Frank Lautenberg has died.

[RobertNashville]

I don't really care what other's motives are (people or countries)...I only care and I'm only responsible for my own motives (and by extension, the motives of my country).

[Chucktshoes]

I don't really care what other's motives are (people or countries)...I only care and I'm only responsible for my own motives (and by extension, the motives of my country).

There's the rub, a nation cannot be a moral creature, it can only be by its nature immoral or at best, amoral. Only the individual can choose to be moral. The closest any government can be to moral is to protect the individual liberty of its citizens, including the use of violence if need be when attacked from without. Whenever it directs that violent force outward against another group it will do so without the consent of at least a portion of the population. To commit violence in someone's name, yet at the same time against their will is fundamentally immoral.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He would have had all the resources he needed without our intervention not to mention time to develop weapons that would have obliterated our military capability. Hitler was not just going to stop and be a good little dictator after taking Europe and the only reason we aren't speaking German today as our primary language is because we got involved as early as we did.

Like Chuck or Jay said, Russia was beating Hitler back before we entered the war in Germany. Hitler would not have

had all of those resources. There is a lot we can say to second guess seventy years later, but I think at best, FDR

was lucky, and some or maybe even most of his decisions were foolish. The weapons Hitler's regime was working on

may or may not have been able to do what you think. Germany was continually using "erzats" everything. They had

capabilities, but history took care of that argument, so all we could do is speculate.

 

People like Lautenberg, who didn't rise to the pinnacle of state leader are only known from the accomplishments in

the lower offices they held. Wilson, who got us into WWI was a mad progressive, are more likely a communist who

couldn't do much more, but he did cause a lot of long term problems for our country, some of which are still plaguing

us, along with the rest of his followers. If say, a Lautenberg came around and made it to the top, which I doubt he had

those aspirations, he would likely be a Wilson. We have one in office who is much worse than Wilson right now. Our

current leader is rapidly depleting our country's treasures, not only the money, but the force just starting to be used

against the people.

 

We have already had a few dictators in our country's history as president:Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and definitely, if by

nothing other than disdain for anything American, Obama. And they all rose up through the ranks by deception.

That's what separates Lautenberg from the rest, like Teddy Kennedy and several others. All of those leaders spent

and spilled our country's blood and treasure for bigger things than America, when they should have been taking care

of America, instead.

 

One thing I have learned from this thread is all I either didn't know or had not thought about in a long time. Refreshing

to see some of the points of view on this one. Especially after the gay fiasco thread. :D

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There's the rub, a nation cannot be a moral creature, it can only be by its nature immoral or at best, amoral. Only the individual can choose to be moral. The closest any government can be to moral is to protect the individual liberty of its citizens, including the use of violence if need be when attacked from without. Whenever it directs that violent force outward against another group it will do so without the consent of at least a portion of the population. To commit violence in someone's name, yet at the same time against their will is fundamentally immoral.

You said that just perfectly, Chuck.

[Commando68]

Then he should have known better than to make it is mission in life to strip us of the rights he fought of us to keep.

He was also a WW2 veteran; that alone, at least in my book, is reason enough to not celebrate his death. That entire generation will soon be completely gone; we owe everyone who served in that war a debt that none of us can repay.
 
There are plenty of people in politics I don't agree with on issues; I still won't celebrate their deaths.

[RobertNashville]

Then he should have known better than to make it is mission in life to strip us of the rights he fought of us to keep.

Do not  some of those rights, per our Constitution, include the right to hold different opinions and the right to try and and change things if they feel they should?   :shrug:

 

I'm not going to hate a person nor celebrate that person's death just because he held substantially different political positions on issues...I suppose in part because I don't think doing so is healthy (mentally or physically) and also because holding grudges; especially against the dead, is such a phenomenal waste of time!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I will, if only because of his view of the 2nd Amendment. One of these days our country will get bloody over that

view if it doesn't get checked up by the political process. that one view attempts to take away every other right

a free country and it's citizens have. He did much to damage it. You can have opinions, too, just like me. :D

[RobertNashville]

I will, if only because of his view of the 2nd Amendment. One of these days our country will get bloody over that

view if it doesn't get checked up by the political process. that one view attempts to take away every other right

a free country and it's citizens have. He did much to damage it. You can have opinions, too, just like me. :D

Was it really all his fault?

 

Didn't it take a majority of both houses to pass whatever legislation he had his name on?

 

And who voted for all those blowhards and put them in those houses in the first place?

 

If we are going to start pointing fingers there are plenty of targets to point at, including ourselves. ;)

[Oh Shoot]

Well, that was an act of aggression by Japan, not Germany. And depending on reports of what FDR knew or not,

that could have made a difference, that attack could possibly been avoided. Anyway, we were forced into that one,

not Germany.

 

FDR/Congress only declared war on Japan after the attack.

 

A few days later, Germany and Italy declared war on us, and it was only then the US also declared war on both of them.

 

For bonus points: what was the last country the US actually declared war on?

 

- OS

Edited June 5, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[RobertNashville]

FDR/Congress only declared war on Japan after the attack.

 

A few days later, Germany and Italy declared war on us, and it was only then the US also declared war on both of them.

 

For bonus points: what was the last country the US actually declared war on?

 

- OS

Depending on the order you want to put them in, I believe that would be Romania and two other countries all on the same day (connected to WW2).

Edited June 5, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

Depending on the order you want to put them in, I believe that would be Romania and two other countries all on the same day (connected to WW2).

 

Yer a winner with partial credit. :)

 

Never could find the order of the resolutions but three different ones on June 5th, 1942: Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary.

 

They were of course puppet states by then, but since "they" declared war on us, we reciprocated officially.

 

- OS

Edited June 5, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Dustbuster]

In dedication to the recently departed Senator from NJ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2V6v6Xa-BI

Roflmao trying not to puke
Awesome Lemmy from Motörhead offing one for lautenberg .... Brilliant!!!
Lautenberg was a self anointing ass....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Was it really all his fault?

 

Didn't it take a majority of both houses to pass whatever legislation he had his name on?

 

And who voted for all those blowhards and put them in those houses in the first place?

 

If we are going to start pointing fingers there are plenty of targets to point at, including ourselves. ;)

Yes, Robert. He was one of the outspoken leaders in the fight against the 2nd Amendment just about every time. And his

seniority in the senate helped to sway the others in that direction.  But it's more complex than that. That is just too simplistic

an argument. The entire Democrat senate caucus tends to preach the word of the progressive(See my recent post on David

Horowitz to visualize the mindset). However, he was a leader in the senate. Chuck Shumer bit at his heels and may have been

more vocal, but the power structure of the progressive was in his control.

 

I can't see how I could blame myself because I don't remember voting for any anti-gun reps. That's over-simplifying.

[leroy]

I'm glad he has gone to his reward... Two bits of good news today... Lautenberg and Mandella...

 

leroy

[mikegideon]

I'm glad he has gone to his reward... Two bits of good news today... Lautenberg and Mandella...

 

leroy

 

Somebody brought up an old thread. Lautenberg is blacker than Mandella by now.

[leroy]

Somebody brought up an old thread. Lautenberg is blacker than Mandella by now.

 

Thanks Mike!!! As the great Yogi Berra once said: "....it's deja voo all over again..."... I'm glad both these sons of satan are moldin in the ground...

 

forgetful leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep, I'd just as soon forget about the both of them.