that I was an authority I refered you to your own US military school.

Alexander the Great, subdued the largest tract of the earth’s surface ever to be conquered by a single individual save Genghis Khan’s short-lived empire.


Many of the same points can be found here: http://www.simaqianstudio.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2910
You will note that only the British and Russian Empires were larger than Ghengis Kahn's.

Anyway as I alluded to "who is the greatest?" is a pointless argument for school kids and is OT. I was only pointing to the fact that Alexcander is highhly regarded in military history as a strategic master and not as you have suggested!

I can and have supported what I have stated. I do not argue from authority and your gainsaying of my supported claims wont dismiss them.

I won't entertain this line any longer. Go and ask someone from West Point or whatever acceptable international military "authority" you care to mention!

Now back to the point. anti semite means just that. Yes it means against jews but semites are also other people e.g. Palestineans! It is a bit like some Republicans/Nationalists robbing the meaning from anti-Irish and then claiming that people from the North of Ireland who are not Republican or Nationalist can not claim that discrimination against them is anti-Irish. But in practical terms the Unionist/Loyalist element are more likely to have put themselves in this position since they claim to be British! Ironically there are still circumstances where they see themselves as Northern Irish or even Irish. However, the current understanding is that one can claim to have either identity, or both but I dont think the words or none have been added.

Anyway all this is off the point again. I and other non semites am not anti semetic but some elements of the semites are!

Sisu

ItalianStallion wrote:

whats wrong with dictatorships when they are good ones? i fully support heroes like Franco, Pinochet, De Valera and that guy in Argentina in the seventies.

Do you really believe that Franco, Pinochet and Galtieri are not objectionable? Do murder, torture and disappearances not offend your moral values?

ISAW

Sisu wrote:

Do murder, torture and disappearances not offend your moral values?

It would seem that some people believe that democratically elected governments are not acceptable when it does not suit their own designs. Supporting human rights violating dictators is another trait commonly shared. Communist russia showed much the same policy as does Islamic funamentalists and indeed the US have a similar record in Central and South america. Colombia is only one example! Empires do not support moral nor natural law! Their primary drive is to impose the will of their central controlling body over the choice of the ruled.

A number of points have been alluded to in this regard.

1. that the rich and powerful have a right and a duty to rule over the poor and powerless.
2. that this right arises from a natural order.
3. that there is a natural hierarchy of people.
4. that even in a democracy a powerfull leader should subvert the will of the majority if he thinks it correct to do so.

all these points tread on both areligious ideas of freedom and Christian ideals.
Only point four has very rare extennuating circumstances.

If you encourage the open holding of guns and other weapons then this is what happens:
http://www.tgia.net/Most_Wanted/Gilbert_Alejandro/gilbert_alejandro.html
Remind you of anyone?

ItalianStallion

It would seem that some people believe that democratically elected governments are not acceptable when it does not suit their own designs. Supporting human rights violating dictators is another trait commonly shared. Communist russia showed much the same policy as does Islamic funamentalists and indeed the US have a similar record in Central and South america. Colombia is only one example! Empires do not support moral nor natural law! Their primary drive is to impose the will of their central controlling body over the choice of the ruled

1. that the rich and powerful have a right and a duty to rule over the poor and powerless.
2. that this right arises from a natural order.
3. that there is a natural hierarchy of people.
4. that even in a democracy a powerfull leader should subvert the will of the majority if he thinks it correct to do so.

all these points tread on both areligious ideas of freedom and Christian ideals.
Only point four has very rare extennuating circumstances.

Ever read the "Syllabus of Errors" by Blessed Pius IX? I agree with his condemnation of democracy as not befitting a truly Catholic State. do you want to say the His Holiness was not regarding natural law? it has generally been democracies that deny this principal through legislation and expeidency.

ItalianStallion

It would seem that some people believe that democratically elected governments are not acceptable when it does not suit their own designs. Supporting human rights violating dictators is another trait commonly shared. Communist russia showed much the same policy as does Islamic funamentalists and indeed the US have a similar record in Central and South america. Colombia is only one example! Empires do not support moral nor natural law! Their primary drive is to impose the will of their central controlling body over the choice of the ruled.

A number of points have been alluded to in this regard.

1. that the rich and powerful have a right and a duty to rule over the poor and powerless.
2. that this right arises from a natural order.
3. that there is a natural hierarchy of people.
4. that even in a democracy a powerfull leader should subvert the will of the majority if he thinks it correct to do so.

all these points tread on both areligious ideas of freedom and Christian ideals.
Only point four has very rare extennuating circumstances.

whats worse, a dictator who kills a few thousand avowed communist scumbags, or democracies (including my own republic) that legalizes the murder of hundreds of thosands of the innocent unborn?

If you encourage the open holding of guns and other weapons then this is what happens:
http://www.tgia.net/Most_Wanted/Gilbert_Alejandro/gilbert_alejandro.html
Remind you of anyone?

ok, that seems like a good reason for the public to be armed. that man has a gun illegally. i do not want to see more restrictive gun laws introduced, but would like to see the current laws inforced instead. we say in Texas that i'd rather have a gun and not need it then need a gun and not have it.
if you look at the national stats, a person with an illegal weapon is 2000% more likely to commit a crime then someone with a legal one. hmmm... that would imply that the VAST majority of legal gun owners are law abiding citizens (like myself). I do encourage vigalanteism though.

ISAW

ItalianStallion wrote:

Ever read the "Syllabus of Errors" by Blessed Pius IX? I agree with his condemnation of democracy as not befitting a truly Catholic State.

You are contradicting the sence of several of your statements up to now! I won't rehearse them. As to taking to the high ground with self justification and assuming the authority of Papal Encyclicals, carefull who you quote!

I refer you to Section four of the above document, and to paragraph 13 of "Qui Pluribus" and particularly to paragraph 8 of "Quanto Conficamur".

I took an oath to serve my country. Please refrain from posting any personal details about me such as whether or not I have military service. I argue based on the words I write and not from authority as someone who is any better than anyone else or who has personal experience of something others have not had and therefore is somehow "better". If you want to "square off" with me I am happy to be "on the level" or "on the square" with you should you prefer but please keep personal comments out of it and don't try to claim you personally come from position you do not necessarily adhere to. That would be rather hypocritical if it happened wouldnt it?

ItalianStallion

Do you really believe that Franco, Pinochet and Galtieri are not objectionable? Do murder, torture and disappearances not offend your moral values?

no one has the right to be a communist. communism has generally been relegated to the dust bins of history accept for great nations like north korean, china and france.

Nietzschean

ugh same as other thread, shup kids.