Charley Reese Sees a "Weimar Republic" in Our Future

King Features Syndicate | 07-23-03 | Reese, Charley

[Question_Assumptions]

Redistrict via computer to create compact voting districts instead of allowing state legislatures to create "safe" seats. That would solve a great many problems.

[Noumenon]

I support thae notion that another American Civil War is all but inevitable. It's the logical outcome of years of cultural, moral and philosophical warfare waged by the Gramscian Left. They won't give up until they're all dead or we're all in chains.

Take a look around - then turn around and take another look - who's winning the cultural war?

[Onelifetogive]

In the last two decades, I've met about thirty congressmen and senators. I have to say without exception I wouldn't hire any of them for minimum wage work. They were idiots to a man. But they were all democraps.

I recently had the opportunity to meet my Congressional Representative. He is a "Conservative Republican" who typically wins his district by a vote of 85% Rep - 15% Libertarian. No Demoncrat in the race. He was much the same as you describe.

He used his "Office Manager" as a butler and explained away his "Yes" vote on the "atrocious" Farm Bill because "It was going to pass anyway."

Made me want to puke!

[rdb3]

You didn't answer my question. I'm not talking about anything other than getting the answer to my question which is, are you supporting the notion that there should be another civil war?

It's a yes or no question.

[Noumenon]

The way you're phrasing it makes it begs other, more serous questions. But here's your answer anyway:

No one in their right mind actively wants war. Whether I think that there should be another American Civil War begs the question as to its inevitability or avoidability. 'Should there be a war' misses the real point. I'd just as soon see my kids and other kids grow up to face down the Machiavellian, Gramscian scum that dominate our universities and our culture without firing a shot. But the history of the Left and their success in co-opting and corrupting our culture and the very language we use to frame our debates suggests that a peaceful resolution is just not possible.

Would I fight in the next American Civil War - yes, and to the death - or rather, to my enemies' deaths. I will not fire the first shot, but when it starts, I know our enemies well enough to know that there shall be no rules of engagement. There shall be no quarter asked, and none given.

[Tauzero]

bttt

[Tauzero]

bttt

[Pagey]

It seems like a good thread for the:
ALL TIME CHILLING QUOTE OF THE DAY :
"The American People will never knowingly adopt Socialism,
but under the name of Liberalism
they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist Program
until one day America will be a Socialist Nation
without ever knowing how it happened----"
Comment courtesy of Norman Thomas, Six-Time Socialist Party Presidential Candidate
and one of the Founders of the ACLU.

They're so confident, that they're informing us of what they're intentions are.If that statement doesn't wake people up , nothing ever will.

[Pagey]

Anti-Socialism BUMP

[u-89]

>In the last two decades, I've met about thirty congressmen and senators. I have to say without exception I wouldn't hire any of them for minimum wage work. They were idiots to a man.

Adding to what you say I heard ex-rep. Bob Dornan a short while back say - "Now that I'm out of congress I can say this. There are a few really intelligent gifted people in the congress, Doctors, lawyers, etc. But 90% of those folks up on the hill couldn't earn $35,00 a year in the real world." He was saying that is why they are so intent on making a career out of congress with its 150 plus Grand a year plus bennies and graft (he didn't say graft though - I added the obvious).

[meadsjn]

I suspect Charley's choice of Weimar in this article is a thinly veiled attempt to paint Bush, or others like him, as a rising Hitler, which is absurd.

Hitler's socialist party came into power after a decade+ of economic decline during the Weimar republic years. Most of those economic problems were punishment by external forces for Germany's part in WW-I. Some were due to the inability of the Germans to elect sane or wise leaders.

A really bad economy split the major parties (all socialists of different sorts) enough for the NAZIs to grab power with a narrow plurality (not a majority). Hitler used street thugs to consolidate power and elevate himself to the level of dictator.

It is not Bush who would be compared to Hitler, but whoever the Democrats promote to "save" the country from really bad economic conditions -- conditions which can be traced to policies implemented during the Clinton decade.

[Triple]

25 was very well put.

I suspect you satisfactorily answered the (snotty?) question.

Best Regards,