Posted on 01/25/2014 12:31:50 PM PST by absentee
Maybe not the Tea Party, but certainly they're afraid of their own slide toward irrelevance. The protesting hippies of the '60s and '70s who've been running the country the past decade or so are retiring, dying off, or being squeezed out by the more pragmatic kids of the Reagan era. People don't think enough about how generational the government is.
Liberals are TERRIFIED of the Tea Party, and they are pulling out all the stops in order to attack it.
TEA Party = Freedom. LIB moonbats hate your Freedom. LIBs can’t kill it...can’t control it...can’t eliminate it. LIBs are such complete losers & fools. Freedom will crush their insanity.
“Freedom will crush their insanity.”
So true!
And taxpayers pay for them.
So?
self ping to read later.
Lindon Baines Johnson on the Equal Rights Amendment and his War on Poverty:
“If I get this legislation past, I’ll have those niQQers balls in my pocket for the next 150 years.”
Matter of public record. He did in fact and in deed say just those words.
And just damn, was he ever RIGHT ON THE MONEY!
OOHHH, BTW!!
His own party REJECTED HIM! He got it done with REPUBBIE help!
Go Figure.
(Algore Senior, Byrd from WV, Slick Willie’s hero, Fulbright [Fuldull?] and MANY OTHER dem heavyweights in both the Senate and House, OPPOSED LBJ on this.
Stupid pubbies bailed him out. Nothing changes.)
Hahn is employing one of the leftist age old tactics called “intimidation via laughter”......What a Richard
“The American left is indeed an American national socialist movement”
So let’s refer to them as ANSIs instead of NAZIs. It’ll make people say “What? Who?” and give us an opportunity to explain it to them without actually using a direct comparison to Hitler’s regime.
Chris Hahn is a world class jackwagon.
“Stupid pubbies bailed him out. Nothing changes.”
So true and I’m getting really tired of it.
So, yeah, on paper the Nazis hated commies, but not for the usual reasons we think.
They only hated the commies who didn't OBEY or comply.
Too bad for the Nazis that there were enough commies willing to go to their graves who would not obey.
I'm not an expert in history, even though I love it. But I never "got" WHY Roosevelt would have given away Eastern Europe to Stalin.
Yes, we needed the soviets to win WWII in Europe, but Patton knew what the commies were up to and wanted to push them back.
Same deal with Churchill. He knew the score, but did nothing to stop Roosevelt from getting rolled.
“I’m not an expert in history, even though I love it. But I never “got” WHY Roosevelt would have given away Eastern Europe to Stalin.”
One reason is that the war in the Pacific was still raging and we wanted the USSR to join us in the fight. No one knew ahead of time that the atomic bombs would end the war, and if invasion was required to conquer the Home Islands it was going to be a long and brutal fight with a huge casualty count.
Another reason is that we would have had a very difficult time preventing a Soviet takeover of eastern Europe. We weren’t at war with the USSR but opposing them on eastern Europe might have resulted in one, and if you want to see how that would have turned out just look at the supply lines for the opposing sides. War is often determined by logistics.
“but Patton knew what the commies were up to and wanted to push them back.”
It’s a pity so few WWII vets are still with us. My father is one and he served under Patton when Patton commanded 7th Army. Those soldiers were very tired of war when Germany surrendered. They had been fighting in Europe for years at that point and they were all expecting to get shipped to the Pacific. Picking a fight with Soviet Russia at that point would have been crazy. It only looks good on paper to people living many years later.
I had not thought of the wanting the Soviets in the Pacific, if need be.
But, WOULD they have helped us? I don't know what kind of aid they provided when the war was going on.
So after V-E, were the Soviets "war weary" too?
I trust Stalin less than zero, and my guess is that the would have done nothing.
The problem I have is the total capitulation to the Soviets.
Roosevelt and Churchill could have said no to Soviet expansion of the Iron Curtain at Yalta.
I'll grant the sickness of FDR. The man was on his deathbed at the time.
Wish he'd included Truman. Why didn't he?
He HAD to know he wasn't long for this world.
Why not pass the knowledge to your successor?
Hell, FDR kept the A-bomb a "secret" from his own veep.
Again, why?
“But, WOULD they have helped us? I don’t know what kind of aid they provided when the war was going on.”
The Russians provided soldiers and a lot them. Many Americans are not aware that the largest battles that the German Army fought were against Russia. Without the Eastern Front there is no way that the Allies could have landed on the European mainland. Germany was far too strong until they bled themselves fighting the USSR.
“So after V-E, were the Soviets “war weary” too?”
Probably, but they found the energy to gobble up two northern Japanese islands before Japan surrendered. If the war had gone on longer they would have taken even more.
“The problem I have is the total capitulation to the Soviets.”
There wasn’t total capitulation. America and England needed Russia to keep fighting on the Eastern Front. Stalin had the option of stopping at the Russian frontier which would have freed up German divisions to be sent west to fight us. That’s the last thing that we wanted. Fighting was tough enough without giving Germany the chance to double its forces in the west.
Again, the idea that we should have risked alienating the Soviets is a luxury afforded only to those living long after the war. A Germany free to turn all of its firepower to the west is a far different animal than the one that we defeated.
Now, had the Germans not expended so many resources at say Stalingrad, would they have been able to stop the Allies in Europe?
Conventional wisdom says that Hitler ONLY lost, because he split his armies in third.
Eastern front with Soviets (a MILLION men lost), Southern front in Africa, and Western front, directly with US/ UK.
What think you if Hitler had said to hell with the Soviets?
Could he have won WWII?
And in your opinion, what would he have done with the Pacific, had he beaten us in Europe?
But the fact was that the Soviets were just as tired of fighting and Soviet brass had given orders to let the Americans through Berlin if they wanted to. The Americans never tried and the rest is history.
They have been desperate for years.
The Outlaw Lois Lerner is the proof of the desperation. The full force of the government was and still is being used to destroy the tea party concept.
Heads must roll....... literally
The only difference between Chris Hahn and Upchuck Shoemer is Chris’s nose doesn’t wear glasses!
Of course the only reason that Russia was fighting Germany is that Hitler double crossed Stalin after they had divided Poland between them. The USSR would have remained Germany’s ally except for that.
If Hitler had abandoned Barbarossa at an early date I think Stalin would have been satisfied with protecting his own borders and this would have freed Hitler to move the bulk of his divisions west. It is very unlikely that we could have successfully invaded mainland Europe if he had done that.
But I don’t think Hitler had a chance of winning WWII. The British Empire and the USA would have continued to control the seas and to choke off Germany’s ability to trade. We likely would have had a stalemate in Europe until the atomic bomb made its appearance, or until the German officer corp finally managed to succeed with one of its attempts to assassinate Hitler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.