I thought this might be interesting to some people

[digiram]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich.html

Let the flaming begin!!!!

 

[MidasKnight]

Originally posted by: digiram
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich.html

Let the flaming begin!!!!

So I suppose this is an offical Troll thread then ..... :roll:

 

[Insane3D]

The only people that will find this "interesting" are the whackjobs on the extreme of the political spectrum.

Let the flaming begin!!!!

So, you posted this with the sole intention of starting yet another flame war? Thanks, because we don't have nearly enough of those already.

:roll:

What ever happend to discussing politics in a civil and reasoned manner?

 

[Kilgor]

Wow I've been on these forums many of years and I've stayed out of P/N now I remember why.

 

[Bowfinger]

This looks to become yet another thread where the Bush apologists use every trick in the book except actually addressing the points raised in the article.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This looks to become yet another thread where the Bush apologists use every trick in the book except actually addressing the points raised in the article.

The point being what again?

The only points I see have to do with the first indications of lead poisoning.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This looks to become yet another thread where the Bush apologists use every trick in the book except actually addressing the points raised in the article.

The point being what again?

The only points I see have to do with the first indications of lead poisoning.

My apologies. I forgot that the article uses ... shudder ... words. I'll let you know when it's out in cartoon form.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This looks to become yet another thread where the Bush apologists use every trick in the book except actually addressing the points raised in the article.

The point being what again?

The only points I see have to do with the first indications of lead poisoning.

My apologies. I forgot that the article uses ... shudder ... words. I'll let you know when it's out in cartoon form.

Perhaps you can draw it in crayon for me. I'm sure you got a box or two of those sitting around you some place.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This looks to become yet another thread where the Bush apologists use every trick in the book except actually addressing the points raised in the article.

You mean points like this:

When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the US Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the US Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently.

You'll pardon me for dismissing that entire "article" out of hand. Oh, I'm sure you believe its gospel.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This looks to become yet another thread where the Bush apologists use every trick in the book except actually addressing the points raised in the article.

You mean points like this:

When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the US Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the US Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently.

You'll pardon me for dismissing that entire "article" out of hand. Oh, I'm sure you believe its gospel.

No, I won't pardon you for dismissing the article out of hand. That's your problem. If you think the article is wrong, misguided, whatever, back it up with facts and figures and evidence supporting you point of view. As a group, you and the other bleating Bushies spend your entire existence attacking the left instead of supporting the right. For God's sake, put up or shut up. Use those stones you're throwing to build your case, for sheer novelty value if nothing else.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: digiram
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich.html

Let the flaming begin!!!!

Sums it it up quite well:

The Rise Of The Fourth Reich

It is the very nature of power that it attracts the sort of people who should not have it. The United States, as the world's last superpower, is a prize that attracts men and women willing to do absolutely anything to win that power, and hence are also willing to do absolutely anything with that power once they have it. If one thinks about it long enough, one will realize that all tyrants, past and most especially present, MUST use deception on their population to initiate a war.

No citizen of a modern industrialized nation will send their children off to die in a war to grab another nation's resources and assets, yet resources and assets are what all wars are fought over. The nation that wishes to initiate a war of conquest must create the illusion of an attack or a threat to start a war, and must always give their population of cowards an excuse never to question that carefully crafted illusion.

Hitler was TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938. Stalin was TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year for 1939 and 1942. Both of these men, and many others also celibrated by the media, were unimaginable monsters. The lesson from these facts is that it isn't easy to spot a genocidal tyrant when you live with one, especially one whom the press supports and promotes. Tyrants become obvious only when looking back
===============================
Just as I'm sure Bush will be named the Person of the Year this year and history will look back on him as just as bad as Hitler and Stalin.

 

[cwjerome]

It takes a certain psychology to get into this crap. What a sad world some of you people must live in.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This looks to become yet another thread where the Bush apologists use every trick in the book except actually addressing the points raised in the article.

You mean points like this:

When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the US Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the US Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently.

You'll pardon me for dismissing that entire "article" out of hand. Oh, I'm sure you believe its gospel.

No, I won't pardon you for dismissing the article out of hand. That's your problem. If you think the article is wrong, misguided, whatever, back it up with facts and figures and evidence supporting you point of view. As a group, you and the other bleating Bushies spend your entire existence attacking the left instead of supporting the right. For God's sake, put up or shut up. Use those stones you're throwing to build your case, for sheer novelty value if nothing else.

I don't hear those kinds of defenses coming from you when someone posts a conservative op ed. You just ignore them, and the stream of "farts in the general direction" of the article. Sometimes you even join in - example below.

So frankly, by you pulling out the "oh sure don't refute the article" is nothing but passive/aggressive support of the context of the article itself. Example of you being hypocritical:

Defense of "workers.org" post

Farenhype 9-11? Dismissed with "If you're truly seeking truth, you won't find it there"

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This looks to become yet another thread where the Bush apologists use every trick in the book except actually addressing the points raised in the article.

You mean points like this:

When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the US Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the US Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently.

You'll pardon me for dismissing that entire "article" out of hand. Oh, I'm sure you believe its gospel.

Tin foil hat time!

 

[BBond]

Good article. Several accurate parallels with our society.

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: digiram
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/reich.html

Let the flaming begin!!!!

Sums it it up quite well:

The Rise Of The Fourth Reich

It is the very nature of power that it attracts the sort of people who should not have it. The United States, as the world's last superpower, is a prize that attracts men and women willing to do absolutely anything to win that power, and hence are also willing to do absolutely anything with that power once they have it. If one thinks about it long enough, one will realize that all tyrants, past and most especially present, MUST use deception on their population to initiate a war.

No citizen of a modern industrialized nation will send their children off to die in a war to grab another nation's resources and assets, yet resources and assets are what all wars are fought over. The nation that wishes to initiate a war of conquest must create the illusion of an attack or a threat to start a war, and must always give their population of cowards an excuse never to question that carefully crafted illusion.

Hitler was TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year in 1938. Stalin was TIME Magazine's Man Of The Year for 1939 and 1942. Both of these men, and many others also celibrated by the media, were unimaginable monsters. The lesson from these facts is that it isn't easy to spot a genocidal tyrant when you live with one, especially one whom the press supports and promotes. Tyrants become obvious only when looking back
===============================
Just as I'm sure Bush will be named the Person of the Year this year and history will look back on him as just as bad as Hitler and Stalin.

Stalin killed about 20 million people if I remember correctly, no comparison. And TIME's Man of the Year is not given to those who do good or do bad, it is given to the most influencial man of the year. Although that seems to have changed when, after soem consideration of the public reaction, they decided not to put Osama bin Laden as person of the year in 2001.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: cwjerome


It takes a certain psychology to get into this crap. What a sad world some of you people must live in.

"No, I won't pardon you for dismissing the article out of hand. That's your problem. If you think the article is wrong, misguided, whatever, back it up with facts and figures and evidence supporting you point of view. As a group, you and the other bleating Bushies spend your entire existence attacking the left instead of supporting the right. For God's sake, put up or shut up. Use those stones you're throwing to build your case, for sheer novelty value if nothing else."

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This looks to become yet another thread where the Bush apologists use every trick in the book except actually addressing the points raised in the article.

You mean points like this:

When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the US Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the US Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently.

You'll pardon me for dismissing that entire "article" out of hand. Oh, I'm sure you believe its gospel.

Tin foil hat time!

"No, I won't pardon you for dismissing the article out of hand. That's your problem. If you think the article is wrong, misguided, whatever, back it up with facts and figures and evidence supporting you point of view. As a group, you and the other bleating Bushies spend your entire existence attacking the left instead of supporting the right. For God's sake, put up or shut up. Use those stones you're throwing to build your case, for sheer novelty value if nothing else."

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This looks to become yet another thread where the Bush apologists use every trick in the book except actually addressing the points raised in the article.

You mean points like this:

When the World Trade Towers collapsed, most Americans simply refused to believe suggestions that the attacks had been staged by parties working for the US Government itself. Americans were afraid to, even as news reports surfaced proving that the US Government had announced plans for the invasion of Afghanistan early in the year, plans into which the attacks on the World Trade Towers which angered the American people into support of the already-planned war fit entirely too conveniently.

You'll pardon me for dismissing that entire "article" out of hand. Oh, I'm sure you believe its gospel.

Tin foil hat time!

"No, I won't pardon you for dismissing the article out of hand. That's your problem. If you think the article is wrong, misguided, whatever, back it up with facts and figures and evidence supporting you point of view. As a group, you and the other bleating Bushies spend your entire existence attacking the left instead of supporting the right. For God's sake, put up or shut up. Use those stones you're throwing to build your case, for sheer novelty value if nothing else."

Maybe the article is so twisted that a rational person wouldnt need to refute it. A rational person WOULD dismiss it out of hand. has the left gone insane?

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: nutxo
Maybe the article is so twisted that a rational person wouldnt need to refute it. A rational person WOULD dismiss it out of hand. has the left gone insane?

No, but the right has.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I don't hear those kinds of defenses coming from you when someone posts a conservative op ed. You just ignore them, and the stream of "farts in the general direction" of the article.

Very good. That's my point. If you have nothing to contribute, don't. Move on to the next thread. All you bleating Bushies do is attack and divert. The last thing you'll do is actually support your position with facts, figures, and thoughtful commentary. After watching this behavior for months, one starts to assume it's because you cannot support your side.

Sometimes you even join in - example below.

So frankly, by you pulling out the "oh sure don't refute the article" is nothing but passive/aggressive support of the context of the article itself. Example of you being hypocritical:

Defense of "workers.org" post

Farenhype 9-11? Dismissed with "If you're truly seeking truth, you won't find it there"

Whatever you say. I'm not sure how a rational, objective person could interpret either of those examples as supporting your claim. Never mind, I answered my own question. I also find it convenient how you left out the following sentence when you quoted me about FarenHype 9-11. I wonder where you learned to take bits out of context to misrepresent your opponents' positions like that? I personally think that tactic fails the Global Test for integrity, but we know how Bushies hate tests.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: nutxo
Maybe the article is so twisted that a rational person wouldnt need to refute it. A rational person WOULD dismiss it out of hand. has the left gone insane?

Then STFU and move on to the next thread. That's the point. If you cannot or will not discuss the topic, go away.

 

[cwjerome]

Bowfinger, you're nuts to think I will argue agaisnt this... it's like arguing about ghosts and UFOs. This fringe sh*t ain't worth my time... YOU can argue about it, you have one too may on the brain.

You're damn right I dismiss this outright. I guess that makes the argument valid (or my opinion invalid), ahhahahhahah!!! Good one!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Bowfinger, you're nuts to think I will argue agaisnt this... it's like arguing about ghosts and UFOs. This fringe sh*t ain't worth my time... YOU can argue about it, you have one too may on the brain.

You're damn right I dismiss this outright. I guess that makes the argument valid (or my opinion invalid), ahhahahhahah!!! Good one!

Wrong. The argument succeeds or fails on its merits. Your words do not affect it's validity one way or the other. Your words do make you a thread-crapper or a troll, however, when you refuse to contribute yet insist upon posting anyway.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: nutxo
Maybe the article is so twisted that a rational person wouldnt need to refute it. A rational person WOULD dismiss it out of hand. has the left gone insane?

Then STFU and move on to the next thread. That's the point. If you cannot or will not discuss the topic, go away.

We need a middle finger emoticon

The point it I could sit down and write something saying that the left absorbed the communist and socialist party and it would actually be true. The left coontinues to throw out this tripe and deem it worthy of reading, even discussion.