40 Of The Most Powerful Photographs Ever Taken

http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/most-powerful-photographs-ever-taken

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

FINALLY SOMEONE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION! very important to read.

 

 

 

FINALLY SOMEONE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION! ON "ABC-TV" DURING THE "NETWORK SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE".... OBAMA WAS ASKED:   "MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW 'UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM' THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????"   THERE WAS A STONEY SILENCE AS OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER IT !!! IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS."WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT." AND THEY DID. IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE "KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL" WAS WRITTEN INTO THE NEW HEALTH CARE REFORM INITIATIVE ENSURING THAT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE 100% EXEMPT ! SO, THIS GREAT NEW HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU AND I... IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA, HIS FAMILY OR CONGRESS...?? WE (THE AMERICAN PUBLIC) NEED TO STOP THIS PROPOSED DEBACLE ASAP !!!! THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG !!!!! PERSONALLY, I CAN ONLY ACCEPT A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL THAT EXTENDS TO EVERYONE... NOT JUST   US LOWLY CITIZENS.... WHILE THE   WASHINGTON "ELITE" KEEP RIGHT ON WITH THEIR GOLD-PLATED HEALTH CARE COVERAGES.   If you don't pass this around, may you enjoy his Plan! WHAT??? The Republic has a CONSTITUTION??? Amendment 28 Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States . Imagine what we could do if everybody passed this around.

 

.

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

A Man’s Guide to Wearing Shorts

OT bur kneelingly important.

A Man's Guide to Wearing Shorts Few items in a man's wardrobe seem to elicit as much debate as shorts do. Today we'll uncover just why that is, and then offer some guidelines on the how, what, where, and why of wearing them. Guidelines I'm sure will be much debated! Let's get right to it. Why are some men reluctant to wear shorts? Why is there so much confusion about such a simple garment? In the late 19th and early 20th centuries there were a number of English words for shortened men's pants. "Knickerbockers" were baggy pants that gathered below the knee, covering it. Shorter, tighter-fitting trousers that ended at the knee were "knee pants." "Short pants" sometimes meant knee-pants and sometimes meant shorter garments still. All of these varieties were clothing for boys, both unofficially and as part of many school uniforms. Grown men didn't start wearing shorts outside of extremely hot climates until after World War II, during which soldiers stationed in the tropics had been issued short trousers both for comfort and to ration cloth. In the post-war years, shorts caught on as a specific uniform for some kinds of sports and recreation. They weren't fashion items or clothing that could be worn outside of a specific athletic activity — much the same way that a biker's spandex shorts and jersey wouldn't be worn off the bike path today. Tennis players might wear shorts on the court, but would clean up and change into trousers before socializing afterward. In the middle of the 20th century, shorts were considered athletic-wear only. "Shorts" was more likely to refer to a man's boxer shorts, which he wore under his pants. Shorts as a piece of comfortable, casual summer wear for men did not show up until the 1950s. Even then — championed by trendsetters in Hollywood and other men in the spotlight — the idea took a long time to catch on as "normal."   There are still plenty of men alive today who remember shorts being basically clothing for young boys. Shorts are a modern addition to a man's wardrobe and thus are still finding acceptance.  Although common everywhere in North America, they are not common wear in many other parts of the world (to include hot climate countries).    Interestingly, while shorter trousers have gradually become acceptable in most arenas, athletic shorts went through a major shift from short, boxer-style shorts to longer mesh shorts in the 1980s. These days it's unusual to see the extremely short athletic shorts that end as soon as the hip turns into the thigh, though some runners do still wear them. For team sports, mid-thigh or longer has become the rule. So shorts, at the end of the day, still have a boyish association. That's no longer a cultural expectation, and no one's going to think you've lost your mind if you wear them. Clothing manufacturers love the idea of being able to sell men even more pieces of clothing each season, and men love the cool comfort shorts provide, so that genie is unlikely to ever go back into the bottle. But it is still something we, particularly if you're an older man, instinctively think of as "boyish," even when we're not conscious of making that judgment. When to Wear Shorts Shorts are a casual piece of menswear. So when to wear them? The simple answer is two-pronged: 1. When there's a good reason to (temperature, environment, location) and 2. When you're not conducting business or attending a formal ceremony/event Recreation with family and friends is always a good default category for "shorts times." Beaches, private parties, outdoor sports and recreation, and anything else purely for fun and not in the company of strangers or business associates is definitely in the clear. Even those situations, of course, need appropriate weather: wearing shorts when it's cold out is going to draw attention. Wear them when it's hot enough that you really want them, and switch to light trousers as soon as it's bearable. In our modern world it also seems worth saying that a man who plans on leaving an air-conditioned house to get in an air-conditioned car and drive to an air-conditioned building can endure wearing trousers no matter what the weather is like. At the point where you have that much climate control you might as well wear the sharper-looking garment that better compliments your build. FYI – The only people that can violate these rules are Californians.  Please see Seinfeld. Target practice in Australia is a perfect occasion to wear shorts. When to Skip the Shorts Business dealings of any kind call for trousers. Even if it's just an informal game of golf, wear a pair of light trousers instead of shorts, regardless of whether other men are wearing shorts or not. Take a cue from the pros here (the exception being John Daly). Any sort of structured event outside the immediate family and close friends is also a time to avoid shorts. Even casual luncheons, picnics, weddings, or other outdoor, summery sorts of events should merit light trousers if you'll be meeting strangers or relatively unfamiliar acquaintances. Never wear shorts anywhere a jacket or blazer is expected. If the situation calls for that level of formality, it also calls for more formality than shorts offer. A few cultures have exceptions to this (shorts with blazers and ties are acceptable business wear in Bermuda, for example), but in most of the world it looks both out of place and a bit confused. Finally, be aware of wearing shorts when traveling the world.  In many countries it clearly marks you as a tourist and may draw unwanted attention. How to Wear Shorts Well As a lesser-worn piece of menswear, shorts prompt all kinds of questions: How long should they be? How baggy? How many pockets? Belt or no belt? And so on. How Long Should Shorts Be? The far left pair are too short in my opinion. What do you think? Short enough that your knees are visible or just slightly covered if standing still. Long enough that you're not showing the world you rarely tan your thighs; if I have to be specific, I would go more than 2-3 inches above the knee, depending on your proportions. Barron from the Effortless Gent backs me up here. Anything past the knees has ceased to be "shorts." Those are high-cut pants, which is something else entirely (and not very flattering). Shorts that do come up to mid-thigh should be limited to lightweight athletic shorts, and should only be worn in athletic settings. Running shorts get more leeway than casual shorts because the expectation is that you're not going to walk into a store or restaurant wearing them. Exercise devotees should bear this in mind, and should go home and change (and shower) before inflicting themselves on the public outside of gyms, courts, or bike paths. How Loose Should Shorts Be? To some extent this is a matter of taste and style. Worth keeping in mind, however, is that shorts add bulk to the upper part of your legs only. Your lower legs will be bare, meaning that everything above them will look thicker by comparison. The baggier your shorts are, the thicker the look. So baggy shorts make your butt and thighs look big — not a look most men are seeking. A close fit in the seat and straight legs down to the top of the knees looks good on most men. The style is reminiscent of military shorts, and their descendents, the Bermuda shorts, which are good classic styles that people have had a generation or two to get used to by now. A baggier fit is sometimes common on the golf course, where it evokes the knickerbockers previously favored in the sport. These should obviously always be belted, preferably with a canvas and leather belt. Pockets, Patterns, and Styles in Shorts "Cargo shorts" or safari shorts with side, front, and back pockets are great for hiking or working outside anywhere that's hot but not particularly overgrown (or otherwise hazardous to bare legs). Outside of that, they don't have much of a role in your wardrobe.   Let me be clear here: baggy, multi-pocketed shorts don't look great in social settings.  These are ultra-casual and should not be worn to college social events. Solid colors such as tan, khaki, white, navy, olive, and off-white are the most traditional styles for men's shorts. Plaids, especially plaids with a white base, are a preppy look staple, but should be paired with at least a polo shirt to avoid looking like a frat boy (and no collar pop, please). Madras pushes the prep look even further, and should be worn with caution. Notice how color affects the mood of the same pair of shorts. By introducing a brighter color you can take shorts from boring to eye-catching. Louder-patterned shorts, the kind that look like Hawaiian shirts for your lower half, should be saved for beach vacations and Jimmy Buffet concerts. (Interestingly, these are often referred to as "Bermuda shorts," presumably because of the tropical association, but true Bermuda shorts are civilian versions of traditional military uniforms from the Pacific islands and are almost always khaki or white cotton). What to Wear with Shorts Can You Wear Socks with Shorts? Can you? Yes. Should you? Only sometimes. Socks and sandals is an appropriate pairing for old German men on vacation and no one else. So if you're wearing sandals, which is what you'd expect when it's hot enough to need shorts, skip the socks.  And sandals are the most casual option: fine for beachwear, not OK for a graduation party. Shorts worn with closed-toed shoes usually look best with ankle socks. Mid-calves are starting to cover almost as much skin as just wearing trousers would have, and if you're going to be that covered you might as well look better in trousers. Knee socks and shorts are downright laughable. Slip-on casual shoes like boaters or loafers are also good companions to shorts, and don't require socks (though if you need them for comfort inside the shoe, most good shoe stores will have "ballet" or "invisible" socks that don't show above the shoe). Shirts that Go with Shorts Shorts are casual, so the shirt should be too. Don't wear a long-sleeved, button-fronted, collared shirt with shorts. Even with the sleeves rolled up it's too much of a stylistic mix-and-match. Collared short-sleeve shirts are usually the best choice for men who want to look good but stay cool and casual. These can range from button-fronted (seersucker is particularly nice) to your basic monochrome polo shirt. Hawaiian shirts, like loud-print shorts, should be reserved for occasions where a little obnoxious tackiness is part of the fun — tiki bars yes, regular bars no, even near a beach. T-shirts and shorts is a look that flatters no one. It may be appropriate in casual settings, but it's not going to make you look as good as other options. Blazers or Jackets and Shorts This is a very fashion-forward pairing. In a few parts of the world, most notably Bermuda and South Africa, shorts with business shirts and blazers is actually an established style, and tailors will happily make you a "suit" with short pants instead of trousers. Outside of those countries, however, it's very much a "fashion-forward" look. If you're looking for more fashion-forward ways to wear shorts, visit Josh and Travis here. Materials for Shorts Before closing, it's worth noting a few of the cloth choices men have for shorts. These are garments meant for the most extreme heats of the year, so there's little point in wearing them if they're not made from something lightweight and breathable. Unfortunately, the most comfortable fabrics are often more expensive to produce, so a lot of mass-marketed shorts will be made with a thick cotton that's worse than wearing full trousers of a lighter, more breathable material. Cotton Shorts Cotton is a great menswear material for heat — if it's woven right. It's lightweight and breathable and is by far the easiest to wash and dry without special care. However, tight weaves of cotton hold hot air close to the body, and sweat or water evaporates from it very slowly. Seersucker is one of the lightest cotton weaves, with a dimpled surface that lets air flow. It's a joy to wear in the summer and one of the best options available. Madras (true Madras cloth, not just the reddish plaid print) has a very loose weave that lets air flow and dries quickly. There's very little domestic production in the United States, so it can be costly unless you happen to be in India. Gauze is more commonly associated with medical bandages, but the large weave with its visible square gaps was used for tropical military uniforms for some time and is reappearing in consumer clothes as well. It's another good option, though not as durable as Madras or seersucker. Drill or twill are both tighter weaves that hold in more air and moisture. Unfortunately, they're also cheap and common, and make up the majority of most commercial lines. Wear them when you need a bit more durability but aren't expecting to exert yourself too much. Linen Shorts Linen trousers are more common than linen shorts, but if you can find a pair they're very lightweight and comfortable. Linen tends to wrinkle more than cotton, but the distinctive creases are part of the style, like the bumps in seersucker. Don't bother trying to smooth them out. Wool Shorts  Tropical-weight wools are used for summer trousers because of wool's smooth drape, but that property is largely wasted in shorts. There's not a real reason to buy wool shorts, even ones made from very nice, lightweight wool. Synthetics Athletic shorts are usually made of synthetics like nylon or spandex. For the most part this is beneficial — the loose weave of basketball shorts keeps the artificial fibers from holding in heat and sweat, while newer synthetics can actually wick moisture away from the skin and let air flow even better than a cotton weave. Want more?  Then click on the image below to see Primer's visual guide to wearing shorts! Also – don't forget AOM's guide to dressing in hot weather. In Conclusion Watch the video to have me talk you through the article. Shorts are a modern classic piece of menswear with a storied history. They have a place in every man's wardrobe.  Just make sure you wear them right!   Written By Antonio Centeno Founder of Real Men Real Style Author of the Internet's Largest Style Video Library No related posts.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Mark Levin Calls ‘em As He Sees ‘em

New post on Fellowship of the Minds Mark Levin Calls 'em As He Sees 'em by catscanner150 Levin: Al Sharpton 'an a-hole,' should be fired for comparing GOP to Hitler Published: 7:55 AM 05/30/2012 By Jeff Poor Bio | Archive | Email Jeff Poor Follow Jeff Poor Get Jeff Poor Feed   On his radio show on Tuesday night, Mark Levin led off with a scathing attack on MSNBC host Al Sharpton, for which he ultimately said it was time for him be let go for comments he made on his radio show last week. According to Levin, conservative commentators are held to much stricter standards than Sharpton, who Levin said manages to get away with a lot more despite a questionable track record. "There are lines," he continued. "And the lines for conservative talkers are much tighter, much harsher than they are for the others. Al Sharpton is a disgrace, and yet everybody is afraid of him. He's on the radio. NBC News hires him on at MSNBC, or 'MSLSD' as I call it. He brings nothing to the table, nothing. He can barely speak in complete sentences. He's a race-baiter in my opinion. You saw what he did in Florida — he was the first on the scene, if not one of the early ones, the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case and that's certainly not the first. And yet, he's considered that controversial. But today I'm calling for the firing of Al Sharpton." Levin said this was a first for him to call for a firing. But the occasion was spurred on by comments Sharpton made on his radio last week picked up by Radio Equalizer's Brian Maloney, when Sharpton suggested Republicans wanted to wipe out African-Americans "like what was done in Hitler's Germany   Listen to Sharpton accuse Republicans of 'wip[ing] out innocent people':  "It seems like they [Republicans] act as though, some wiping out of people, some of the right-wing, is all right. It's not all right to do to any innocent people," Sharpton said. "If you had war and people — that's one thing, but to wipe out innocent people just because of who they are like what was done in Hitler's Germany, or what was done to Native Americans, is not justifiable." Levin went on to call those remarks unacceptable and raised the question what exactly Sharpton's role was as a commentator. "This vile statement by Al Sharpton, which as I interpreted was accusing Republicans of genocide, is unacceptable to me under any circumstances and I think for most of you, too," Levin said. "And if I don't bring it up and I don't play it, and I don't highlight it, it's not going to be dealt with. This guy has gotten away from the beginning of his phony civil rights career to this day with comments like this with virtually anything he wants to do or say. "What is he?" he continued. "Is he an activist? Rabble-rouser? Radio host? TV host? Civil rights leader? What is he? He's an a-hole. That's what he is." That't putting it kindly, he's more like the jackass's a-hole Tom in NC catscanner150 | May 31, 2012 at 11:12 am | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-eKs Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/mark-levin-calls-em-as-he-sees-em/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

More cannibalism in the 21st Century: Iranian prof cut & ate wife’s lips

New post on Fellowship of the Minds More cannibalism in the 21st Century: Iranian prof cut & ate wife's lips by Dr. Eowyn "Without God ... everything is permitted." - Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (1880) "Windows" by Tatiana Nazarenko, 1944, Russia -- from the series "A Thin Veneer of Civilization" Has the world gone mad? Is the veneer of human civilization thinner than we'd like to think -- and cracking? First, it was the Japanese "artist" who fed his cooked genitals to diners each paying $250. Then it was that naked man eating the face of a homeless man in Miami. Now it's a professor from Iran who cut off and ate his wife's lips because she had insulted his "honor" by allegedly having an affair. Richard Orange reports for the UK's Daily Mail, May 31, 2012, that a former associate professor at Sweden's prestigious Karolinska medical institute is being held in police custody for cutting off his wife's lips with a knife and then eating them in Stockholm. The man is from Iran and was doing post-doctoral research at the institute in 2010. According to Sweden's Aftonbladet newspaper, the 52-year-old man flew into a jealous rage over suspicions that his much younger wife had been having an affair. In a closed court hearing, the man admitted to cutting off his wife's lips, saying it was retaliation. A source with knowledge of the matter told Aftonbladet, "It was honour related. He doesn't seem to regret a thing. He believes she insulted him." The assault was so brutal that the prosecutor tried to have him charged for attempted murder. But the court downgraded the charge to aggravated assault. Ingela Hessius Ekman, who represents the victim, said her client may have suffered irreparable damage. "She has very serious injuries, doctors can not yet determine whether she can be healed or not. She's in a lot of pain." The trial is due to start at the beginning of July. In the meantime, the cannibal attacker is employed by a university in Tehran, but still lived partly in Stockholm, where he collaborated with his old research group at the university and used its library and email services. According to Sweden's English-language news source The Local, the unnamed attacker reportedly has several children from a previous marriage, but a few weeks after divorcing his first wife he married a much younger woman -- the victim of his vicious assault. A former colleague called news of the attack "a shock" and recalled the researcher as "friendly" when they worked together. The man is scheduled to undergo a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation before the expected filing of a formal indictment by June 7th. ~Eowyn Dr. Eowyn | May 31, 2012 at 11:12 am | Categories: Art, crime, Insanity, Media | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-eKw Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/more-cannibalism-in-the-21st-century-iranian-prof-cut-ate-wifes-lips/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: A gay Canadian conservative....and i thought I was the only one...LOL

ok

On May 31, 11:17 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> or who one
> chooses
> to hop in the sack with.
>
> This covered the Gay thing....
>
> On May 31, 9:56 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I do believe that like me,  most
> > people don't care what one's religious preferences are,  or who one
> > chooses
> > to hop in the sack with.  ...... The same can be said for race or
> > culture.   As
> > long as your liberty interests don't interfere with my liberty
> > interests,
> > then all is right with the world!
> > ---
> > you left out homosexuality
>
> > own it
>
> > On May 31, 10:29 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hey Bear,
>
> > > I do know folks who are on the right, and are also clueless.....However I
> > > am by no means the exception here.   I do believe that like me,  most
> > > people don't care what one's religious preferences are,  or who one chooses
> > > to hop in the sack with.  The same can be said for race or culture.   As
> > > long as your liberty interests don't interfere with my liberty interests,
> > > then all is right with the world!
>
> > > I do have an issue with folks who in my opinion are detrimental to our
> > > Nation's well being, and who advocate for large, central government.
> > > Those individuals who don't have an understanding of our history.   Those
> > > who believe that "Marxism";  "Socialism",  "Communism";  "Trotskyism", and
> > > "Maoism" are truly wonderful political and economic systems,  but we just
> > > haven't had the right folks try and implement these types of systems yet.
>
> > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > *Yes I ran across his blog a while back. he has a good head on his
> > > > shoulders.
>
> > > > I was just talking to a buddy about the blog I posted and realized that I
> > > > have " come out" 3 times. Gay, Conservative and Atheist. Atheist is the
> > > > hardest. People have very harsh reactions when you tell them that you just
> > > > don't believe in their god. And don't want them wasting their time praying
> > > > for you. Some of the reactions that I have gotten have been very harsh.
>
> > > > Living in our national capital, a very left wing city, you learn not to
> > > > try and reason with the lefties. They don't even try to argue their case.
> > > > Just get insulting and call you names.
>
> > > > I can't tell you the number of insults I've gotten along with just amazed
> > > > looks when you tell someone that you are gay and a conservative. Traitor is
> > > > a favourite one. Though just what I have betrayed is never explained to me.
>
> > > > Critical thought seems to be a thing of the past in our society.
> > > > Especially at universities.
>
> > > > Bear
>
> > > > *
> > > > On 31 May 2012 10:51, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> Good Morning From Tampa Bear,
>
> > > >> Here's an interesting blog, also from a conservative Gay American.   It's
> > > >> refreshing to see some common sense from the Gay community from time to
> > > >> time and on occasion.  I salute you, Bruce Majors and others who, "Think".
>
> > > >>http://www.gaypatriot.net/
>
> > > >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > >>> *Just saw this guy on TV. Was kind of surprised that he lives not far
> > > >>> from me. Same neighbourhood...LOL
>
> > > >>> He has an interesting blog. And the film society that he founded has
> > > >>> some great stuff. Some of you might remember a while back when they tried
> > > >>> to show a film about the Iranian regime. And the Iranian embassy tried to
> > > >>> have it shut down. When that failed they got bomb threats.
>
> > > >>> any hoo. his blog makes for an interesting read.
>
> > > >>>http://gayandright.blogspot.ca/
>
> > > >>> bear
>
> > > >>> *
>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > >>> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > >>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > >>  --
> > > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > >  --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Were Nazi Soldiers Heroes?

There were very few German soldiers that were NAZI Party members. The
Nazis were a "minority" party that took control of the government by
applying the existing bureaucratic rules and petty jealousies
rigorously in the 30s.

On May 30, 5:19 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Wednesday, May 30, 2012Were Nazi Soldiers Heroes?by Jacob G. Hornberger
> Have you ever noticed that Nazi soldiers, especially those who died in World War II, are never celebrated as heroes? Why is that? Didn t they answer the call of their government in time of war? Didn t they serve their country by loyally obeying the dictates of their government? Weren t they patriots for their willingness to fight and die for their country?
> I m not talking about soldiers who committed war crimes or who participated in the Holocaust. I m talking about ordinary German soldiers, many of whom were civilians before the war started, who fought Allied forces in North Africa, at the Battle of the Bulge, on the Eastern front, and elsewhere.
> Why aren t those Nazi soldiers treated as heroes? Didn t some of them fight as courageously and heroically as British, Soviet, or American soldiers? Why are they not honored as heroes as much as Allied soldiers are?
> Indeed, why aren t German citizens during World War II honored for having come to the support of their government during a time of war? Didn t the German people do what citizens are supposed to do? Sure, Germany ended up losing the war but no one can say that the average German citizen didn t do everything he could to win the war.
> Yesterday, theWashington Timeswent on the attackagainst MSNBC host Chris Hayes for questioning the automatic invocation of the term heroes to describe American soldiers who have died in America s many wars. TheTimeswrote:The word heroes has been used to describe America s fallen for more than 200 years. It s not rhetorically proximate to justifications for war but a traditional mark of gratitude and respect for the sacrifice made by the person who was killed and the family members left behind. It s a way of recognizing that regardless of how a person died, he did so in service to the country. It s not a glorification of war but a solemn acknowledgment of sacrifice.What s not clear from theTimesposition, however, is whether the principles it enunciates apply only American soldiers or to soldiers in every country. Applying the standard set forth by theTimes,would it be appropriate for Germans to use the word heroes to describe Germany s fallen in the many wars in which Germany has been involved, including World War II? Could it be said that describing Nazi soldiers killed in World War II as heroes would not serve to justify World War II but instead serve simply as a mark of gratitude and respect for the sacrifice made by the German soldier who was killed and the family members left behind? Could it be said that this would just be a way to recognize that regardless of how the Nazi soldier died, he did so in service to his country? Could it be said that describing the Nazi soldier as a hero would not be a glorification of war but rather a solemn acknowledgement of sacrifice?
> In other words, would theTimesapply its principles regarding war, soldiers, heroism, and patriotism only to the United States or universally?
> Or do they apply only to the winners? Do they apply, for example, to the Soviet Union, one of the winners of World War II, which was governed by a brutal communist regime during the war and for decades afterward, a regime that oppressed Jews and others and kept Eastern Europe under its iron boot for decades after the end of the war. Were communist soldiers opposing Nazi soldiers heroes for serving their government during time of war? Were they heroes for their willingness to die to ensure that their country remained under communist rule rather than Nazi rule?
> Indeed, how would theTimesapply its principles to the Vietnam War, a war that the United States lost? Surely, it would say that American soldiers who served in Vietnam or who died there were heroes, except perhaps for the ones who committed war crimes. Would it say the same about North Vietnamese communist soldiers or about the Viet Cong?
> It seems to me that the reason that Nazi soldiers have never been honored as heroes is because the world has long held Germany to a different standard than the one that theWashington Timesapplies to the United States. Both German soldiers and the German citizenry should have made a critical examination of what their government was doing and realized that their government was in the wrong. On reaching that determination, it was the duty of the individual soldier to refuse to participate in the military, and it was the duty of the citizen to oppose his government, even in time of war.
> Obviously, the Nazi government didn t take that position. Its position was that it is the solemn duty of the citizen to come to the support of his government in time of crisis or war. The Hitler regime viewed the citizen who joined the Nazi armed forces as a hero for his willingness to fight and die for his country. The German people who supported the troops and the rest of the government were looked upon as patriots.
> Isn t that the same standard adhered to by many Americans with respect to America s wars, soldiers, and citizenry?
> There were some German citizens who said no. Among them were Hans and Sophie Scholl and the members of a secret organization called the White Rose. Their position on patriotism was entirely different from the official one. They felt that it was the duty of a citizen to make a critical examination of his government s policies. That s what the White Rose members did, and they concluded that the Nazi government was in the wrong. Thus, the White Rose group not only opposed their government in the middle of World War II, they also exhorted the German citizenry, including German soldiers, to rise up and overthrow the Hitler regime.
> Not surprisingly, the German authorities considered the White Rose members to be bad people and unpatriotic Germans, which is why they executed them. Personally,I happen to believethat they were among the most courageous and heroic people in history.
> In 1951, during the Korean War, Leonard E. Read, the founder of The Foundation for Economic Education, wrote one of the most thought-provoking essays ever written, entitled.Conscience on the Battlefield. In that essay, Read stated that from a moral standpoint, no soldier can ever escape the consequences of his individual actions during war simply by later telling God that he was following orders or loyally serving his government during time of war. It was incumbent on each soldier, Read stated, to make a personal determination as to whether the killing he was ordered to do was morally justified and could be reconciled with the soldier s individual conscience.
> In my opinion, Read and the White Rose people had it right. The genuine patriot stands and fights for his government when it is right and he refuses to support it and even opposes it when it is in the wrong. That s the type of courage and heroism that enlightens a country, not the blind type of my government, right or wrong type of patriotism and heroism that afflicted Nazi Germany and that continues to afflict people in many other countries today.http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-05-30.asp

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [LA-F] Mother-of-two, 36, receives police warning for Facebook joke about squirting Olympic flame with water pistol

Mother-of-two, 36, receives police warning for Facebook joke about squirting Olympic flame with water pistol

• Helen Perry, 36, joked that she would block the torch after learning people from 60 miles away had been chosen to carry the torch through her town
• The former care home manager wrote: 'Let's all have a street party on the route so its blocked till they hand the torch to a Brid born and bred person'
• She posted comments on local newspaper's Facebook page

By Rob Cooper

PUBLISHED: 13:22, 31 May 2012 | UPDATED: 15:30, 31 May 2012

Arrest threat: Helen Perry who joked on Facebook that she would squirt out the Olympic flame with her son's water pistol

A mother-of-two who joked on Facebook that she would squirt the Olympic flame out with a water pistol was given a police warning.

Helen Perry, 36, was threatened with arrest after writing that she had her son's water guns at the ready after learning that people who live 60 miles away had been chosen to carry the torch through her hometown.

She also said that she would blockade the route through Bridlington, East Yorkshire, until they chose a local person to take part in the relay.

Several weeks after posting the light-hearted comments on a local newspaper page, she received a call from police.

'I could not believe what I was hearing when I answered my phone and it was the police calling about what I had written on Facebook,' said the former care home manager.

'At first I thought it was a joke.

'The officer I spoke to warned me that if I carried out what I had joked about online then I would be committing a criminal offence and would be arrested.

'I understand that security is very tight at the moment what with the Olympics and the Queen's Jubilee but this was very clearly a joke.

'Bridlington is quite a small place and it was just like we were having a conversation between friends on Facebook.

Water pistol threat: Helen Perry writes on Facebook that she has nicked her son's water pistol ready to target the Olympic flame in a series of messages posted on a community page

Torch threat: Helen Perry, 36, wrote on Facebook she would put it out with a water pistol

'The tone was clearly light-hearted.

'I got quite a telling off and I remember him mentioning something about terrorism.

'I felt quite stupid because I have warned people in the past to be careful what they post on Facebook.'

Mrs Perry said she assured the police officer that she would not do anything to disrupt the relay when it passes through Bridlington later this month.

Mrs Perry first posted: 'there are people in brid who do deserve the privilege and should've been a consideration.'

Torch threat: Karen Ashton is pictured carrying the Olympic Flame between Macclesfield and Knutsford in Cheshire today

Torchbearer: Chancellor George Osborne stands with Michael Dooling in his constituency today as the flame visits Tatton Park, Cheshire

She later wrote: 'Let's all have a street party on the route so its blocked till they hand the torch to a brid born and bred person. Lol.'

Another user wrote on the thread that they should arm themselves with water guns and put the flame out in protest.

In a light-hearted response Mrs Perry put: 'I've already nicked the kids water guns. LoL.'

A spokesman for Humberside Police confirmed that words of advice were offered to a Bridlington woman following comments made about disruption to the Olympic Torch's progress in advance of its forthcoming visit to the region.

Assistant Chief Constable Alan Leaver said: 'We are delighted the torch is coming to the region. Officers from the Yorkshire and Humber region want to make sure that it is a happy event which people can come and enjoy.

'Anyone intent on causing trouble will be dealt with appropriately. We won't allow people to make a nuisance of themselves.'

The 70-day relay started in Land's End and will finish on July 27 at the opening ceremony of the Games.

Each torch cost £495 to make but runners were offered the chance to buy them for just £215, while those who won their places through sponsors, such as Coca-Cola, were given them for free.

Many of the torch-bearers have listed the torch for sale on Ebay, with some demanding £100,000 pounds.

Olympic bosses have come under fire for allowing The Voice's American judge Will.i.am carry the Games' torch.

MAN IN COURT AFTER HE 'THREATENED TO DISRUPT THE TORCH RELAY'

A man has appeared in court charged with threatening to disrupt the Olympic Torch relay.

Darren Cole, 40, appeared via video link in a blue T-shirt at Taunton Magistrates' Court today after being charged under the criminal damage act.

It is alleged Cole, of no fixed abode, phoned a journalist at a national newspaper on May 20 and threatened to set fire to his camper van, which would have damaged property nearby.

The threat was made on the eve of the third day of the Torch relay prior to the Olympic flame being carried through the Somerset town.

Thousands of people lined the streets of Taunton with music star Will.i.am a surprise torchbearer.

Cole was remanded in custody and is due to appear before the same court on June 13.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2152653/Mother-36-receives-police-warning-Facebook-joke-squirting-Olympic-flame-water-pistol.html#ixzz1wSVqFGeC

--   Mario Huet  Libertarian Alliance Forum  List Administrator    **********************************************  Words cannot picture her; but all men know     That solemn sketch the pure sad artist wrought   **********************************************  James Thomson, The City of Dreadful Night  

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: A gay Canadian conservative....and i thought I was the only one...LOL

or who one
chooses
to hop in the sack with.

This covered the Gay thing....



On May 31, 9:56 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do believe that like me,  most
> people don't care what one's religious preferences are,  or who one
> chooses
> to hop in the sack with.  ...... The same can be said for race or
> culture.   As
> long as your liberty interests don't interfere with my liberty
> interests,
> then all is right with the world!
> ---
> you left out homosexuality
>
> own it
>
> On May 31, 10:29 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hey Bear,
>
> > I do know folks who are on the right, and are also clueless.....However I
> > am by no means the exception here.   I do believe that like me,  most
> > people don't care what one's religious preferences are,  or who one chooses
> > to hop in the sack with.  The same can be said for race or culture.   As
> > long as your liberty interests don't interfere with my liberty interests,
> > then all is right with the world!
>
> > I do have an issue with folks who in my opinion are detrimental to our
> > Nation's well being, and who advocate for large, central government.
> > Those individuals who don't have an understanding of our history.   Those
> > who believe that "Marxism";  "Socialism",  "Communism";  "Trotskyism", and
> > "Maoism" are truly wonderful political and economic systems,  but we just
> > haven't had the right folks try and implement these types of systems yet.
>
> > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > *Yes I ran across his blog a while back. he has a good head on his
> > > shoulders.
>
> > > I was just talking to a buddy about the blog I posted and realized that I
> > > have " come out" 3 times. Gay, Conservative and Atheist. Atheist is the
> > > hardest. People have very harsh reactions when you tell them that you just
> > > don't believe in their god. And don't want them wasting their time praying
> > > for you. Some of the reactions that I have gotten have been very harsh.
>
> > > Living in our national capital, a very left wing city, you learn not to
> > > try and reason with the lefties. They don't even try to argue their case.
> > > Just get insulting and call you names.
>
> > > I can't tell you the number of insults I've gotten along with just amazed
> > > looks when you tell someone that you are gay and a conservative. Traitor is
> > > a favourite one. Though just what I have betrayed is never explained to me.
>
> > > Critical thought seems to be a thing of the past in our society.
> > > Especially at universities.
>
> > > Bear
>
> > > *
> > > On 31 May 2012 10:51, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Good Morning From Tampa Bear,
>
> > >> Here's an interesting blog, also from a conservative Gay American.   It's
> > >> refreshing to see some common sense from the Gay community from time to
> > >> time and on occasion.  I salute you, Bruce Majors and others who, "Think".
>
> > >>http://www.gaypatriot.net/
>
> > >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > >>> *Just saw this guy on TV. Was kind of surprised that he lives not far
> > >>> from me. Same neighbourhood...LOL
>
> > >>> He has an interesting blog. And the film society that he founded has
> > >>> some great stuff. Some of you might remember a while back when they tried
> > >>> to show a film about the Iranian regime. And the Iranian embassy tried to
> > >>> have it shut down. When that failed they got bomb threats.
>
> > >>> any hoo. his blog makes for an interesting read.
>
> > >>>http://gayandright.blogspot.ca/
>
> > >>> bear
>
> > >>> *
>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > >>> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > >>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > >>  --
> > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > >  --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.