small "christian" towns.

I wonder how many of these people were the same ones telling everyone that we needed to support the President whether we agreed with him or not while Bush was President.

I should really, say after Bush right after 9-11 and after Bush's reelection, and yes, I know Bush is still President for now.

Johnny, I wonder how many of the people who are telling us that we should support Obama because he will be the president said that Bush lied, or that Bush was a Nazi, or that Bush should be impeached.

The extreme politics and demonizing of people who do not agree with your position is what has gone wrong.

I have heard quite a few conservative leaders including Palin and McCain, say they want Obama to be successful for the sake of the country. I really have not heard that from the left or the press concerning Bush. They hated Bush so much that they wanted us to lose in Iraq. Look at Obama, he still does not want to admit that the surge has made a difference. Yet he will reap a tremendous benefit from the surge.

How many articles have you seen about Bush's work in Africa? Oh, we will begin to see them now. They got Obama elected, so they do not need to demonize Bush any more to accomplish their purpose.

All that being said, I am not a Bush appologist. He screwed up a lot of stuff. He had the whole world behind him after 9/11 and pissed it away with the war in Iraq amoung other things.

What I *am* trying to point out is the hypocricy of the left and the press.

These are just dead-enders unable to accept that the party they supported as represented by Palin and Bush is now gasping out its death rattle. They can continue to watch FOX and listen to Limbaugh to get their supposed victimhood validated but at long last they've become largely irrelevant.

What we hated about Bush was his sheer uselessness as President. What protected him was 9/11, the Iraq war, the rubber stamp Congress he enjoyed until 2007 and the media which was either totally in the tank for him or unwilling, for whatever reason, to really go after the sheer bloody incompetence, cronyism, corruption, secrecy and lies that have characterized his entire presidency.

It's more likely that after he's safely out of office there will be a trickle of information giving some idea of the sheer scale of all the wrongdoing from torture to illegal spying to misuse of government for purely political purposes. Nobody will face anything more than incovenient, expensive and time-consuming legal consequences for any of it, nobody who matters anyway and least of all Bush or Cheney, but at least we'll be able to finally admit to ourselves that what happened was not normal or constitutional.

What I *am* trying to point out is the hypocricy of the left and the press.

#4 | Posted by sawdust at 2008-11-15 09:57 AM |

that damn "librul" media! right, sawdust-between-the ears?

This stuff is immature, but it's not frightening.

I'd also like to point out that an upside-down flag isn't "racist". When flown on your ship, it means your ship is in distress. When flown on your home, it means you believe the _entire country_ is in distress. I saw a lot of it in the days after the 2000 Election, and I saw a whole bunch of people threatening to riot or kill Bush as well. Heck, we had a few people _here_ threatening to riot if Obama lost. It happens after every emotional election.

Are we supposed to take the threats of whackos suddenly more seriously because it's Obama or something? Who cares. Let the Secret Service do it's job. There's always a spike in these "threats", and because he's black we can expect maybe 5-15% more then usual. So they'll be busy coming down harshly on whackos for a bit and then it'll calm down.

Besides, it looks like the leaders and pundits are playing very nice. I'd say the Republicans are being far more accepting of the new President then the Dems ever were of Bush. According to what I read around here from those who bought into every negative story about Palin no matter how insane, and ignored every negative about Obama no matter if they were real or batshit insane, Republicans are just unthinking "sheeple" who swallow anything O'Reilly and Rush tell them. So... what's there to worry about? Let the rednecks have their fun. The Secret Service is very good at what they do, and nobody will get close; if anyone even actually tries, and I have serious doubts that anyone will.

I really have not heard that from the left or the press concerning Bush. They hated Bush so much that they wanted us to lose in Iraq.

Bush was a failure from the get go. The Chinese sky-jacked a spyplane and all Bush could do was apologise numerous times.
9-11 was the worst security failure in American history and we learned Bush ignored 50 warnings about it beforehand. Other than Bill Maher, who lost their job over that debacle?

afghanistan and Iraq both failed, not because the left wanted them to, but because Bush is the worst C-in-C in history. I remember candidate Bush promising he could fight to wars at once, President Bush can't handle one small war at a time.

The economy? Bush.

NK's nuclear bombs? Bush.

You rail on about the surge, like a reduction ( nowhere near an end)in violence is the same as victory. We can credit Bush with the idea of paying al queda to stop killing Americans, though I don't think you should consider that a good thing. And we shouldn't even bring up the fact that the sunni violence was a direct result of Bush's incompetence.
De-baathification and too few troops to seal the border followed by stay the course ring any bells?

It's very sad that people resort to this kind of behavior.

I hope people regain their senses and stop this horrific activity.

These are people who were gulible enough to be taken in by "mooselini's" bullshit-she'd have her "Nuremberg" type rallies-to stir the faithful-and they came out of it all hating leftys more than they ever have-because their so called "Leaders"-told 'em they should.
And just who the fuck WERE their "Leaders"?

McLoser and the "mooseiah".

By the way-sawdustforbrains,we never WANTED the guys to lose in Iraq-we just saw the incompetent bastards runnin' that little shop of horrors-and recognized the harm they were going to do.

I really have not heard that from the left or the press concerning Bush. They hated Bush so much that they wanted us to lose in Iraq

I seem to recall Bush having 70+ % approval ratings for a great deal of time after 9/11. The fact that he squandered a level of unity that hasn't been seen in generations is all on him.

Bush Highest approval:

9/21-22/01 * 90%

"The fact that he squandered a level of unity that hasn't been seen in generations is all on him."

FF

The extreme politics and demonizing of people who do not agree with your position is what has gone wrong.
#4 | Posted by sawdust

I agree, guess who's idea that was?

"The extreme politics and demonizing of people who do not agree with your position is what has gone wrong."

"You're either with us or against us," sound familiar, sawdust?

How about books like "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" and "Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism"?

You might want to sometime look into the 2002 senatorial campaign in Georgia and then get back to us with your protestations about demonizing people, asshole.

Hans

small "christian" towns.

#1 | Posted by hillbillydeluxe at 2008-11-15 08:45 AM | Reply | Flag: KNEEJERK

Gee, that didn't take long.

"I really have not heard that from the left or the press concerning Bush. They hated Bush so much that they wanted us to lose in Iraq. . . . He had the whole world behind him after 9/11 and pissed it away with the war in Iraq amoung other things."

The self-retorting retort.

Obama is a corrupt puppet for the corporate bankers. He's not an American citizen, and he has connections with organized crime.
Oh! I'm a racist now for telling the truth. Oh! I tell the truth about Obama so the corporate media can lump me in the the nut cases hanging nooses in their front yards.
Let's all just jump into Obama's circle of love, and leave our critical thinking out of it.

Hans calling someone an asshole...
Pot meet kettle.

And what is with people always typing their name at the end of every post?
Do they think we are to stupid to just look at the bottom of their post to see who it is? Or are they just so full of them selves that they have to write their name as some form of self absorbed gratification?

JeffnDenmark : )

So in a nation of over 300 million people, and in which all whites are assumed to be racist anyhow, they were able to cobble together 16 specific acts of racism as a result of Obama's election 12 days ago.

Sounds pretty mild to me.

What's more, here's a listing--in order--of where these incidents have taken place:

Michigan
Idaho
New York
New York
Massachusetts
Michigan
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
California
California
NC
Texas
Maine
Maine

And except for Texas and Idaho, where we all know are filled with nothing but knuckle-dragging troglodytes--didn't Obama win the other states? Aren't they the blue states now?

Compared to you libs' home towns, the old Confederacy has a lot of catching up to do.
Maine
Pennsylvania
Alabama

And what is with people always typing their name at the end of every post?
Do they think we are to stupid to just look at the bottom of their post to see who it is? Or are they just so full of them selves that they have to write their name as some form of self absorbed gratification?

JeffnDenmark : )

#21 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2008-11-16 03:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

What the fuck are you on about now?herm

And what is with people always typing their name at the end of every post?
Do they think we are to stupid to just look at the bottom of their post to see who it is? Or are they just so full of them selves that they have to write their name as some form of self absorbed gratification?

JeffnDenmark : )

#21 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2008-11-16 03:04 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Ever hear of the term. I stand by My words?? Why do You sign Your name to checks that You write to people?? Sure they have Your name on them already but without Your signature on them they are just so much powerless paper. When one signs their name to a post they are saying I support what is written above. Now do You understand??

Larry

Ever hear of the term. I stand by My words?? Why do You sign Your name to checks that You write to people?? Sure they have Your name on them already but without Your signature on them they are just so much powerless paper. When one signs their name to a post they are saying I support what is written above. Now do You understand??

Larry

#25 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-16 03:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you didn't support what was written above, you wouldn't have fucking logged in and typed it in the first place, now would you have? You work at the Department of Redundancy Department or something? herm

Yawnnnnnnnn WOB

Larry,
That has to be the stupidest statement yet.
Typing your name isn't a signature.
The fact that you registered your handle with Drudge and gave them your personal information is your identity voucher.
Redundancy is right SOHEIFOX.

JeffNDenmark I am not here for Your validation Nor am I here to impress anybody. If You dislike Me hate Me what have You that is Peachy Keen to Me.

Larry

I don't do it, but I think there's something to be said for signing your name. When I send emails at work, I always sign my name, even though the recipient will know who the email came from just from the "From" line at the top of the email.

And Jeff, your post #19 is ridiculous. Are you arguing with yourself? I didn't see anybody call you racist on here.

I unfortunately live in South Carolina and all I've heard since the election is "That f*u*k*in' ni***r is now our president!" The rednecks here are completely whipped up and angry. They constitute the majority here. It's very sad and I really fear for America..........

Good news Kenoosh. Greyhound can have you anywhere else in the country you wish to be in under a week. And Delta can have you there in three hours. And after that, you never have to say, "I unfortunately live in . . . " wherever.

KENOOSH

If they are in fact rednecks, don't fear for the nation, fear for their wives and girlfriends. There's likely going to be an increase in mysterious bruising,

Obama is a corrupt puppet for the corporate bankers. He's not an American citizen, and he has connections with organized crime.
Oh! I'm a racist now for telling the truth. Oh! I tell the truth about Obama so the corporate media can lump me in the the nut cases hanging nooses in their front yards.
Let's all just jump into Obama's circle of love, and leave our critical thinking out of it.

#19 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2008-11-16 02:58 AM

maybe not a racist, but you are a deluded, whiny little man.

"When flown on your home, it means you believe the _entire country_ is in distress. I saw a lot of it in the days after the 2000 Election, and I saw a whole bunch of people threatening to riot or kill Bush as well. Heck, we had a few people _here_ threatening to riot if Obama lost. It happens after every emotional election."

Sohei,

Most people were angry in 2000 due to Bush's stupidity. What's the current issue with Obama? He's black. I also don't remember hearing about the cross burnings after the 2000 elections.

I point to all of the McCain signs still up when I'm driving with my family, we all get a good laugh out of it. Today we saw one, there was also a white Obama sign sitting next to it with a red circle around the outside with a line through it spray painted on it.

What I *am* trying to point out is the hypocricy of the left and the press.

#4 | Posted by sawdust at 2008-11-15 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

What I *am* going to do is point out your stupidity.

People 'calling Bush a Nazi' is hurting others how?
Tell us please. We're waiting.

Nooses, cross burnings and calling others N****r is a far cry from calling one man a Nazi.

Christian Right: The other white meat-heads.

Eight years of this? Eight years of this! Eight years of this.

Johnny, I wonder how many of the people who are telling us that we should support Obama because he will be the president said that Bush lied, or that Bush was a Nazi, or that Bush should be impeached.

nobody was talking about the talking chimp like that before his inauguration! He enjoyed much more support than he deserved from the entire country far longer than he deserved it. If Barry turns into a reincarnation of Shrub, I'll be yelling for his impeachment, too.

Somehow, I don't see that happening, but still, there ya go.

Good news Kenoosh. Greyhound can have you anywhere else in the country you wish to be in under a week. And Delta can have you there in three hours. And after that, you never have to say, "I unfortunately live in . . . " wherever.

Which is why, unlike liberals would try to have you to believe, we are the United States of America. If you dont like the policies of one state, you can move to another. Quite a novel concept, eh? But liberals want one govt, and a big one at that.

Sawdust, from what I remember there weren't many people demonizing Bush before he even took office, except for the the manner in which he took office.

The press and public for the most part was very supportive of Bush for his first 2 or 3 years in office, especially after 9-11. It wasn't until after Bush's corporate and government corruption and manipulation (Enron, Abramoff, Plame) were exposed that the media began giving him a more critical look.

What was Bush's approval rating at the end of his first year in office, about 90% or so?

Obama hasn't even been sworn in and stuff like that which is described in this article are happening. You've got members of Congress calling him a socialist and Palin, just a few days ago still trying to spread fear saying out of one side of her mouth how she would like to help Obama and the other side bringing up Bill Ayers and saying it is a conversation that needs to be had. Note to Sarah, been there done that. People are smarter than that, well unless they are names Hannity or O'reilly.

Feel free to keep bitching about the hypocrisy of the left and the media all you want, just don't cry too much when that mirror gets turned around.

What I *am* trying to point out is the hypocricy of the left and the press.

#4 | Posted by sawdust

Real hypocrisy....impeach for a blowjob...whose idea was that....?

BTW, Bush got his scorn the old fashioned way, he earned it! Obama hasn't had a chance yet and already there are people ready to lynch him, no doubt in Palin's "real America".

and to RIR, it doesn't much matter in which states these incidents have happened. If you are a true follower of the McCain / Palin / neocon ideology, you know there are areas in each state that are "real" as in "this part of the state is the "real Virginia".

The Afrophobism in this country is rampant.
It grows on a daily basis.

Upside-down flag? Divisive hate speech all the way.

Be Well.

nobody was talking about the talking chimp like that before his inauguration! He enjoyed much more support than he deserved from the entire country far longer than he deserved it. If Barry turns into a reincarnation of Shrub, I'll be yelling for his impeachment, too.

Somehow, I don't see that happening, but still, there ya go.

#39 | Posted by bellaspapa at 2008-11-16 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Were you... not sentient in 2000 or something? People were saying that Bush "stole" the election, and were insulting his ability to think, speak, and lead so badly that they actually embarrassed the hell out of our country until somewhere in the middle of December tying it up uselessly in courts. I was at the time of the opinion that there was some funny business in Florida, but it was maybe November 8th before I was telling people to calm down and give the guy a chance. The whole thing made us on the Left look like petulant children arguing about a toy.

Mind you, once given that chance, he fucked it up royally, but I understood that he actually DID win the election. TWICE. Didn't he actually lose the popular vote as well? But fact is, the popular vote doesn't mean shit. BarryO only got 52% yet this somehow was a landslide.

The conspiracy theories were flying VERY high, and people were MOST DEFINITELY calling him a chimp and a nazi before inauguration.

You either weren't alive in 2000 or you're so blinded by Obama that you've lost all touch with reality. It was childish, stupid, and in many cases, downright EVIL in the blogosphere and amongst the celebrities and pundits on television. Much like with Palin.

Point is that there are always freaks who get weird when there's a new President, and I don't care. It's embarrassing, but it's not a big deal. The Secret Service is VERY good at dealing with these people, and the masses freaking the fuck out about it helps none at all.

And, by the way, yes it very much IS the same, accusing Bush of being a Nazi and calling Obama a Nigger. It's simply the most convenient and hurtful insult to use against a white person, as nigger is the most convenient insult used against a black person. Burning crosses is no different then the people burning the flags in 2000 over the (self-proclaimed) patriotic Republican party. Each is a highly-emotional protest aimed to offend the target.

Get over it. The infantile mindset that insists otherwise only PROLONGS the racial issues we have. THIS is the face of equality. Using horrible, hate-filled language isn't somehow better because the victim of it is white.

You are a white politician? To those who hate you, you're a Nazi.

A black? You're going to be called a Nigger by those who hate you.

A Mexican? To those who hate you, you're a Spic.

There's no difference. It's equality. The lowest of the low are always going to say the worst things they can come up with, and odds are your race will be the first target used.

And yes, I can already predict the counter argument.

Get over yourself, and think a little. Can you think of anything more conveniently hateful then accusing a white person of being a gay-killing, Jew-gassing, human experimenting jackbooted thug seeking to set forth an ideal that only white people are even humans?

Given that, can you honestly sit there with a straight face and say it's not the same thing? Can you REALLY think of something that's more hate-filled to call a white guy then that?

When one signs their name to a post they are saying I support what is written above. Now do You understand??

Larry

#25 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-11-16 03:57 AM

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

If you don't add "Larry" under one of your posts, what will the omission indicate regarding that particular post?

Soheifx,
I can without a doubt sit here whith a straight face and say it is not the same thing. The argument is ideals vs. skin color. The only common thing is the childish act of name calling.

#45 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-11-16 07:35 PM

Given that, can you honestly sit there with a straight face and say it's not the same thing? Can you REALLY think of something that's more hate-filled to call a white guy then that?

Black voters gave McCain 1% of their vote, while 97% voted for Obama, and 2% voted for another black candidate. This is a vote clustering on the basis of racial identity that doesn't represent some oddball acting out his prejudices, but rather the prejudical dispostion of the entire black community.

This clustering of votes could be explained on the basis of other factors since blacks are predisposed to vote for the Democrat Party candidate anyway. The racist nature of blacks becomes more evident when the candidacy of Hillary Clinton is examined.

Polls indicated that Ms Clinton would have fared even better against McCain that Obama did. Blacks, however, without any exculpating factor such as political views, overwhelmingly rejected a person who had been an advocate of blacks and black causes for her entire political career. Clinton's rejection was based entirely on black identity (racist) voting patterns. And blacks are unashamed in their open declarations of their prejudices based on racial identity.

This is the 400 pound gorilla that everyone pretends is not in the room. The racists in America are the black population, which is guided by racism in its actions from voting to demanding special preferences for blacks to exonerating black criminals to re-electing black politicians involved with corruption.

It's an interesting phenomenon that makes it a taboo to mention that glaring fact of black racism, and for whites to be apologetic and defensive when there are false allegations of white racism, which certainly is not as deep-seated or as pervasive as black racism demonstrably is.

It's time for blacks to apologize for their racism, and to attempt to purge themselves of their racist proclivities. The leftist apologetics for black racism and justification and excuse of it, and the dismissal of its existence and its effect on the political process, certainly demonstrates a form of collective insanity.

And this does send the message that racial identity politics is an acceptable practice and not to be even criticized, let alone condemned. With racial identify politics acceptable, the practice will mature and find a home with other people in an increasingly balkanized country. After all, the priciple established is that racial identify voting is "good," a positive value.

And this does send the message that racial identity politics is an acceptable practice and not to be even criticized, let alone condemned. With racial identity politics acceptable, the practice will mature and find a home with other people in an increasingly balkanized country. After all, the principle established is that racial identity voting is "good," a positive value.

Indeed, blacks are "proud" of their racism, and what it has accomplished for them, and the "black President." Sometimes what seems to be a boon, is not.

Obama has an economic crisis to manage, and most people recognize this and initially will not be confrontational with him. But he has a difficult task, and scapegoating may occur, scapegoating which quite possibly may be unmerited and illogical, but ...

I'm not racist. See! I voted for Obama.

I can without a doubt sit here whith a straight face and say it is not the same thing. The argument is ideals vs. skin color. The only common thing is the childish act of name calling.

#47 | Posted by joost at 2008-11-16 08:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Then you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Please stop holding society back.

*sigh* way to miss the point entirely, Johnson. Remember when I said TonyRoma sounds like Dave Chapelle when he's pretending to be white?

You sound like David Duke when he's trying to speak in public.

Please tell me why I am holding society back. Your little rant about name calling is just that, name calling. That is the point right? What hate filled thing can you call so-and-so? Name calling is what it is. Now, on an adult level, why would a person need to figure out what name is more hate filled? How is that going to better society? If you were really part of the solution, you wouldn't need labels, only people's names.

#52 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-11-16 08:43 PM

*sigh* way to miss the point entirely, Johnson. Remember when I said TonyRoma sounds like Dave Chapelle when he's pretending to be white?

You sound like David Duke when he's trying to speak in public.

I note that as regularly occurs, there is no address of content of the statement that I made. Instead you revert to trying to demonize me for saying what is superficially at least, true. I suppose that since there is no rational way to rebut the statement, you need to go into a diversionary mode to avoid addressing it..

In what regard is my statement "false," soheifox?

What's wrong? Instead of baffling us with bullshit, soheifox, why not address the statements made regardless of to whom you decide they should be attributed?

I think they do it so they can Google themselves.

grumpy_too

It used to irritate me until I thought of this explanation. But I don't see why they feel the need for it because if someone wants to check on one's old posts the board software provides this.

As long we Johnson gets to define the racists, we'll also hear that the True Christians are Moslems, True Republicans are Communists and the land's most intellectual state is Texas. herm

lol...& Rcade is a zionist~Lenin/McCartney lover?

Can we once and for all just STFU about the black vote in 2008? It's not an indication of anything except that blacks tend to overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic candidate:

2004 Kerry 81%
2000 Gore 90%

Come up with some new talking point ok? That one is worn out.

Lol. You're funny, Johnson. I'll take issue with TonyRoma and write long posts trying to get him to think, but you're way beyond hope. Haven't you noticed nobody comments on your posts?

That's because you're a fucking tool. The phrase "You sound like david Duke when he tries to speak in public" is self-explanatory. You're SOOOOO concerned with black people that you can't go two posts without trying to use one-sided statistics and shortsighted research to claim blacks are subhumans.

And no, you've never directly said that. Neither has David Duke. But you don't HAVE to come out and say it. Any adult can easily read between the lines of your "posts". You're transparent. You are the worst kind of racist fuck. The kind that tries to be intellectual and rational about something utterly irrational. The kind who hides behind numbers (always from flawed studies) and writes long posts, when all you're really thinking is "I hate niggers." You're going to post here all sorts of reasons why you don't "hate" black people,w ant them to improve, blah blah blah. Can it. That dog doesn't hunt here.

Haven't you wondered why almost everyone either entirely ignores you or just makes fun of you? It's because you're bOoB, only for the Right.

To everyone else: See? This is why I usually argue with and slam Democrats. At least there's SOME hope for them. Go ahead and try and tell me that any Dem thinks Johnson is a reasonable human being. Though warn me if you're going to, because I'll have to step out of the way as your nose suddenly becomes longer.

How is hanging a flag upside down racist?

Hmmm I got some loony leftists across the street that do not like black people. Go to a union hall sometime and read the bathroom wall. Very sad

Its nice to see those people who attended the McCain/Palin rallies are keeping themselves busy.

It's not. The writer just needed to make it look like there have been more incidents than there really were.

If they want real life examples, they can come to Buffalo. I've personally assaulted numerous black Obama supporters for no reason other than the fact they're black. In fact, one black woman said "I didn't even vote for Obama!" in between her cries.
I said "I don't care who you voted for! Give me your purse!" What a waste that was. She only had her AARP card, her handicap hang tab, and some Butterscotch candies in her purse.

And what is with people always typing their name at the end of every post?
Do they think we are to stupid to just look at the bottom of their post to see who it is? Or are they just so full of them selves that they have to write their name as some form of self absorbed gratification?

#21 | Posted by JeffnDenmark
-----------------------
Well Jeff, if you look at my userid, you wouldn't know what my first name is. It's a handle.

Lonnie

Upside-down flag? Divisive hate speech all the way.

Be Well.

#43 | Posted by skip_wellington
-------------------------
Sort of like William Ayers standing on an American Flag. A flag that a lot better human beings than he died to give him that right.

Or how about flag burnings in Berkley. Is that hate speech too?

Lonnie

All of you hate-mongers are suddenly defensive.

A real racist nevers says he/she is racist. They just attack the other side or divert the argument.

Just look at Johnson and 101chairborne for examples.

"scapegoating which quite possibly may be unmerited and illogical, but ..."

-Johnson

********************

But what Johnson? You will still choose to ignore facts because you have such a fear of black people?

Sucks for you.

This just in: Rush is blaming Obama for the attacks. Sean agrees. Why bother with thinking when you have these 2 American heroes to provide all the right answers.

The conspiracy theories were flying VERY high, and people were MOST DEFINITELY calling him a chimp and a nazi before inauguration.
#44 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-11-16 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:
if barky turns out to be no better than bush, can
we call him a chimp also or would that then become a racist
remark under an obama regime?
oh no not everyone loves obama, round up the unbelievers and throw them into reeducation/concentration camps or gulags or what have you.

Johnson sees racism in only one percent of African Americans voting for the white Republican. I am incredulous over tens of thousands of darkly pigmented voters opting to go against their own best interests and NOT support Obama. Where do they come from, and why? herm

Let's be clear about this.

Racism: The belief that one race is superior over another or all others.

Bigotry: Having contempt for another race.

Prejudice: Judging another based on race or other factors.

Given the above definitions, I would have to say the burning crosses and the like are an act of bigotry, not racism.

Given the above definitions, I would have to say that blacks voting for blacks because they are black is and act of prejudice, not racism.

Given the above definitions, I would have to say that Hitler and the Nazi Party were racist.

Agree or disagree?

"Given the above definitions, I would have to say the burning crosses and the like are an act of bigotry, not racism."

With this one I would say that the buring of crosses and the like are acts of bigotry ("Having contempt for another race.") AND racism ("The belief that one race is superior over another or all others.").

One does not mutually exclude the other.

Hans

Don't necessarily agree. Depends on what the rationale for burning that cross is, for example. You can be a racist (i.e., I'm white, therefore superior) and burn the cross because you're both a bigot and a racist. I would argue that they're not mutually exclusive. It's just semantics, really. There's overt and covert racism/bigotry/prejudice all over.

Gee, Hans, we must have been having the same thought at the same time.

:-)

And so the Real Republican Party
begins to show its Robes...err its Swastika...
err...its Leanings...

sad really. watching a once proud party
be reduced to an all-white sniveling
backroom group of racists and sellouts...

Outdated. Outmoded.
And soon, so soon, permanently out of style.

small "christian" towns.

#1 | Posted by hillbillydeluxe

Yeah sure. Jersey and Long Island.
You fuckin fool.

Bottom line, as long as noone gets hurt, there's nothing wrong with any of this - you know, that pesky First Amendment and all.

Oh and the 4 white guys who beat up the Liberian - i guess it is "rumored" that somebody "heard" the white guys say "OBAMA". Sure. If that helps you support the point of your story I can see why that is written in the article - however it leads me to believe the 4 white assailants were Obama supporters.

People like "EARTHMUSE" ( bwah ha !)

Have finally rolled off the couch and think they are now part of some kind of political force.

The laughs just keep on comin'.

You'll be screaming to impeach Obama by Valentine's day.

#59 | Posted by ProudLiberal at 2008-11-17 11:27 AM

Can we once and for all just STFU about the black vote in 2008? It's not an indication of anything except that blacks tend to overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic candidate:

2004 Kerry 81%
2000 Gore 90%

Come up with some new talking point ok? That one is worn out.

Come on "ProudLiberal," can we be less selective in choosing and distorting data.

First of all, black candidates received 99% of the black vote, 97% for Obama and 2% for the Green Party candidate, Cynthia McKinney, while the white candidate received 1% of the vote.

A glaring indication of black identity, black racist voting patterns, is demonstrated in the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama within the Democrat Party, with the black voters overwhelmingly rejecting a candidate, who had for her entire career been a strident advocate of black interests, and had previously garnered strong black support. What was the new factor in the equation? A black candidate.

Get off your high horse, and acknowledge the reality of black voters being knee-jerk racists as evidenced by their support of Obama against Hillary. Some other leftist polemicists at least have the integrity to recognize the obvious, and then engage in apologetics for black racism rather than blatantly attempting to perpetuate a falsehood..

Let's be clear about this.

Racism: The belief that one race is superior over another or all others.

Bigotry: Having contempt for another race.

Prejudice: Judging another based on race or other factors.

Given the above definitions, I would have to say the burning crosses and the like are an act of bigotry, not racism.

Given the above definitions, I would have to say that blacks voting for blacks because they are black is and act of prejudice, not racism.

Given the above definitions, I would have to say that Hitler and the Nazi Party were racist.

Agree or disagree?

Buring of crosses = "expressive"
Blacks voting strictly for blacks = "misguided"
Hitler and the Nazi party = "strongly opinionated"

"A glaring indication of black identity, black racist voting patterns, is demonstrated in the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama within the Democrat Party, with the black voters overwhelmingly rejecting a candidate,"

What were the relative percentages of Black vote for these candidates early in the primaries? Hillary had a considerable advantage over Obama in Black support for months. Obama had to prove himself to Black voters, just like he had to with everyone else.

#71 | Posted by herm at 2008-11-17 07:36 PM

I am incredulous over tens of thousands of darkly pigmented voters opting to go against their own best interests and NOT support Obama. Where do they come from, and why? herm

And do you think that "dark pigment" can relegate other interests of black voters to nothingness? As was indicated previously, some 10% with Gore and 19% with Kerry, seem to have believed that they had other interests that in balance merited supporting candidates with other programs than ghetto giveaways and preferences in college admissions, government contracts, and jobs as inducements.

Black hegemony resulted in the election of a black man as President, but I wonder if that did him any favor. The problems facing the incoming occupant of the oval office are huge, and I certainly don't envy him his undertaking. Was McCain "fit for the job?" I don't think so. Neither is Obama. A man such as Romney has the intelligence and the background to deal with the current economic situation, but religious prejudice mitigated against his selection. More's the pity.

"Herm, how would support for 'Hillary' go against the interests of "the darkly pigmented?"

And do you think that 'dark pigment' can relegate other interests of black voters to nothingness? As was indicated previously, some 10% with Gore and 19% with Kerry,"

Again, Hillary had a huge lead over Obama in Black support for months in the primaries.

PS: Kerry got almost 89% of the Black vote in '04, not 81%. (LBJ got 94% in '64, btw)

#81 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-11-18 10:09 AM

What were the relative percentages of Black vote for these candidates early in the primaries? Hillary had a considerable advantage over Obama in Black support for months. Obama had to prove himself to Black voters, just like he had to with everyone else.

Obama has swamped Clinton among black voters in each of the 20 contests that had exit polls and large enough samples of African Americans to be meaningful. Just to put that kind of shutout in perspective, black voters represent the only demographic group that the New York senator has not carried at least once during the Democratic primary campaign. Obama now has such a lock on the loyalties of African Americans -- 84 percent of the black vote in Alabama, 87 percent in Georgia, 84 percent in Maryland, and on and on -- that the black vote is no longer contestable.

Which brings us back to the dilemma facing some of Clinton's high-profile black supporters -- those with titles and constituencies of their own. They are feeling some kind of crazy pressure. Last Friday, about 25 of them held an hour-long conference call to discuss what one described as an effort to "pester, intimidate, question our blackness" for not supporting Obama. (Bolding added.)

Racism?

Right Rogue, votes were secured the old-fashioned way, and it was "a contest?" Come on. You seemingly can't deal with the reality of rampant racism existing in the black community.

Blacks seem to oppose racism, and understandably so, when it affects them adversely. But when they secure an apparent benefit from racist conduct, or are euphoric by identification with apparent success of people of the same race, they operate in its thrall. Now there are some of us, Rogue, who oppose "racism" "in principle" and are quite vocal in our opposition as contrasted to those who have become fans of "a cause," but have abandoned its roots and rationales.

You and other lefties here, seem to have transmuted into supporters of blacks and black causes rather than opponents of racism.

You support racist discrimination, not only against whites, but for example against Orientals in such areas as access to university admissions as in the University of California system. Those of your persuasion are advocates of Oriental exclusion for the UC because there are "too many of them proportionately," who qualify because of native intelligence, hard work, or a combination of characteristics and traits.

A reexamination of your "beliefs" is probably warranted, as you oppose non-racist principles, and have become advocates of black privilege, with that value overriding other considerations.

#68 | Posted by ak_patel at 2008-11-17 03:14 PM

But what Johnson? You will still choose to ignore facts because you have such a fear of black people?

Sucks for you.

I'm curious. What makes you think that I "fear black people?"

I suggest to you that that statement is a product of your imagination rather than reflecting any reality or expression of mine. You are victim of a thought process that is unclear. It is sort of analogous to the old "gestalt" idea of figure and ground. You perceive a couple of impressions, and then you construct an entirely unrelated idea from a couple of points, based on your personal organization of reality. Your model and your construct are your own. They are not congruent with reality, AK, and they certainly are not in accord with my view of the world.

Sorry Rogue, I alluded to a link but did not post it. Here is the link to the February 19, 2008 Washington Post article that I cited in Post #84.

Well Rogue, I haven't thoroughly researched the matter...

#84 | Posted by Johnson

Obviously. For example, as late as October and November of 2007 Hillary held a 24 pt lead over Obama among Black voters.

Obama had to earn Black support. Certainly later on the prospect of the possibility of such a historical event as actually electing the first African-American President likely had some impact. But ultimately, Obama only garnered 4% more Black vote than Gore, and 6% more Black vote than Kerry.

#60 | Posted by soheifox at 2008-11-17 11:44 AM

The phrase "You sound like david Duke when he tries to speak in public" is self-explanatory. You're SOOOOO concerned with black people that you can't go two posts without trying to use one-sided statistics and shortsighted research to claim blacks are subhumans.

And no, you've never directly said that. Neither has David Duke. But you don't HAVE to come out and say it.

You seem to equate "hate" with observations concerning perceptions of reality.

I have made statements concerning black people as a group. I do recognize that there is a continuum, and that there are black people along the continuum, and also a genetic mix.

I do think that genetics plays a role. For example, people of West African origin hold all of the world's sprint records, or did at one time. This reflects a certain disproportionality and suggest something other than a random distribution. Is there some other basis?

People living in the highlands of South America, the Andes, and in the Himalyas have evolved different mechanisms for functioning more efficiently in the rarefied air.

In regard to this adapation, it is not a matter of "subhuman," but a matter of more effective adaptations.

Ashkenazi Jews carry genetics, BRCA, that render them particularly susceptible to breast cancer, not a beneficial development, and possibly developed in conjunction with some adaptive traits.

You seem to be referring to something that I have overtly stated. I am not concealing my observations in deference to any persona that I might wish to project. I recognize that you have all been conditioned to accept the fiction that all people are "the same" despite adaptation to different conditions and occurrence of random mutations, some of which were perpetuated.

What I did state is that the IQs of blacks were lower than those of other groups with certain Orientals and Asians having higher levels of IQ than whites or blacks as a group. This is stated on a statistical basis, and since there is a continuum, does not infer that any person of another race is more or less intelligent than any black person. Somehow your mentality transforms this observation into "hatred." Is it a fact or isn't it? Since blacks run the gamut, there are blacks operating at all levels of society.

And as an operational matter, blacks seem to excel in certain facets of entertainment. From observation of the behavior of indigenous Africans, it seems that they have a better sense of rhythm and resort to rhythmic demonstrations with some frequency as a matter of expression. Is this subhuman? I don't think so, although you may. Is there a transfer of procliviities, skills and enthusiasms, that have contributed to the American scene in music?

(cont.)

(cont.)

What I have suggested is that the euphemistically named "affirmative action" programs may be oxymoronic as they are based on postulates that may not reflect the reality. Since the median IQ of blacks is at a lower level, the question that I posed is whether it is sufficient to support a modern scientific-technological society, which requires the ability to master skills that may not be distributed in sufficient proportion across a society to maintain such a structure.

I also questioned the concept of "affirmative action," which is based on proportional participation and postulated equivalent abilities, declaring that lack of proportional representation reflects "discrimination" rather than differences in distribution of ability to engage in a particular activity at an equivalent skill level.

For example, there is a disproportionate number of superior black basketball players. I recognize skill level as the reason for qualification, and do not want "affirmative action" because I want to view the best players participating and view the game at the highest level. The same standard is not employed elsewhere with the burden reducing efficiency.

I regard the "No Child Left Behind" programs as not examining the basic competency of children to learn but instead proceeding on what is apparently an erroneous belief that the reason for lesser progress is anything but basic capacity of the children to learn.

Our society expends huge resources on the bases of misconceptions and pursues unattainable goals, and indeed berates itself for its misdesignated failures.

So, I am not as you suggest, "covert" in expression of my views. Your conclusion, however, that I regard blacks as "subhuman" is a matter of your analysis. I don't consider them another species so they are ipso facto not subhuman. I do decry charges of discrimination based on disproportional representation, which I attribute to more basic factors. I do as a general principle oppose "discrimination" against individuals. Many on the left are vociferous advocates of discrimination.

#87 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-11-18 10:56 AM

Obama had to earn Black support.

Can you emumerate the reasons?

Or is it confined to "racial identification" when he appeared to have a viable candidacy?

Gosh Rogue, on what basis did he "earn" black support?

#90 | Posted by Johnson

The same way he earned the support of the other people who voted for him... he became more of a known commodity, his positions and policies became better understood, and a majority of the voters liked what they saw and heard enough to elect the man President of the United States.

oh yeah the blacks carefully studied his policies

Yep.

That's how it happened.

oh yeah the blacks carefully studied his policies

Yep.

That's how it happened.

#92 | Posted by Fredo_C

That certainly deserves the classic... wow.

Given the above definitions, I would have to say that Hitler and the Nazi Party were racist.

I disagree with this. The Nazis have been thoroughly villified from the Holocaust to claiming 'Master Race' views. The Nazis simply wanted a land filled only with white people. This is the reason why they deported jews from Germany before and during the war rather than killing them. Here are some other shockers:

1.) Nazis never made soap from humans
2.) Nazis never made lamp shades from human skin
3.) The number of people 'exterminated' at Auschitz has been offically reduced from over 6M (original Soviet number) to less than 1M today with Red Cross numbers pointing to less than 200K overwhelmingly due to disease
4.) There were never any gassing of jews within the borders of Germany (Dachau, Ravensbruck, Birkenau) or any confirmed gassings East of Poland despite 'survicor' stories reporting exactly that
5.) The Dairy of Anne Frank was written by her father in ball point pen following the war, it is not a true story

These points, although unsettling to some, are not even a subject to debate between the holocause deniers and holocaust believers; these are all confirmed FACTS. I will not even get into the ubsurd subject of gassing people using diesel exhaust (which can not kill anyone in 30 minutes). Did the Nazis want to live with Jews and Blacks, no they did not. Did they systematically kill them because of racism, that is subject to debate.

That certainly deserves the classic... wow.

Rogue, I would invite you to watch the Howard Stern interview of blacks in NYC. He asked them if they supported Obama's stances on the following:

1.) Opposing stem cell research
2.) Strong belief Palin was ready as a VP
3.) Anti-Abortion
4.) Not pulling troops from Iraq

The people all said those were the reason why they were supporting him despite those being 180 degrees from his actualy position. The one issue the people knew was that he was black - and they agreed with that 99%.

Real Nazi-
"The Nazis simply wanted a land filled only with white people."

Awww...isn't that sweet.

To this end they deported, jailed and exterminated millions systematically based on race, and it is not "subject to debate".

Just out of curiosity, "REAL STORY", where do you get your information?

Rogue, I would invite you to watch the Howard Stern interview of blacks in NYC.

#95 | Posted by Real_Story

And you naturally think that Howard Stern presented a representative and scientifically accurate picture of Black voters.

But your holocaust post has already disqualified you from any serious consideration here.

Just out of curiosity, "REAL STORY", where do you get your information?

1.) Holocaust memorial in Israel
2.) Holocaust memorial in Israel
3.) This is stated on the updated plaque for the concentration camp, the sign stating 'over 4M' was taken down in the early 1980's
4.) The Dachau holocaust museum in Germany. As part of the 'gas chamber' exhibit, they state that the gas chamber was never used.
5.) The fact that part of the original manuscript was written in ball point pen - which was not invented until after her 'death'

Like I said, they are not easy facts to absorb, but they are facts nonetheless. After how many lies and propaganda were spread by Reagan and Bush, I would have thought you would have woken up enough to ask when the lying started...

But your holocaust post has already disqualified you from any serious consideration here.

Thank you for your honesty. Your closed minded acceptance of propaganda will save me the time of debating well known facts with you. Why argue that 2+2=4 with someone so closed minded that they think that it equals 5? If I were to believe you, I would have to believe that all black voters are aware of Obama's policies. This seems odd given that a majority of voters (of both races) do not know their candidates stand on the issues in many, many studies.

REAL NAZI-
I'd like a link from where YOU get your information.

"3.) The number of people 'exterminated' at Auschitz has been offically reduced from over 6M (original Soviet number) to less than 1M today with Red Cross numbers pointing to less than 200K overwhelmingly due to disease
4.) There were never any gassing of jews within the borders of Germany (Dachau, Ravensbruck, Birkenau) or any confirmed gassings East of Poland despite 'survicor' stories reporting exactly that" - Real Story

The 6M figure was the all-inclusive number for Jews killed by the Nazis. That number has always varied between 4 and 8 million. And, no, it has been accepted by every historian, except the so-called "revisionists" that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz. Both Nazi guards and concentration camp survivors state unequivocally that full trains of Jews arrived at Auschwitz and none walked away.

Your point number 4 is not accepted by anyone other than hard-core deniers, nor has it been since WWII. That many deaths occured in the space of hours is info that was stated by survivors, prison guards and locals. No concrete contrary evidence has ever been produced.

Betelg, I'd like a link from where YOU get your information

you can start with the below links. Remember, the truth will set you free!

REAL NAZI-
We seem to have a failure to communicate. I don't care about lampshades and soap. I don't care if the systematic execution estimate at ONE Nazi extermination camp was revised from four to merely 1,500,000 people.

what I wonder about is you

The 6M figure was the all-inclusive number for Jews killed by the Nazis. That number has always varied between 4 and 8 million.

You do not know your history. The original claim by the Soviets (who freed Auschwitz) was that 6M people were exterminated there. You are confusing that with the claim that 6M Jews died overall, but I will get to that next.

When the Auschwitz memorial was created, the 6M dead number for the camp was completely undefendable so the number was reduced 4M, which was put on the plaque that was shown there until the early 1980's and is still the claim made by most brainwashed Americans. In the early 1980s, the number was reduced to 1M dead at the camp from 4M dead at the camp and a new plaque was made, I posted the links to both plaques so you can see them with your own eyes.

How the number of dead jews remains fixed at 6M despite 3M less dead jews at Auschwitz is a good question, but I will not touch that one here.

As to your comment about gassings at Dachau, you are 100% wrong - the Israeli government, German government, Dachau museum, and historical record all disagree with you. You are so brainwashed, you can't even keep your myth straight anymore.

from above...

"People like "EARTHMUSE" ( bwah ha !)

Have finally rolled off the couch and think they are now part of some kind of political force.

The laughs just keep on comin'.

You'll be screaming to impeach Obama by Valentine's day.

#78 | Posted by Fredo_C at 2008-11-18 09:58 AM"

Sorry to burst your Rightnut Bubble. But have voted in every election since I was of age to vote, and now I'm 40. And no, I won't be wanting to impeach
Obama any time soon. Though I would vote to send all the haters and race baiters to a remote island
in the Pacific in a heartbeat. Guess that includes you Fredo_C...

It is simple really. The tatters of the Republican Party cannot figure out why the majority of the Country voted ole G.W. (Got War?) Bush and his Cronies out of office. Try causing about 8.5 trillion of our 10 trillion dollar deficit Republicans. Try causing the largest trade imbalance in this countries history. Try crook after crook in a crooked administration. Hell there is not enough space in this forum to type all of the reasons your party did not win. And NONE of them have to do with Obama's race...fricken idiot...

"You perceive a couple of impressions, and then you construct an entirely unrelated idea from a couple of points, based on your personal organization of reality." - Johnson

Very good desciption of your missives. At least you understand yourself.

"Since blacks run the gamut, there are blacks operating at all levels of society."
"Since the median IQ of blacks is at a lower level, the question that I posed is whether it is sufficient to support a modern scientific-technological society, which requires the ability to master skills that may not be distributed in sufficient proportion across a society to maintain such a structure." - Johnson

Interesting how the first statement seems to oppose the second, yet you insist on the second.

Anyhow, you have never addressed three issues in your various "musings". First, the "lower IQ level" of blacks (if we go by the studies you favor) is in the range of 3-5 points. Society functions with people/leaders who vary in IQ by a range of 30-40 points, yet it functions successfully. Why would 3-5 points make such a huge difference as to attain the result you mention - "the ability to master skills ..."?

Second, IQ is only a measure of potential. There is, very obviously, a huge difference between potential and reality. Yet you insist on a group being judged per its (small) _potential_ difference. Would definitely rule out quite a few white groups as well, yet you don't bring up that issue.

Third, you have never even tried to delineate the borders of a "black group" vs. a mixed black/white of black/latino or black/asian group. On the contrary, you take what might apply to sub-Saharan blacks as being a general rule for "blacks". Very bad methodology, to put it mildly.

what I wonder about is you

You are concerned that I read the actual historical record and know the actual history vs. commonly stated propaganda by the government? If that is what scares you, I truly am scared for America's future. What would the world be like if Galileo had not called BS on the church's view that the Earth was the center of the universe? The government lies to you to accomplish their goals - why is that so hard for you to understand? That should not scare you, critical thinking is an admirable skill.

REAL NAZI-
Do you think that the Holocaust was a hoax?

Though I would vote to send all the haters and race baiters to a remote island
in the Pacific in a heartbeat. Guess that includes you Fredo_C...

Great to see liberal 'tolerance' in action. God Damn that right to free speach, you will see things my way or you will be sent to a re-education camp!

"You do not know your history."

A really bad way to start stating your case. What I stated is the view held by most WWII historians. That you start off by disparaging their view gives you no credibility off the bat.

"6M dead number for the camp ..."

False, no serious historian promulgated those numbers. Read the history books.

"the Israeli government, German government, Dachau museum, and historical record all disagree with you"

As false as can be. Hell, even the Polish government agrees. The German government even considers it a crime to state that gassing wasn't done.

You really need to do some reading on the subject. Hell, even the leading "deniers" of the post-WWII years now disagree with you.

Do you think that the Holocaust was a hoax?

It does not matter what I believe. All that matters are the facts and true history. The points that I posted are all true. Do you accept that now? My belief one way or the other does not change what actually happened or the things that I posted so my beliefs are irrelevant. Yes, I believe people died at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, etc, I am not denying that fact. What I am doing is pointing out that common claims made to villify the Nazi's are completely untrue, which is what I responded to in my first post.

"You are concerned that I read the actual historical record and know the actual history"

No, I'd guess that people are amused that even the leading figures in the "revisionist" movement don't agree with you and would consider you to be ignorant of the facts.

REAL NAZI-
You think the Holocaust was a hoax.

REAL NAZI-
You don't think, despite abundant evidence, that the Nazis ever attempted to systematically eradicate Jews/undesirables from their Aryan nation - including, but not limited to, the use of extermination camps.

"the Israeli government, German government, Dachau museum, and historical record all disagree with you"

As false as can be. Hell, even the Polish government agrees. The German government even considers it a crime to state that gassing wasn't done.

Wow, forget critical thinking, you need basic reading skills. I posted that no gassing occured with Germany and specifically within the Dachau camp. This is backed up by all the sources that I stated above in addition to the link I provided earlier. First, learn to read. Next, learn to think. Lastly, learn to debate. You missed step 1 so it is no surprise that you can not make it to step 3.

"6M dead number for the camp ..."

False, no serious historian promulgated those numbers. Read the history books.

As I stated, this was the SOVIET ESTIMATE, this was judged down to 4M by the time the museum was created - which is what all the historian cited for the next several years until serious research arose to place the number at 1M, which is now the accepted number by academics. There are red cross records and the original german records placing the number under 200k, mainly from disease. As to the Soviet estimate, it came from camp commander Hoess under 'interogation'.

Really, you should get educated prior to trying to contribute to a discussion.

Dr Josef Kermisz, from the Jewish Historical Commission in Poland, wrote in 1949 that this Commission had evaluated the number of victims of Auschwitz at 1 500 000;

- Gerald Reitlinger in 1953 estimated at 800 000 to 900 000 the number of Jewish victims of Auschwitz;

- Raul Hilberg, in The Destruction of European Jews, 1961, estimated the number of Jewish victims of Auschwitz at 1 million and the total number of victims of Auschwitz at 1.1 million.

- Helmut Krausnick declared in 1964, at the process against former members of the Auschwitz staff in Frankfurt, that the total number of victims of Auschwitz was between on million and one and a half million;

- Georges Wellers in 1983 provided an estimate of 1.3 million Jewish victims at Auschwitz and a total of 1.5 million victims of the camp;

- Franciszek Piper, in a study that started in 1980 and the results of which were presented in 1991 and 1994, gave as the total number of victims of Auschwitz a minimum of 1.1 million and a maximum of 1.5 million.

You do what every Holocaust denier does, REAL NAZI. You can't attack the whole, for the evidence contrary to your belief is overwhelming. You nibble at the fringes, and question the numbers, or start yammering about soap when no one has mentioned soap. You are a Nazi apologist, and you reek.

REAL NAZI-
You think the Holocaust was a hoax.

I never stated that and your name calling by branding me a 'Nazi' is both inflamatory and infantile. We are not debating the holocaust, simply whether things that are widely believed that the Germans did were true or not - like gassing at Dachua, human soap, human skin lampshades. Your lack of intellectual curiousity is appalling. I suggest you at least spend some time trying to research the most current views prior to posting propaganda that you were spoonfed in the 5th grade.

FYI - thank you for more research on the 1M claim for Auschwitz. Now please explain why the sign up until 1980 read 4M. Next explain why most Americans cling to this number and why it took so long for the museum to update to a more defendable number.

REAL NAZI-
Go ahead. State "the Holocaust is not a hoax".

You are a Nazi apologist, and you reek.

You are the reason why I don't want Obama to 'spread my wealth' as I don't want to fund stupidity. When you can not debate the issues, you yell Nazi or racist or whatever else you think is imflamatory enough as part of an ad hominen attack. Your level of thinking and debate is amongst the lowest I have ever witnessed. I thought liberals were supposed to at least be educated. This is why I can't be racist, you always find exceptions to the rule.

REAL NAZI-
No, really: "the Holocaust is not a hoax,....."

Try it.

REAL NAZI-
Go ahead. State "the Holocaust is not a hoax".

Fine, the holocaust is not a hoax. People died - from jews, to homosexuals, to gypsies, etc. Happy? This is entirely consistent with what I posted previously. Hope this doesn't cause you little world to come crashing down on you.

REAL NAZI-
re: "People died"

Just up and died?

Was it a bad flu? An earthquake?

BETELG, people died. Some were killed, some died from overwork/starvation and some died from disease. I am not now or ever had denied that a lot of people died in concentration camps so I really don't know what you point is here.

What I posted were 5 points that are commonly used to villify the Nazi's that are completely false. We are not arguing the existance of god here or some other abstract idea, we are arguing where the 5 things I listed were facts and they are 100% true.

You, realizing that you had lost the argument, want to shift the goal posts now and debate whether the holocaust happened so you can feel good and 'right'. Sorry, I am not going to let you get away with it. I never denied the holocaust, I just stated 5 points that were 100% true. You, being an idiot, said that I was wrong and then went on to claim a bunch of undefendable nonsense until you realized that you were beaten and tried to change the debate. Sorry, you LOSE.

"People died.Some were killed,..."

How, and why, and by whom?

"What I posted were 5 points that are commonly used to villify the Nazi's that are completely false."

So are you saying that if only, say 2,000,000 people died due to being imprisoned, starved, overworked, and/or murdered by the Nazis, rather than 6,000,000, then that makes the Nazis less evil by extension?

This is from Wiki and before you say "Wiki is never true," please refute with proof.

Simon Wiesenthal's encounter with deniers distributing pamphlets calling the diary a 'fake' propelled him into investigating the arrest of the Frank family, with the dual purpose of bringing to justice the betrayer and thus proving the diary's historic legitimacy. The investigation ended in 1963 when he located Karl Silberbauer, the officer who arrested the Frank family in their hiding place. Although he could shed little light on the identity of their betrayer, Silberbauer remembered the incident and provided a detail which contradicted the contemporary Nazis who alleged the diary was a post-war invention; during the arrest he saw Anne Frank's diaries and manuscripts as he emptied them from a briefcase used to remove items stolen from the prisoners.

In the light of this testimony, Holocaust deniers began to shift their focus away from denying the existence of Anne Frank to casting doubt on the authenticity of the published version of her diary, alleging paradoxically that she was not the author of the book, and that the published version was not representative of what was written in the original notebooks.

Otto Frank had stated in interviews that he cut many passages from the manuscript that he thought would be of little interest to the general reader before the book's original publication and that he had assigned pseudonyms to protect the identities of those Anne Frank had mentioned by name. Holocaust deniers suggested this was proof the published version was not an accurate transcription of the manuscripts, and even that this suggested the work had been written wholly or partly by Otto Frank or one of his associates.

Although he took successful legal actions for the remainder of his life to protect the memory of his daughter, it was only after Otto Frank's death in 1980 and the publication of Anne Frank's unabridged diaries that the debate could finally be put to rest. In his will, Otto Frank bequeathed his daughter's manuscripts to the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, who commissioned a forensic study to determine when the manuscripts had been prepared, and by whom. The glue, paper and other materials used in the original notebooks as well as the ink and handwriting found within them and the loose version were extensively examined and in 1986 the results were published. The handwriting was found to be consistent with known examples of Anne Frank's handwriting, and the paper, ink and glue found in the diaries and loose papers were consistent with materials available in Amsterdam during the period in which the diary was written.

Rogue, nice attempt. As I stated to your twin BETELG, I am not debating the holocaust. I put up 5 things that are common believed about the Nazis that are 100% wrong. Are you going to debate that or are you going to keep trying to move the goal posts like BETELG?

Come on guys, let's hear you state:
1.) Nazis did not make human soap
2.) Nazis did not make human skin lamp shades
3.) The number of people 'exterminated' at Auschitz has been offically reduced from over 6M (original Soviet number) to less than 1M today with Red Cross numbers pointing to less than 200K overwhelmingly due to disease
4.) No gassings occured at Dachau
5.) Anne Frank's diary was written by her father

Sanantonio-
I got out my calculator. If the Nazi's only imprisoned, starved, exterminated 2,000,000 human beings because of their race/ethnicity/aryan fitness, that makes them 2/3rds less evil.

For example: according to REAL NAZI, there is NO evidence that Nazi's actually made lampshades out of the Jews they exterminated. That would have been really mean.

I already took care of number 5. Now for number 4.

4.) No gassings occured at Dachau

This is your proof the Nazis did not gas people? America has not tortured anyone in America; does that mean we are not doing it in Gitmo? Does that mean we are not sending people out to other countries we know will torture them? Does that mean we are 100% innocent of the torture being done in our name with our blessings and with our aid just because it happens on soil under our control, but not owned by us?

REAL NAZI-
How do you feel about the new president?

Kanrei - first off, there were 2 diaries allegedly written by Anne Frank. After the war, he father combined them into 1 book and provided an unknown number of edits, editions, etc. They are still finding pages that she allegedly wrote. Next, given that she is dead, I don't see how you can provide 'handwritten samples' (where did they come from?) and say everything is genuine. The fact that ball point pen is in the book further makes this unbelievable. I know you want it to be a true story, but there are many, many fake holocaust survivor books and Frank's diary isn't unique in this way.

1.) Nazis did not make human soap
2.) Nazis did not make human skin lamp shades

No, but they did cremate the bodies, destroy records of birth, and steal all their possessions. Considering Jews are not allowed to alter the human body, the tattoos they were marked with and the cremation of their bodies were both major sins and kept these victims from having their remains burried in a Jewish cemetary. Much better.

"Are you going to debate that or are you going to keep trying to move the goal posts like BETELG?"

No one is moving any goalposts because you never established any.

They didn't make soap? So what.

They didn't make lamp shades? So what.

They killed less people than initial thought? As I asked you in my previous post - WHAT is your point?

No gassings at Dachau? Maybe, but lots of people were illegally imprisoned and died there anyway. So WHAT is your point?

Anne Frank's diary. No verifiable proof of that, but again, so what? She existed and died in a concentration camp. Does it really matter what lead up to that event?

President-elect Barack Obama.

Damn, I love that.

This is your proof the Nazis did not gas people?

Where did I claim that the Nazis did not gas people? Please show me where I wrote that - if you can't, then shut the hell up, admit that you were wrong and apologize. What I wrote is that they did not gas people at Dachau. I post this is it commonly believed by the uninformed that they did. Second, there are many 'survivor' stories talking about gassing at Dachau. If they were lying, what else would they lie about?

Very compelling argument. WWII history is very biased and misleading

The fact that ball point pen is in the book further makes this unbelievable.

That is explained in my post.

"Otto Frank had stated in interviews that he cut many passages from the manuscript that he thought would be of little interest to the general reader before the book's original publication and that he had assigned pseudonyms to protect the identities of those Anne Frank had mentioned by name. Holocaust deniers suggested this was proof the published version was not an accurate transcription of the manuscripts, and even that this suggested the work had been written wholly or partly by Otto Frank or one of his associates."

How can we get handwritting samples from a dead person? You are kidding, right? You think when a person dies, everything they ever wrote dies with them?

I know you don't want to believe it, but I know for a fact that it did happen. My family's history is gone, wiped out. I had to do a project years ago in school making a family tree and could only go back to when my great grandmother came to America because all records of her family ever existing in Germany are gone. She was, according to offical records, never born. Explain that one! Her family, brother and sisters, never existed. Her mother never married her father, and, they never existed either.

You're a piece of work, real story.

Real, what you wrote was that no gassings happened in Germany. Quite different than none at one camp. If you can't keep your arguements straight, to quote you, "then shut the hell up, admit that you were wrong and apologize"

Somebody check the archives (Hans). Is this our very first real Nazi apologist?

REAL NAZI-
Why are you on a liberal blog in the middle of the day arguing that the NAZIS got a bad rap with the whole Holocaust PR setback?

What I want to know is you guys on the left going to keep using the name Chimpy for the incoming president?

She was, according to offical records, never born. Explain that one! Her family, brother and sisters, never existed. Her mother never married her father, and, they never existed either.

#142 | Posted by kanrei

Does that mean that you don't exist either, Kanrei?

Real,
From you:

"I posted that no gassing occured with Germany and specifically within the Dachau camp. This is backed up by all the sources that I stated above in addition to the link I provided earlier. First, learn to read. Next, learn to think. Lastly, learn to debate. You missed step 1 so it is no surprise that you can not make it to step 3.

Really, you should get educated prior to trying to contribute to a discussion.

Posted by Real_Story at 2008-11-18 01:33 PM

You need to follow your own advice and "get educated prior to trying to contribute to a discussion."

Does that mean that you don't exist either, Kanrei?

#148 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-11-18 02:27 PM

Only according to offical Nazi records.

Real Story puts up a good argument and so far all you mental midgets haven't been able to squash his argument. I have always found WWII history to be very vague and biased. That is why WWII era fiction works so well. Just ask Jack higgins

TIMBCI-
What's the conclusion of the "good argument" that REAL STORY made?

For the record, I can't believe that you all let a one day old nube troll you like this.

Yes. You're so above it all HC.

Betelg,
You took the bait. TIMBCI was going to keep posting that over and over until someone said something. He posted it the first time at 2:22 and again at 2:29. Personally, I was waiting for the 2:38 showing.

Kanrei-

Sorry. I'd like to see his answer.

For the record, I can't believe that you all let a one day old nube troll you like this.

#153 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-11-18 02:32 PM |

The very day after RCADE says Jeffindenmark posts anti-Semetic things. Hmmm.....has anyone seen Jeffindenmark today or is he suddenly going to appear now?

Yes. You're so above it all HC.

#154 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Just saying.... you made him feel right at home here, welcoming him with open arms.

Should have given him a week or more of the stoneface... maybe he would go away.

Still waiting for someone to disprove Realstor with an unbiased historical source

The very day after....
#157 | Posted by kanrei

this poster's stuff is over the top for Jeff, I think.

Still waiting for Real to post something worth disproving. He posted his theories and we posted sources that refutes his theories. If he starts posting some facts then I will answer him with facts, but we all already know he can't find any.

Kurt Steiner was a gentleman and a hero

How can we get handwritting samples from a dead person? You are kidding, right? You think when a person dies, everything they ever wrote dies with them?

I know you don't want to believe it, but I know for a fact that it did happen. My family's history is gone, wiped out. I had to do a project years ago in school making a family tree and could only go back to when my great grandmother came to America because all records of her family ever existing in Germany are gone.

I think you just proved my point. Your whole family history was wiped out but an exiled Anne Frank has 2 diaries and numerous writing samples available that know with 100% CERTAINTY that she wrote for comparison purposes. Okay, yep, I believe that one.

Real, what you wrote was that no gassings happened in Germany. Quite different than none at one camp. If you can't keep your arguements straight, to quote you, "then shut the hell up, admit that you were wrong and apologize"

Please, provide evidence of a gassing that occured at any camp west of poland. There were many camps and I don't want to link to all of them. You only need to find one example in a camp in Germany, France, Denmark, Belgium...please, provide the link and prove me wrong.

"Now please explain why the sign up until 1980 read 4M." - RS

The Russians calculated, supposedly, the number of victims Auschwitz could have killed, using krema capacities, etc. The Polish site, under USSR control post-war, used the number enforced by the Russians.

If you want to know the truth read Kurt Steiner's biography

Real,
Yes. My great grandmother left in 1928. No other member of her family did. It was well before the Nazis when she left. Years later, when the Nazis took power, her entire family was wiped out and all German Jews did disappear. Anne Frank was not a German Jew, but was in Amsterdamn: different country with different records, but under the same rulers after Germany invaded. Members of her family survived, members of my family that stayed did not. Families do tend to keep things: letters and such. You can believe what you want. Everything I have said is true.

The Russians calculated, supposedly, the number of victims Auschwitz could have killed, using krema capacities, etc. The Polish site, under USSR control post-war, used the number enforced by the Russians.

And why do you believe the Russians used such high estimates? Why do you think the Russians provided fake photographs and examples of things like a 'bone crushing machine'? Do you think, maybe, just maybe, there was a hint of government propaganda involved? Do you think maybe the Russians exaggerated to make the German people seem worse than they were? As Rogue state above, would 2M make the Nazis less bad than 6M?; I honestly don't know but the Russians certainly believe that to be true.

Please, provide evidence of a gassing that occured at any camp west of poland. There were many camps and I don't want to link to all of them. You only need to find one example in a camp in Germany, France, Denmark, Belgium...please, provide the link and prove me wrong.

#164 | Posted by Real_Story at 2008-11-18 02:42 PM |

Gotcha...American doesn't torture anyone ever because it is done by us in non-democratic countries. Germany never gased anyone because they did it somewhere else...got it. My mistake.

"we are arguing where the 5 things I listed were facts and they are 100% true."

They obviously can't be true. As you stated, the sign at Auschwitz said 4 million died there, so your figure of 6 million is 100% wrong.

"to less than 1M today with Red Cross numbers pointing to less than 200K"

I posted what some prominent historians state and their number is at least 1 million. So you are 100% wrong again.

"No gassings occured at Dachau"

Yet various prominent historians say otherwise. In books they have published. What books have you written on this topic?

And why do you believe the Russians used such high estimates? Why do you think the Russians provided fake photographs and examples of things like a 'bone crushing machine'?

Yeah, because Stalin never faked anything in history. Just because Russia lost over 25 million people to defeat Germany and just because Germany betrayed Russia after swearing to not invade, there is no reason at all for Russia to exagerate the claims of what if found in Germany.

Kanrei-
The shorter REAL STORY:
Don't you understand that there is no credible evidence that any lampshades or soap were made of the bodies of your kin after the Nazis systematically exterminated them?

See, they weren't all THAT bad...

America has been torturing its enemies since the Pilgrims

You can believe what you want. Everything I have said is true.

Kanrei, I never said that I doubted your story. According to the holocaust museum in Berlin (the memorial right next to the Brandenberg Gate), 186K jews died in Germany during the holocaust. What I doubt is some of the government propaganda that was used post-war to villify the Nazis (human soap, gassing in Germany, shrunken heads, human skin lampshades) and quash questions around the Allies war crimes, like the firebombing of Dresden.

"Second, there are many 'survivor' stories talking about gassing at Dachau".

The survivors whose stories are most quoted were inmates at the camps who survived the war. Their experiences are agreed upon by locals of the camps.
Who to believe, you or them. Tough question.

Gotcha...American doesn't torture anyone ever because it is done by us in non-democratic countries. Germany never gased anyone because they did it somewhere else...got it. My mistake.

Once again, nice attempt to move the goal posts. I never denied that the Nazis gassed people, but it did not occur in Germany or anywhere West of Poland. Do you want to debate the argument I put forward or continue making up your own strawman to knock down? If the first, I will continue to participate, if the second, you are on your own.

"And why do you believe the Russians used such high estimates?" - RS

To make an equivalent argument to their own killings. Which, however, doesn't make the fact of either their killings or the concentration camp killings untrue.

I notice you haven't refuted the historians I mentioned in my post. Because you can't?

Real,
Are all the stories about things the Nazis did true? Of course not. I will be the first one to admit people exagerate stories to make a point. The issue is, if even 10% of the stories are true, and we know more than 10% are true because the Nazis loved to film things, then there is no defending them. If it were 5 million instead of 6 million or even 2.5 million innocent people killed, that is horrible and sick and wrong. The Nazis are simply the most recent example of pure evil we can find to help explain pure evil and they will remain the example until someone kills 7 million people.

Do I think you are a Nazi? NOt at all. Do I think you deny the holocaust? NOt at all, but your defense that evil is really only slightly less evil than percieved is where the problem lies and it is a personal topic with me and many others due to the fact that it is only 60 years removed. My grandfather heard the names and saw the pain as he grew up, as did my mother. The people who died are not statistics to be debated to me and many other people, so I am sorry if I got too defensive with you.

"186K jews died in Germany during the holocaust"

What utter unmitigated crap. Every respected historian will laugh himself silly at that line. Shit, even prominent "deniers" will.

"No gassings occured at Dachau"

Yet various prominent historians say otherwise. In books they have published. What books have you written on this topic?

FYI, please go to the links that I posted earlier, read them, and then come back and join the discussion once you have become educated. Gassing did not occur at Dachau, period. No one debates this point but a few brainwashed deadenders and some 'survirors' looking to make money. All the governments of the world along with the Dachau memorial, along with all the scientific research says that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

REAL NAZI-
re: "I never denied that the Nazis gassed people, but it did not occur in Germany or anywhere West of Poland."

WTF? Well, that's what we were all concerned about. You are one fucked up Nazi sob, dude.

"like the firebombing of Dresden" - RS

Let me guess. You believe that over 100,000 Germans died in that firebombing. Even though the German government itself states that the number was around 20,000 at most.

Good day folks

"FYI, please go to the links that I posted earlier, read them, and then come back and join the discussion once you have become educated."

Tell me again, what books have you published on this topic? Because as of now, I can quote lots of historians, prominent, respected, accepted who would think you are an idiot.

I never denied that the Nazis gassed people, but it did not occur in Germany or anywhere West of Poland.

Another problem is that you seem to be separating Germany the country from the Nazis where most of us debating you are using the terms as meaning the same thing. Nazis, the Germany government, did gas people, therefore it is correct to say Germany gassed people. You are talking physical boarders, however, once Germany took over France, it was Germany and anything done in France, or Poland if you prefer, was done by Germany and in Germany.

"186K jews died in Germany during the holocaust"

What utter unmitigated crap. Every respected historian will laugh himself silly at that line. Shit, even prominent "deniers" will.

Will you accept a link from the US Holocaust Memorial for proof or are they holocaust deniers as well in your opinion?

Dresden was never firebombed. The city ceased to exist after the Black Plague. It is one big hoax

WTF? Well, that's what we were all concerned about. You are one fucked up Nazi sob, dude.

BETELG, go back to my original post. Like I said from the beginning, you problem is reading comprehension, you have made it to the critical thinking stage yet.

Let me guess. You believe that over 100,000 Germans died in that firebombing. Even though the German government itself states that the number was around 20,000 at most.

Okay, I get it. Since only 20K people died, the US was only 1/5 as evil. Thanks for the math on that one BETELG!

186K jews died in Germany during the holocaust. W

#174 | Posted by Real_Story

Your very own link from #186 says different -

"German SS and police murdered nearly 2,700,000 Jews in the killing centers either by asphyxiation with poison gas or by shooting. In its entirety, the "Final Solution" called for the murder of all European Jews by gassing, shooting, and other means. Approximately six million Jewish men, women, and children were killed during the Holocaust -- two-thirds of the Jews living in Europe before World War II."

"Gassing did not occur at Dachau, period. No one debates this point"

In 1942 a gas chamber was also built in the Dachau concentration camp, but inexplicably, it was not used. It was located within the new crematorium, a larger building whose construction with four ovens became necessary when the first crematorium, which had only one oven, proved inadequate.
- from the official Dachau Memorial site

Wrong again.

Santanio. You need to improve you reading comprehension. READ IT AGAIN. You are a mental midget

Real,
The link from the USHM says that number was from 1939-1945. The Nazis took power in 1933. How many Jews in Germany were killed between 1933 and 1939 in addition to the 300,000 that ran away?

Uhm, which part of the quote directly from the site he provided are you having trouble grasping, TIMBeCIle?

FYI,
Your posts proves Real right about Daucha. You posted "but inexplicably, it was not used. " They did cremate more people however since " a larger building whose construction with four ovens became necessary when the first crematorium, which had only one oven, proved inadequate." This means tons of people died there, only from not feeding and over working them to death, not gassing. It was a much crueler form of murder.

Gassing did not occur at Dachau, period. No one debates this point"

In 1942 a gas chamber was also built in the Dachau concentration camp, but inexplicably, it was not used. It was located within the new crematorium, a larger building whose construction with four ovens became necessary when the first crematorium, which had only one oven, proved inadequate.
- from the official Dachau Memorial site

Wrong again.

Man, you are one dumb SOB. What part of 'inexplicably, it was not used' from your own post do you need help understanding?

"You are a prime example of the brainwashed masses that are driving this country into the ground."

Except for the undisputed fact that every mainstream historian would label your statements as undisputed crap. Come on, what book(s) have you written on the topic? What credentials do you bring to the discussion? What makes you think that everything you've stated hasn't been long debunked? Hell, one of the top "deniers" actually took his case, built along the same lines as your argument to the courts. And lost. And had to pay damages. And has since changed his story to one much more in line with mainstream historians.

But, no, everyone is wrong. No one has _really_ studied the issue. You are the sole expert.

Man, you are one dumb SOB. What part of "when the first crematorium, which had only one oven, proved _inadequate_" do you not understand?

From my link to the USHMM:

"The Nazis killed some 170,000 German Jews during the Holocaust."

The number at the memorial in Berlin is updated to shown 186K.

Quick poll here:

Please state whether you think FYI is correct in his/her reading of the Dachau gas chamber being used?

I say that it was not used and his/her link even proves that. Please help us.

Kanrei,

Lets see. They built a crematorium. Decided it was too small. Built four more to better handle to load. And to you this means they didn't use the crematoriums?

FYI, maybe your problem is vocabulary vs. comprehension. A crematorium is used to cremate bodies, not gas people. Does this help?

"his/her link even proves that."

Shit, RS, learn to read. Then learn to understand what you have read. No wonder you believe that crap.

"A crematorium is used to cremate bodies, not gas people. Does this help?"

Nope, because you haven't proved that they didn't gas Jews there.

Hell, you are wrong on so many counts it is no wonder you try to parse.

RS, I'm still waiting for the list of your credentials on this subject. Especially the list of books you have written.

To those who offered some feedback on my last post, well done. I appreciate the honest discussion and debate.

I often see the word racism used improperly because it's definition is widely misunderstood. The use of the word "racism" renders impact and insult and has devolved into more of a cuss word than a description.

You have made some good points and that was my goal.

I believe that the first step to real racial healing would be to understand the differences between racism, bigotry and prejudice.

Nope, because you haven't proved that they didn't gas Jews there.

I was wrong, you are just plain out retarded and/or stubborn. Notice the silence from your flock of supportors on this issue. Unless they are willing to suspend reality/commonsense, it is impossible to read your own post and come to the conclusion that people were gassed at Dachau. Hell, the link states clearly that the gas chamber was NEVER USED. What part of this is difficult for you to understand, the 'never' or the 'used'?

And to you this means they didn't use the crematoriums?

#201 | Posted by fyi at 2008-11-18 03:18 PM

FYI,

Re-read my posts. I am agreeing mostly with you, only they did not gas people at Dachua according to Real and Your own posts. Crematoriums means they had dead bodies to burn, a sin to Jews, but does not mean the bodies were gassed prior to death. Dachua was mostly a labor camp so the people who died there were mostly worked to death.

Aww. I woulda got involved in this earlier, but it looks like it's already run it's course.

1) Kook puts forth weird theory.

2) Kook's theory is shot down.

3) Kook argues against arguments nobody made.

4) People point out nobody ever said that, and further debunk kook's argument.

5) Kook begins to claim he didn't say what he said.

6) People incredulously restate the facts

7) Kook continues to attack things nobody cares about, whilst simultaneously discounting the witnesses who were actually THERE.

8) People begin to ignore kook until next time he flares up.

Seriously, I like to come in around step 3 or so when bOoB does it, and I had to miss the fun of this one entirely? I am, in fact, a sad panda.

Which is a hell of a feat, since I'm a Fox. :)

"Notice the silence from your flock of supportors on this issue."

My supporters are the various historians who have written on this topic. They are not, nor have they been silent. I am, howver, still waiting for the list of your credentials on this subject. Especially the list of books you have written.

There is no point in arguing with someone whose basic premise is "the Nazis got a bad rap with that whole Holocaust thingy." You are all wasting your time.

Here FYI, read this again. I bolded the important part for you.

FYI,
Your posts proves Real right about Daucha. You posted "but inexplicably, it was not used. " They did cremate more people however since " a larger building whose construction with four ovens became necessary when the first crematorium, which had only one oven, proved inadequate." This means tons of people died there, only from not feeding and over working them to death, not gassing. It was a much crueler form of murder.

#195 | Posted by kanrei at 2008-11-18 03:12 PM

Thank you Kanrei, I like that at least someone on this board has some degree of reading comprehension and honesty.

My supporters are the various historians who have written on this topic. They are not, nor have they been silent. I am, howver, still waiting for the list of your credentials on this subject. Especially the list of books you have written.

#210 | Posted by fyi at 2008-11-18 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Newsworthy flag, since there's no "Good lord, bravo for taking the time to point this out to the deluded moron" flag.

Newsworthy flag, since there's no "Good lord, bravo for taking the time to point this out to the deluded moron" flag.

#214 | Posted by soheifox

Dumbass Flag for you soheifoz. Even Kanrei admits that FYI is wrong, yet here you are to defend him/her without any knowledge or facts. Your brain is an empty sponge, you should try to soak up some of my knowledge so you can do something beside making fart noises and drooling all day.

"you should try to soak up some of my knowledge"

That's probably how the brain used in the monster in Young Frankenstein became AB Normal.

Even Kanrei admits that FYI is wrong

NO, I said that the links you and he both posted say he is wrong. I cannot and have not spoken for specific camps. I said Germany did gas and you said Germany did not. Daucha or Dachau did not gas, it was a labor camp, but the Nazis did and there is no debating nor defending that fact.

"Dachau did not gas, it was a labor camp"

But somehow in Real Apologist's twisted little mind, being directly responsible for someone's death is more acceptable, as long as you didn't gas 'em.

Real,
You and I do not agree! I believe Anne Frank's diary to be true and you do not. You have stated here that her father wrote it which is a common claim made by deniers. You claim not to be one, and that may be true, but 100% of the arguements you have posted are the arguments they use.

Sana,
It also does not matter that A) they knew they were going to kill people because they built a crematorium, or that B) they killed so many that they had to expand the one they made to four times the size.

Real Story, Do me a favor and don't try and help us out when we start talking about the War of Northern Aggression. I don't think I could live with it.

Dumbass Flag for you soheifoz. Even Kanrei admits that FYI is wrong, yet here you are to defend him/her without any knowledge or facts. Your brain is an empty sponge, you should try to soak up some of my knowledge so you can do something beside making fart noises and drooling all day.

#215 | Posted by Real_Story at 2008-11-18 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

No he does NOT, you gibbering loon. He points out that while what you said is TECHNICALLY correct, it's only because they did something even WORSE then gassing them.

It appears that johnson has some company:

Posted by Real_Story

Oops:

"Daucha or Dachau did not gas"

Kanrei, yeah, they did. They did not run it as an extermination camp, but various gasing experiments were held there (and at Treblinka) and multiple people died. The issue of gasing at Dachau is one where no concrete evidence can be provided to prove it occured en masse, though circumstancial evidence does exist and has been presented in various court cases. And the numbers, whatever they be, are small. Which is why it's not listed when the "extermination camps" are listed.

Notice RS in his post said "No" gasings were done there. Notice he did not say it wasn't an extermination camp. Notice I didn't either.

The rest of his post was worth crap, esp. re Auschwitz, so I thought I'd focus on this point. His points are the kind of hairsplitting "deniers" like to focus on, the theory being that if they can "prove" some point they focus on, it makes the entire Holocaust not real. Or that it was the locals, that is, the Poles or whereever the extermination camps were located, who did the gasings (yeah, I've really read that) and the Germans weren't culpable. The latest is that Hitler didn't know the Holocaust was occuring, so he wasn't at fault. I've been through this scenario, as a reader and sometimes as a participant, too many times.

#224 | Posted by fyi at 2008-11-18 04:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm still inclined to agree with Kanrei on this one, because the clear intent of that subset of this insane argument was whether institutionalized gassing was done there. Unless the kook actually directly DID say that no gassing occured there? I hadn't thought he did, but I might have missed it.

I mean, German Shepherds don't kill human babies, as a general rule. Just because some do here and there kill one doesn't mean the breed is known for babykilling.

You know.. unless some douchebag was actually claiming that breed NEVER killed babies, it would be a point that's not really making a worthwhile point.

#164 | Posted by Real_Story at 2008-11-18 02:42 PM

Please, provide evidence of a gassing that occured at any camp west of poland. There were many camps and I don't want to link to all of them. You only need to find one example in a camp in Germany, France, Denmark, Belgium...please, provide the link and prove me wrong.

It's something to the effect that someone is accused of raping and killing 70 children, and his defenders try to establish that the accusations concerning eleven of the rape-murders are questionable, and that from the perspective of a skeptic, it can only be irrefutably established that he raped and killed 59 children.

Is that an exoneration of the nature and character of the rapist-murderer of the 59 children. What are you trying to establish regarding the Holocaust as you do acknowledge that conduct that resulted in many "premature deaths" did occur as a consequence of "concentration" of people in these camps? Again, what's your point?

I've read your documentary material and your argument, Real_Story, and I'm interested in just what your point is.

Johnson, my point is that governments lie to their people to 1.) gain sympathy and 2.) villify an opposing view/population.

It is relevant to this discussion as I am 100% positive that you will see way overblown stories about 'racists' coming out of the woodwork now that Obama is President. It will be used to justify whatever he does does like the jews cling to 'we won't let another holocaust happen'. More to your point specifically. This is not a reduction from 70-59, this is a reduction from 6M to 4M to 1M to perhaps under 200K for Auschwitz alone. And yes, I think if 1.) the real number of dead was stated from Day 1 and 2.) attempts to villify the Nazis beyond their own horrific deeds were not made, than it is unlikely that there would be a state of Israel or support of such of state today. Reducing the dead jews from 6M to 1M or less (for instance, not claiming it to be accurate) would make the holocaust just one of histories great tradegies but not very unique. It would fall behind the Armenian genocide, Stalin's death toll, the Culural Revolutions death toll, and Cambodia under Pol Pot just to name a few. If they had not pointed to a systematic attempt at genocide, than I don't think anyone would have said that a sancuary state was necessary.

looks at the above posts rather sheepishly...

"Ah brother", sighs, "so much for enlightenment".

Can we seriously stick all of the racist nematoads
on like one island, downwind in say, a nuclear
testing range, and just test, one or two hydrogen
bombs on the region....please...(bats eyes coyly)...
pretty please...

tools of ignorance...all they will ever be...

I would keep posting but you gotta realize when
it becomes useless...not gonna change any minds here.

"Unless the kook actually directly DID say that no gassing occured there?"

Soheifox, yeah, he stated as point 4: "4.) No gassings occured at Dachau."

Of course he meant that it wasn't an extermination camp. But note how he clings to his "under 200K for Auschwitz alone" statement in the face of quotes I through out, quotes from various mainstream historians. Note how his intent is to get the Holocaust number below 1 million or less so it can be reduced in importance, for his purpose. Notice how he uses the "no gassings at Dachau" to conect, somehow to the overall gassings and somehow reduce the total number of Jews who were gassed. I've read multiple listings of Jews gassed at various camps and Dachau is never mentioned. But he brings it up anyway. It's fun to fuck with such a clown.

"Again, what's your point?" - Johnson

Damn, Johnson, you went and spoiled it. You knew as well as I did what it was. No fun in that. The fun is in dealing with the structure and evolution of the theory. What things will be strung together. How much will he push the limits of belief. How will his statements be stated and defended. How will he react to counter arguments. Etc.

anything to the right will now called racist. the
old russian brainwashers will stand in awe.

"old russian brainwashers will stand in awe."

You're either with us or against us.

Hans

I do stand corrected, FYI.

As for another thing:

"It is relevant to this discussion as I am 100% positive that you will see way overblown stories about 'racists' coming out of the woodwork now that Obama is President. "

Not even VAGUELY related. Six million Jews isn't "way overblown", because it was still MILLIONS OF JEWS. This is not close. This is not similar. This is not even in the same GALAXY as the jerkoffs who will call you a racist every time you dare to call Obama on his bullshit. You're discussing the systematic slaughter of millions of people, and saying it's overblown because we initially had the wrong number of MILLIONS?

I don't care if it was 1 million or 512 million, we are WAY past the line of sanity long before we even reach ONE million. By the time you reach a hundred thousand people you are already light years past what qualifies as "attempted genocide". Do you understand how much killing has to be done to slaughter even _one_ million people over the space of 6 years? If someone came along and killed one person out of every 10 in the city of Chicago alone over the span of 6 years it would be considered horrendous.

And we're supposed to care that, instead of the initial 6 million slaughtered, it might have only been 3 or 4 million? Who would? They're insane numbers. You cannot possibly imagine what a bowl of 1 million M and M's even looks like, never mind a million living, breathing people who worked, played, thought and studied. And I like the part where you tried to excuse it by saying "The Germans gave the Jews a chance to leave first, they just wanted to create a whites-only land" Yes, yes, you will argue semantics and say you're only trying to point out a fact, not agreeing on it.

But you're lying. And it doesn't take a psychic to TELL you're lying. Adults can smell bullshit, and only children and lawyers play shit little word games like that. The only reason you would even MENTION something like that is either to A) Make fun of them for it, or B) Think that the Jews should have taken the hint and left.

As if it's that fucking easy anyway. How would you like it if the cops came along and said "Everyone who believes in your religion has one week to leave."? You wouldn't. You'd tell them, quite righteously, that your home is your home, and you're not leaving. It's all high and mighty to say, "Well, my life is more important." Except if you haven't been there, you don't know. And you haven't been there. And so long as people who think LIKE you are kept out of power, you never WILL have to be there. You'll never know true fear. The worst that will happen to you is that, I suppose, the scary black people might mug you or, even worse, Jews might move into your neighborhood. Wooo TERRIFYING.

You'd really be doing yourself a favor if you shut the hell up. You were never trying to make any point about Obama, you just wanted to spew your Nazi bullshit. Yeah, well, except for Jeff In Denmark, nobody's buying into your shit. Even _Johnson_, who can't go two posts without giving "scientific reasons" why Black people suck, is taking you to school. Go take your Aryan crap elsewhere. The adults are trying to have immature conversations here.

Not crazy ones.

What I *am* trying to point out is the hypocricy of the left and the press.

#4 | Posted by sawdust at 2008-11-15 09:57 AM |

that damn "librul" media! right, sawdust-between-the ears?

#6 | Posted by hillbillydeluxe

I think HillBilly represents the hypocricy.

He is one of those Liberal racist who hates conservatism and labels it racist. He needs for successful people to be racist in order to successfully take their success. They are racists so we need to steal their success. In order for the Democrats to be elected, they had to preach hate. It happens here every day.

"It happens here every day."

You're either with us or against us.

Hans

EDDIE

71% of Americans are confused what 'conservatism' is - Democrats and Independents (29% identify themselves as Republican).

The traditional definition has been blighted through reckless govt growth and debt under total GOP management of government in addition to reckless use of the U.S. Military.

Add the "social conservatives" to the mix and 'conservatism' has little true meaning to a vast majority of us. For instance, on the issue of abortion the paradox of caring about fetuses and vetoing SCHIP cannot be reconciled.