I won't see a respected political leader again in my lifetime

[naturalmwa]

Natural, stop being so cryptic and just tell me what problem you have with my post. Or are you just going to keep playing this game because you're looking for a way out?

There is nothing cryptic about my posts. I'm criticizing you for defending a position you haven't investigated. I'm criticizing you for judging others for similarly not investigating the position you too failed to investigate. I'm criticizing your views on history. Thousands of years to judge our government? Please bratha, educate yourself.

 

[naturalmwa]

The difference is that my agenda is liberty. Your agenda is fascism. I don't care how you live your life as long as you don't hurt other people. You care deeply how I live my life, and feel that you should use force from a third party to get your way.


Edit: And I don't know what special sources I have. Maybe you could tell me.

Oh please, you blew that position bratha. We all know you're a phony champion of liberty. You would make us all serfs beholding to the lord for any rights at all.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

There is nothing cryptic about my posts. I'm criticizing you for defending a position you haven't investigated. I'm criticizing you for judging others for similarly not investigating the position you too failed to investigate. I'm criticizing your views on history. Thousands of years to judge our government? Please bratha, educate yourself.

I'm not defending the position. I'm saying that I don't know what it's all about and I won't just call it garbage before I investigate it. It could be complete bunk, but I'm just not going to dismiss it because it seems improbably. I'll dismiss it if it doesn't add up.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Oh please, you blew that position bratha. We all know you're a phony champion of liberty. You would make us all serfs beholding to the lord for any rights at all.

We're serfs right now, dude. We're all beholden to the banker. They can take your wealth whenever they want and you don't have any say in it. That's exactly what a serf is.

 

[IACub]

That's what I don't understand. Not once have I said that it was the truth in this thread. Why do you guys automatically believe that I've bought into this theory because I didn't outright reject it as soon as someone posted it?

You didn't explicitly say you believed the story, but you certainly implied that we were all foolish lapdogs because we didn't buy into it when it's a clear fabrication. It takes anecdotal evidence that several thousand troops were mistreated and murdered and blows it up by a factor of 1,000. It's so obviously wrong that it's laughable that anyone would believe it. Yet here we are.

 

[IACub]

We're serfs right now, dude. We're all beholden to the banker. They can take your wealth whenever they want and you don't have any say in it. That's exactly what a serf is.

Sweet, I'm a banker. Go get me some coffee, serf.

 

[naturalmwa]

We're serfs right now, dude. We're all beholden to the banker. They can take your wealth whenever they want and you don't have any say in it. That's exactly what a serf is.

There is some of that special knowledge.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

You didn't explicitly say you believed the story, but you certainly implied that we were all foolish lapdogs because we didn't buy into it when it's a clear fabrication. It takes anecdotal evidence that several thousand troops were mistreated and murdered and blows it up by a factor of 1,000. It's so obviously wrong that it's laughable that anyone would believe it. Yet here we are.

No, I said it was foolish to outright reject it before you looked into it. There is a difference. If you research something and think it's bunk, then I understand that, but if you just reject it outright without doing any research, then I don't understand that.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

There is some of that special knowledge.

That's basic economics. The Fed has the power to create money. Creating money devalues the money in circulation. Someone who is devaluing your money is stealing your wealth. I don't even think the Keynesians would argue with that.

 

[IACub]

No, I said it was foolish to outright reject it before you looked into it. There is a difference. If you research something and think it's bunk, then I understand that, but if you just reject it outright without doing any research, then I don't understand that.

I've been researching it since high school. I have a bookcase full of WWII history books. My home smells of rich mahogany.

Seriously, this theory is so laughable that it's easy to dismiss it offhand.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Sweet, I'm a banker. Go get me some coffee, serf.

Funny. All we would need to do is go back to conscription and it would be complete.

What do you do at the bank? I've thought about going into the corporate side when I finish up.

 

[IACub]

Funny. All we would need to do is go back to conscription and it would be complete.

What do you do at the bank? I've thought about going into the corporate side when I finish up.

Mortgage lending. Felt like a sellout after bartending, but it pays a lot better

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Mortgage lending. Felt like a sellout after bartending, but it pays a lot better

The yuppy-nuremberg syndrome?

Like Nick Naylor said in the movie 'Thank You For Smoking'..."everybody has a mortgage to pay."

 

[shank hawk]

From the link above:

Historian Niall Ferguson calculated the mortality rates of POWs held by different nations as follows:

Percentage of POWs that Died:

Russian POWs held by Germans: 57.5%
German POWs held by Russians: 35.8%
American POWs held by Japanese: 33.0%
German POWs held by Eastern Europeans: 32.9%
British POWs held by Japanese: 24.8%
British POWs held by Germans: 3.5%
German POWs held by French: 2.58%
German POWs held by Americans: 0.15%
German POWs held by British: 0.03%

Why wont you investigate the truth? Why do you keep letting the conspiracy nuts lie to you? I know its so much more satisfying to think you have special insight. Two can play this game.

Ha Ha! "Historian" Niall Ferguson? You mean German-hating media whore who's made a name for himself banging the drum for U.S. empire (only because his beloved Brits failed in that quest)? Is that the shameless shill you're referencing?

Yeah, cuz' we all know a court-appointed () 'historian' would never, ever lie.

 

[shank hawk]

Hmmmmm, Ike ISN'T like the others, is he? They have only talked about genocide, whereas he actually helped oversee it.

Gotta' love the Stalinists on HROT: "One man's dying is a tragedy. A million dead men is just a statistic."

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Hmmmmm, Ike ISN'T like the others, is he? They have only talked about genocide, whereas he actually helped oversee it.

Gotta' love the Stalinists on HROT: "One man's dying is a tragedy. A million dead men is just a statistic."

Says the poster who opposes regulations that save lives.

No one here on the left is saying what you put in quotes. And just because Stalin said something along those lines doesn't make it a lefty sentiment.

Just keep slinging the mindless bullshit.

 

[fredjr82]

I wish someone would answer my question about where the bodies are and why German relatives havn't been asking questions for the last 70 freaking years about where their father is and what happened to his body.

Because, the American forces memory erased all the dead soldiers relatives. IT'S RIGHT THERE FOR YOU TO READ. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/sarcasm

 

[INXS83]

Except for the German people still exist and have free speech and are a political force. But yet they don't believe in this stuff.

If this stuff did happen then we would be hearing about it from them.

Where are the German sons and daughters talking about how Eisenhower exterminated their dad in a POW camp? Where where the German wives saying the same thing 50 years ago?

The only people that believe this are this author and some internet conspiracy theorists who have no physical evidence. No bodies or mass graves. . . no people who's fathers are missing under mysterious circumstances.

In the past you could find millions of Jews who where in concentration camps telling the same stories. . . Now you can find their sons and daughters who possess the relics of the Holocaust. You have the mass graves and the pictures.

You can't find this with German POW's. Now German POW's coming home talking about how the Americans exterminated their buddies.

Shank has the Russians & Joe Stalin confused with the Americans and Ike.

 

[naturalmwa]

Ha Ha! "Historian" Niall Ferguson? You mean German-hating media whore who's made a name for himself banging the drum for U.S. empire (only because his beloved Brits failed in that quest)? Is that the shameless shill you're referencing?

Yeah, cuz' we all know a court-appointed () 'historian' would never, ever lie.

Feels good to have that special knowledge doesn't it?

 

[shank hawk]

Feels good to have that special knowledge doesn't it?

There's your 'historian' rubbing elbows with another war criminal.

I'm sure he's sad he never got to talk to Ike about starving Germans to death: the laughs they coulda' had.

 

[naturalmwa]

There's your 'historian' rubbing elbows with another war criminal.

I'm sure he's sad he never got to talk to Ike about starving Germans to death: the laughs they coulda' had.

I'm impressed at the depth of your knowledge on this.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

 

[shank hawk]

I'm impressed at the depth of your knowledge on this.

Hey now!!! You and I both know damn well that "depth of knowledge" is code for "an idiot spending 30 seconds on google." I'm calling sarcasm on you.

 

[fredjr82]

No, I said it was foolish to outright reject it before you looked into it. There is a difference. If you research something and think it's bunk, then I understand that, but if you just reject it outright without doing any research, then I don't understand that.

Yeah, cuz' we all know a court-appointed () 'historian' would never, ever lie.

This is for shank, Nole, and anyone else that has any interest in not being "ignorant" Hopefully you'll practice what you preach and take a look at this article. My article says your article is incorrect. So who really is the ignorant one? The person who chooses to believe the first thing they read or the person who starts looking for holes in the first thing they read. I probably already know your answer.

I think it will do a good job of explaining how James Bacque came to his conclusions.

Mr. Bacque, a Canadian novelist with no previous historical research or writing experience, says in his introduction: "Doubtless many scholars will find faults in this book, which are only mine. I welcome their criticism and their further research, which may help to restore to us the truth after a long night of lies." Last December, the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans invited some leading experts on the period to examine the charges. The conference participants, including me, plan to publish the papers in book form.

Our first conclusion was that Mr. Bacque had made a major historical discovery. There was widespread mistreatment of German prisoners in the spring and summer of 1945. Men were beaten, denied water, forced to live in open camps without shelter, given inadequate food rations and inadequate medical care. Their mail was withheld. In some cases prisoners made a "soup" of water and grass in order to deal with their hunger. Men did die needlessly and inexcusably. This must be confronted, and it is to Mr. Bacque's credit that he forces us to do so.

Our second conclusion was that when scholars do the necessary research, they will find Mr. Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is seriously -- nay, spectacularly -- flawed in its most fundamental aspects. Mr. Bacque misuses documents; he misreads documents; he ignores contrary evidence; his statistical methodology is hopelessly compromised; he makes no attempt to see the evidence he has gathered in its relationship to the broader situation; he makes no attempt to look at comparative contexts; he puts words into the mouth of his principal source; he ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively deals with his central accusation; and, as a consequence of these and other shortcomings, he reaches conclusions and makes charges that are demonstrably absurd.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Says the poster who opposes regulations that save lives.

No one here on the left is saying what you put in quotes. And just because Stalin said something along those lines doesn't make it a lefty sentiment.

Just keep slinging the mindless bullshit.

You think things save lives because you only look at the positive and never the negative. You could be causing 10 deaths in order to save 5 lives, but you would never know because you never take the time to weigh out the pros and cons.

 

[ThorneStockton]

So glad I clicked into this thread, I just wish OiT would too, we already have shank and the nole.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

So glad I clicked into this thread, I just wish OiT would too, we already have shank and the nole.

Ahhh, more insults. I love it.

 

[ThorneStockton]

You think things save lives because you only look at the positive and never the negative. You could be causing 10 deaths in order to save 5 lives, but you would never know because you never take the time to weigh out the pros and cons.

Do you mind sharing some of your personal background? Age, education, employment, things of that sort, nothing that would identify you, I'm just generally curious. You've got a very strong conviction that you're so open minded, yet have your mind made up about everyone else that they aren't that way too.. Have you always been such way? Is it only online?

 

[naturalmwa]

You think things save lives because you only look at the positive and never the negative. You could be causing 10 deaths in order to save 5 lives, but you would never know because you never take the time to weigh out the pros and cons.

Says the guy who only ever looks at the negative. It might save a million lives, but if one isn't saved, we should bring down civilization and never try again.

 

[naturalmwa]

Ahhh, more insults. I love it.

How could it be an insult to be paired with your ally

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Do you mind sharing some of your personal background? Age, education, employment, things of that sort, nothing that would identify you, I'm just generally curious. You've got a very strong conviction that you're so open minded, yet have your mind made up about everyone else that they aren't that way too.. Have you always been such way? Is it only online?

I can only go by what people post. If that's false, then you could hardly blame me for that.

 

[shank hawk]

This is for shank, Nole, and anyone else that has any interest in not being "ignorant" Hopefully you'll practice what you preach and take a look at this article. My article says your article is incorrect. So who really is the ignorant one? The person who chooses to believe the first thing they read or the person who starts looking for holes in the first thing they read. I probably already know your answer.

I think it will do a good job of explaining how James Bacque came to his conclusions.

Mr. Bacque, a Canadian novelist with no previous historical research or writing experience, says in his introduction: "Doubtless many scholars will find faults in this book, which are only mine. I welcome their criticism and their further research, which may help to restore to us the truth after a long night of lies." Last December, the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans invited some leading experts on the period to examine the charges. The conference participants, including me, plan to publish the papers in book form.

Our first conclusion was that Mr. Bacque had made a major historical discovery. There was widespread mistreatment of German prisoners in the spring and summer of 1945. Men were beaten, denied water, forced to live in open camps without shelter, given inadequate food rations and inadequate medical care. Their mail was withheld. In some cases prisoners made a "soup" of water and grass in order to deal with their hunger. Men did die needlessly and inexcusably. This must be confronted, and it is to Mr. Bacque's credit that he forces us to do so.

Our second conclusion was that when scholars do the necessary research, they will find Mr. Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is seriously -- nay, spectacularly -- flawed in its most fundamental aspects. Mr. Bacque misuses documents; he misreads documents; he ignores contrary evidence; his statistical methodology is hopelessly compromised; he makes no attempt to see the evidence he has gathered in its relationship to the broader situation; he makes no attempt to look at comparative contexts; he puts words into the mouth of his principal source; he ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively deals with his central accusation; and, as a consequence of these and other shortcomings, he reaches conclusions and makes charges that are demonstrably absurd.

OMG. Thanks for the double laugh - Stephen 'lying plagiarist' Ambrose AND the New York Times. You just reinforced the fact that 'history' is nothing but propaganda and lies disseminated by the victors.

Want some hard hitting, unbiased 'journalism' from the Times? Try this article on for size:

Military leadership of the victorious Allied forces in Western Europe during World War II invested Dwight David Eisenhower with an immense popularity, almost amounting to devotion, that twice elected him President of the United States. His enormous political success was largely personal, for he was not basically a politician dealing in partisan issues and party maneuvers. What he possessed was a superb talent for gaining the respect and affection of the voters as the man suited to guide the nation through cold war confrontations with Soviet power around the world and to lead the country to domestic prosperity.

Eisenhower's gift for inspiring confidence in himself perplexed some analysts because he was not a dashing battlefield general nor a masterly military tactician; apparently what counted most in his generalship also impressed the voters most: an ability to harmonize diverse groups and disparate personalities into a smoothly functioning coalition.

Thus Eisenhower's two terms in the White House were a personal triumph in which he transcended the persons and forces around him. About his bewitching, benign and smiling figure there grew an aura of certain success that weathered shifts in his personal popularity and began to wane only in the years after he left the Presidency.

I'll link the whole thing (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1014.html) but trust me, the entire, lengthy tome amounts to little more than a literary blowjob for Ike. Not a negative word to be found.

 

[ThorneStockton]

I can only go by what people post. If that's false, then you could hardly blame me for that.

Don't you think that's a little closed minded, seems a little reactionary to me, maybe you should have a little more doubt.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Says the guy who only ever looks at the negative. It might save a million lives, but if one isn't saved, we should bring down civilization and never try again.

You're right. Liberty isn't a pro.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Don't you think that's a little closed minded, seems a little reactionary to me, maybe you should have a little more doubt.

That's all I have to go on. I can't read your mind.

 

[fredjr82]

OMG. Thanks for the double laugh - Stephen 'lying plagiarist' Ambrose AND the New York Times. You just reinforced the fact that 'history' is nothing but propaganda and lies disseminated by the victors.

Want some hard hitting, unbiased 'journalism' from the Times? Try this article on for size:

Military leadership of the victorious Allied forces in Western Europe during World War II invested Dwight David Eisenhower with an immense popularity, almost amounting to devotion, that twice elected him President of the United States. His enormous political success was largely personal, for he was not basically a politician dealing in partisan issues and party maneuvers. What he possessed was a superb talent for gaining the respect and affection of the voters as the man suited to guide the nation through cold war confrontations with Soviet power around the world and to lead the country to domestic prosperity.

Eisenhower's gift for inspiring confidence in himself perplexed some analysts because he was not a dashing battlefield general nor a masterly military tactician; apparently what counted most in his generalship also impressed the voters most: an ability to harmonize diverse groups and disparate personalities into a smoothly functioning coalition.

Thus Eisenhower's two terms in the White House were a personal triumph in which he transcended the persons and forces around him. About his bewitching, benign and smiling figure there grew an aura of certain success that weathered shifts in his personal popularity and began to wane only in the years after he left the Presidency.

I'll link the whole thing (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1014.html) but trust me, the entire, lengthy tome amounts to little more than a literary blowjob for Ike. Not a negative word to be found.

So James Bacque speaks nothing but the truth and Stephen Ambrose is a blowhard?

What a perfect world to live in. Whereas every piece of evidence you provide is the truth and every counter argument is written by a buffoon.

Sorry for expecting the same effort out of you as you expected from us. I should have known better.

 

[fredjr82]

Nole has me on ignore. LOL!!

 

[ThorneStockton]

That's all I have to go on. I can't read your mind.

Earlier in this thread you weren't going to rule out the possibility American's exterminating millions of Germans because you hadn't looked into whether they had. But for the posters, you have no problem labeling us close minded sheep despite not knowing anything else about us.

As a free thinker, I can admit the only evidence I have to consider with you is on here, but I'm perfectly capable of admitting outside of this forum there's evidence that might exit that supports you're a reasonable guy.

 

[naturalmwa]

So James Bacque speaks nothing but the truth and Stephen Ambrose is a blowhard?

What a perfect world to live in. Whereas every piece of evidence you provide is the truth and every counter argument is written by a buffoon.

Sorry for expecting the same effort out of you as you expected from us. I should have known better.

Its the gift of special knowledge. Having it makes you special. So special all the other people are jealous and attack you. So all evidence to the contrary is tainted and can be dismissed because you have the special knowledge. Its a nice reinforcing loop.