posted
Jon Boy, are my answers so contrary to what you want to believe that you cannot bear to consider them at all? That doesn't say anything good about you.
Rakeesh, John Bunyan wrote his Protestant classic, Pilgrim's Progress, while he was in Bedfordshire county prison. But he was not a criminal. He was in prison because the Church of England was persecuting him. They were the ones who were criminals. He was in the right. ("Bunyan began his work while in the Bedfordshire county prison for violations of the Conventicle Act, which prohibited the holding of religious services outside the auspices of the established Church of England."--Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pilgrim's_Progress) So just because someone was in prison, doesn't prove he was a criminal.
As for Hitler, the people of Germany evidently decided he was justified in participating in the gun battle ("Beer Hall Putsch") against political adversaries. (1923--repeated in 1933) At least they did not hold it against him.
Samprimary, OK, there was one election where 98% were said to have voted for Hitler (like I said), and a previous election where 89% voted for him. If I misremembered and transposed the numbers on the earlier election, why is that a "completely 100% super false thing"? Of course, one also wonders if those last elections were secret ballot or not--if not, then few would have dared not to vote as they were supposed to. But you miss the real point. This was a democracy that Hitler subverted and hijacked, by using the methods of telling people what they wanted to hear, blaming some convenient minority group for their troubles, resorting to demagoguery, and so forth. The very tactics that Trump has used.
It is good that you actually made some effort to check the records of history. I am sure that if you checked a few more Internet sites, you would find some mention of the 1936 election. Here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election_and_referendum,_1936
[ May 19, 2016, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, for pity's sake. Records of religious persecution in 17th century England that took place two-hundred and forty-six years prior to the events of the Beer Hall Putsch have *nothing* to do with whether or not Hitler was a criminal, or that it was known in Germany. That is actually longer than our nation has existed, Ron.
Nor was my point 'people knew and didn't care'. My point was to highlight your ignorance on this subject matter, which was relevant because you invoked Hitler and the rise of nazism. Hitler was a criminal. He was convicted. He did time in prison. People knew it. The thing which shot him to fame was a book published from prison!
Or is it your contention that he was persecuted by the Weimar Republic, and thus his time in prison should not be taken to mean he was a criminal? We can have that discussion, if you like. I do wonder how far your fanatical anti-Clinton politics will push you, though. You've been dead to any sense of shame or accountability on this forum in political discussion for years now, but are you actually going to stick to this Hitler apologetics schtick you're doing now?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jon Boy, are my answers so contrary to what you want to believe that you cannot bear to consider them at all? That doesn't say anything good about you.
The irony in this sentence is almost overwhelming.
Have you ever considered something that was contrary to what you want to believe? You want so desperately to believe that Clinton is evil that you buy into a bunch of conspiracy theory crap about all the murders they've committed and then tell yourself that somehow this is still worse than someone who might be the next Hitler.
Then you go on to predict the "worst possible consequences" if Hillary is elected, even though we seem to have avoided those consequences—whatever they are—when Bill was president. Which brings me to the next point: have you ever successfully predicted anything? You've been prophesying the end of the world, or at least the end of America, for a long time, and I'm not sure a single one of your predictions has ever come true.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Samprimary, OK, there was one election where 98% were said to have voted for Hitler (like I said), and a previous election where 89% voted for him. If I misremembered and transposed the numbers on the earlier election, why is that a "completely 100% super false thing"?
i dunno what do you call something which is not true?
i mean you were (with wrong numbers) trying to make it out that there was an actual election going on where 99% of the voters chose the nazi party against competitors.
what actually happened here in 1936 as you can see is that it was a single question referendum. nobody picked anything. it was all just a single question: "do you agree with us y/n"
how you think this is relevant in comparison to elections where people are actually freely picking their leaders is beyond me
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, as anyone knowledgeable about psychology will tell you, one of the most important indicators of intelligence, is the ability to draw valid analogies. That means you have to be able to recognize inherent principles, and recognize the parallels that exist, as opposed to understanding clearly which parallels are poorly drawn and are not valid. I don't think we have much to talk about. You make it abundantly clear that you are not willing to make the effort to draw valid analogies.
Jon Boy, I did answer you, and you did not answer me. Any irony you perceive is entirely contrived on your end.
Samprimary, it is evident that there is quite a lot that is beyond you.
Look, none of you could possibly be so willfully obtuse that you do not recognize that I am more conservative politically than you are. Can you possibly by any chance appreciate how difficult a position someone like me is in, to have to choose between Trump and Clinton?
Of course, you liberal Democrats are having to choose between Clinton and Sanders--which promises to split the Democratic Party even worse than the Trump/party establishment threatens to divide the Republican Party. And Sanders has driven Hillary so far to the left, it will be nearly impossible for her to pivot and move meaningfully back to the center. So the Democratic Party has been driven into an extreme aberration that will leave it in disarray for years to come.
Those liberal college and university professors who have gloated over their ability to brainwash young people into believing their liberal propaganda, are beginning to realize now the harvest they have been sowing--a generation of young people so ignorant of the lessons of history, that they are actually willing to believe that socialism is something good and desirable.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, you can recast the exchange however you like. But in this case you're simply lying. I wasn't objecting to analogies, you made factually incorrect statements about Adolf Hitler and the political landscape of Germany in the 1930s.
You weren't making analogies. You said 'he wasn't a criminal' and 'they voted for him'. Your analogy was in Trump being an American Hitler, which is let's face it pretty stupid also, but it wasn't a statement of fact that you were just flat-out wrong about.
If I were going to have criticized you for analogy, I would've gone into that and then further pointed out how reprehensible and fanatical your stance was that it would be better to vote for 'American Hitler' than Hilary Clinton.
Look, I realize you're basically seething with hatred for her and contempt for Americans who do anything less this also hate her. That's clear to just about everyone in the conversation. But until and unless you advocate violence to correct these 'failings' (which frankly I wouldn't put past you, and I don't make that statement lightly at all), that's your right. You can hate her all you like, you can think she is *worse* than 'American Hitler', and hey, even though that's one of those pesky rights Trump isn't so enamored with, exercise your freedom of speech, Ron.
What you don't get are your own facts. You don't get to say she's worse than 'American Hitler' because, for example, Hitler wasn't a criminal and she is. That is at least 50% flat out wrong, even if we assume she is a criminal. You don't get to sneer at 'American Hitler's' inexperience with winning elections and say 'well Hitler won elections and tricked people too'. That's enormously understating at best the situation. He won office with major violence and intimidation, and used multiple separate efforts at fraud and stagesmanship (such as plots to blow up buildings) to maintain popular support.
I didn't object to your use of analogy. Is it possible for you to stop ****ing lying for just a few minutes and acknowledge that your statements about Hitler were factually wrong?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to your whining about the choice between Trump and Clinton, I am confident that if asked prior to this, no one would have thought even for a second you would vote for Clinton. Most, I think, would have thought what I did: that you'd find some self-righteous line of bullshit rationalization to justify voting for someone who is by your own moral lights a scumbag.
Had I know you were going to crawl back out from your rock this soon, I might've made that prediction already. Alas!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of your politics, you have to ask yourself about the harm either of them could do.
At the end of the day, even for a conservative, Hillary isn't that dangerous. The GOP has neutralized Obama for 6 years now. He's barely gotten anything done since he lost Congress, and most of what he has accomplished has been in inches, not miles. Hillary, if nothing else, is at least professional and will hold the office in trust while the GOP grinds her into dust.
But Trump? He could do an awful lot of damage. His wild statements could send the stock market into a crash. His dealings with foreign leaders could set back America's standing in the world for decades. He's prone to flattery and sensitive to slights. Not good qualities in a president.
I'm not really as worried about him becoming Hitler. What little faith I have left in American institutions is in the ones that would keep his wilder excesses in check. But even for a Republican, a conservative Democrat over a potential time bomb in the Oval Office shouldn't actually be that difficult a choice.
If the Democrats had nominated whatever the liberal equivalent of Trump is and the Republicans nominated a center-right Republican, I'd vote for the Republican. No-brainer.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Hillary gets to pick the next four or five Supreme Court justices, that could give the Supreme Court an overwhelming liberal bias that would gleefully set aside the Constitution and rewrite it to suit their whims, that could ruin America for decades, and probably forever.
If anyone would like to see an amusing picture someone produced, taking a stock historical photo of Benito Mussolini and drawing Trump-like hair on him--it is uncanny how much like Trump it actually looks! Here is a link: http://ai-jane.org/bb/attachment.php?aid=521Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do that many justices really have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel? I know justices are old, but....
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Do that many justices really have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel? I know justices are old, but....
Well, Scalia's spot is still open, so that's one (whether Obama fills it or the next president is still undetermined).
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83. If Clinton were to win, she'd very likely step down within the next 4-8 years. If Trump were to win, she'd likely try to hold out as long as possible, but she's also survived cancer twice at this point and been hospitalized at other times.
Kennedy will be 80 in July and has a coronary stent that has landed him in the hospital a few times.
Breyer will be 78 in August with no known health issues.
It's a fair bet that there will be at least 3, and possibly 4 Supreme Court appointments made over the next 8 years.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, as anyone knowledgeable about psychology will tell you, one of the most important indicators of intelligence, is the ability to draw valid analogies. That means you have to be able to recognize inherent principles, and recognize the parallels that exist, as opposed to understanding clearly which parallels are poorly drawn and are not valid.
Literally the thing that we were talking about is that you were using a parallel which was poorly drawn and not valid. The whole thing with how the elections you were talking about with the 99% nazi vote, they actually had literally no competitors on the ballot and nobody was really being elected
is that not pretty much classically a poorly drawn invalid parallel nested inside a godwin
are you trying to tell us that you have no important indicators of intellgence
are you hinting something important to us
is this a cry for help ron
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, you failed even to identify the principles of the parallels I was drawing. So not only did you fail utterly the most basic test of intelligence, you did not even correctly recognize the nature of the test. I did spell out the parallels--the methods Trump has been using to suborn the masses, compared to the methods that Hitler used (telling the gullible what they wanted to hear, blaming an ethnic minority for their problems, and engaging in demagoguery). The success Hitler had with the masses was substantial. Even 89% was substantial, not to mention the 98% in 1936--and Trump is having increasingly large numbers support him. Fortunately, not as large as Hitler and his Nazi Party claimed. But the important point to remember is that Hitler did indeed hijack a democracy. He did not overthrow the Kaiser, that had already been done. So having a democracy as a form of government is no guarantee that your country will not be taken over by a tyrant who will lead the nation into a ruinous war. It happened in Germany--which was arguably the most advanced, civilized, and cultured country of its time. So it could happen to us.
My only cry for help is for Divine Providence to give us a better choice for president than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders). But alas, perhaps "the people get the government they deserve," as was stated by Jefferson and Tocqueville.
[ May 25, 2016, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this point I'll just shrug, laugh, and reiterate that it's a popular belief not founded in actual history that Hitler's rise to power was peaceful and accomplished solely by popular persuasion. There was a lot of crime and violence involved as well. Himmler was the head of the SS I forget how long exactly but it was at least 2 years before Hitler became chancellor.
Trump is loathe some and a disgrace to American democracy, and a shame to millions of his supporters, even though they don't know it. But comparing him as broadly as you're doing to Hitler, even prior to WWII Hitler, is not just a loosely drawn parallel. It's historically wrong. Period.
All of that is without even touching on the parts where you claimed Clinton was actually *worse*.
Do you get this, Ron? Are you capable of understanding this bit of major human history that's been settled for decades? The worst excesses of Trump, the allusions to intimidation, the deniable threats, the personal attacks, the targeting of outsiders, those are comparable to Hitler on one of his good days. Like maybe a day in which he time traveled and watched a marathon of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood or something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like how each time it comes back to that Ron was using made up numbers and false historical bullshit, he tries to turn it right back around to something like "well you obviously just don't understand the point of my made up bullshit parallel, so you're the idiot"
I guess we should learn from his example and just use fake numbers as long as they support the narrative we want to push. Hey Ron, did you know that one hundred percent of conservatives are fascists like hitler? If you criticize my numbers you are failing a basic test of intelligence.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Germany--which was arguably the most advanced, civilized, and cultured country of its time.
I can't decide between "it was in ****ing ruins (metaphorically) at the time" and "well, good thing it has nothing in common with the US then. The US being neither civilized, cultured, or advanced, in case you need it spelled out."
It could indeed happen to you draped in the flag and carrying the cross, as the saying goes.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, and few others: It is unfortunate that your teachers failed to educate you in the basics of critical thinking. All you know how to do is argue like children; you do not know how to debate anything intelligently. You resort to lying and misrepresenting and mischaracterizing me. You might as well just hurl insults--that is practically all you are doing. I try to be patient and keep explaining things reasonably, if by chance I might be able to educate one or two of you. We might have an interesting conversation, if you were really willing to think honestly and fairly. Well, it is your problem, not mine. This is how you want to be. So suffer the consequences in your lives. You get what you choose, whether you know what you are choosing or not.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It happened in Germany--which was arguably the most advanced, civilized, and cultured country of its time. So it could happen to us.
Does this include the fact that Germany, more specifically Berlin, was one of the most gay friendly places at the time?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
NobleHunter, were you there in pre-WWII Germany? Then what justifies your superior attitude? Even after the destruction of WWI, Germany remained the single most powerful nation in Europe, and more importantly, was proud of being the country of Kant, Nietzsche (not my idea of a wise man, but the Germans were proud of him), Freud, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc. At the time just before WWII, America was still recovering from the Great Depression. Name one noted American philosopher, scientist, or composer up to that period. About the best you can do is Washington Irving, Poe, Thoreau. You have to go back to the founding fathers to find a community of people who wrote and spoke with real intelligence, and accomplished something truly noteworthy. Yes, we had Einstein; but he was born and raised in Germany.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Willard Van Orman Quine, Oppenheimer, Ernest Miller Hemingway, and Michael Edwards you ignoramus philistine.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And left in significant part due to German culture at the time, but whatever.
Germany was eventually the most powerful nation in Europe, but it took years and was certainly not the case in the aftermath of WWI. This is, again, simply a question of fact you're radically distorting for whatever purpose. Most Powerful nations don't get wrecked in treaty negotiations, for example.
Again, it's not your absurd rhetorical points that are most at issue here, though they are pretty silly too. It's factual let's just call them what they are at this point lies you continue to offer up, and then insult others for not swallowing them whole.
You're not being reasonable and you've not been mischaracterized. Your points on Germany between the wars are ridiculous and unfactual. You've been challenged on them repeatedly by myself and others and ignore it, and then smugly lecture about how others are being unreasonable.
Tell you what, Ron. You want a discussion? Then you need to deal with the question of political violence and what impact that has on your comparisons between Hitler and Trump and Worse than American Hitler Clinton. That was brought up quite awhile ago and you've completely failed to address it.
Now, I already know you're a liar without the stomach to confront uncomfortable and inconvenient facts when you discuss history and religion. But maybe some of these 'others' you're trying to educate will hear your response to this and see your point, contained in a substantive rebuttal to the question of how your comparisons are valid.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't being superior to 1930s Germany, I was being superior to the modern US, do keep up.
And how was Germany's economy doing in the early 30s? How many of those eminent philosophers and composers were living in Germany when Hitler came to power? Why exactly did you lot end up with Einstein, again? Germany had been great but it was a wreck under the Weimar Republic, with substantial mitigating circumstances, but still a wreck.
What? No love for HP Lovecraft? He seems to be your type.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another fun fact: scratch the die-hard religious conservative, and be surprised at how willing they are to be impressed by autocratic regimes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I try to be patient and keep explaining things reasonably
Ron, do you remember when I simply copied and pasted almost word for word the way that you 'patiently' and 'reasonably' argue with others, and you took one look at what was actually your own patronizing attitude and dismissed it as being a childish farce by someone who neither thinks critically nor is mature?
Because it was an important potential learning experience for you. It was you experiencing yourself and calling yourself out. Your own tone wasn't different or better, and I caught you on it, hard.
It was about how you don't explain things reasonably, you just throw an interminable and pathologically patronizing haze of pseudological farcery at us and remain absolutely, resolutely impervious to even the most basic correction of some astoundingly clear wrongdoing on your part. This is why the whole "barack nate dhlana" thing was so poignant — you couldn't even understand or acknowledge facts about a video you yourself posted and described incorrectly.
Sometimes, you are immensely satisfying to play with, because you match your arrogance with a tendency to be completely wrong over and over again and sometimes it's just bizarrely fascinating to watch. You think so highly of yourself only because your brain is incapable of processing your own shortcomings — which are many, and profound.
I certainly hope it's fun for you, too!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fun Fact, up until may around late 1938 Germany would've been easily curb stomped by Britain and France; and arguably would've been forced to fold at the British and French seriously pushed into them during the invasion of Poland.
Then there's the fact that had the British and French accepted Stalin's proposal they would've had over a million Soviet Red Army troops as well in the mix in 1938. Germany was absurdly lucky in its geopolitics.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Play Hearts of Iron, Elison? There's a lot of brute force railroading required to get WW2 going according to script. Things get really trippy when the player refuses to co-operate.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: NobleHunter, were you there in pre-WWII Germany? Then what justifies your superior attitude? Even after the destruction of WWI, Germany remained the single most powerful nation in Europe, and more importantly, was proud of being the country of Kant, Nietzsche (not my idea of a wise man, but the Germans were proud of him), Freud, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc. At the time just before WWII, America was still recovering from the Great Depression. Name one noted American philosopher, scientist, or composer up to that period. About the best you can do is Washington Irving, Poe, Thoreau. You have to go back to the founding fathers to find a community of people who wrote and spoke with real intelligence, and accomplished something truly noteworthy. Yes, we had Einstein; but he was born and raised in Germany.
Um, Carnegie, JP Morgan, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Rockefeller, The Wright Bros, Charles Lindbergh, Isaac Asimov, Harry Houdini, Howard Hughes, Helen Keller?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: Play Hearts of Iron, Elison? There's a lot of brute force railroading required to get WW2 going according to script. Things get really trippy when the player refuses to co-operate.
What do you mean? If the player is Germany and is careful they can win in 38'. I've recreated Harry Turtledove's "War that came Early" as a scenario and it went according to the books decently well.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is very charitable of Ron Lambert to challenge people in a manner that allows an entire forum to defeat him with something like a single minute of Google searching
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I may have to vote for Trump. My previous idea, of writing in Ted Cruz' name, wouldn't do any good. Hillary Clinton is a known great evil, and cannot be allowed to become Commander-In-Chief, and be able to pick the next possible four or five Supreme Court justices. With Trump, I could only HOPE he would not abandon all his positions (which he has said are "just negotiating points"). A Trump win would probably guarantee that Republicans retain control of the House and Senate--which might help hold him in check (but they didn't do much good against Obama).
It looks like as a nation we have already crossed the line. Democracy has failed. The majority of likely voters are now gullible dupes who do not bother to exercise critical judgment. With a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, how could we be anything other than doomed as a nation? We will likely get the government we deserve. All I can do is try to minimize the damage, and Trump looks like he could be a lesser evil than Hillary. But that is only a hope, not a certainty.
If I vote for anyone other than Trump, I will be responsible in a real way for allowing Hillary to win. It is no joke that she would be the "Felon-In-Chief." The only thing worse would be allowing an openly avowed socialist to take over. At least with Trump, it is not certain that he would be as bad as Hillary, and there is some hope (however minuscule) that he might not go back on every one of his campaign promises and positions. At least he is not responsible for the utter disgrace and national betrayal of Benghazi. And he is not manifestly a total incompetent like Hillary, and has not made a career out of seeing how many laws he can get away with breaking. But he is a mannerless churl, willing to exploit racist sentiments, and who fears strong, intelligent women who do not submit to his domination.
*Sigh* Voting for Trump, I will feel like I am voting for the American Hitler. But I could not in good conscience have a part in allowing someone as truly evil, as outright criminal, as Hillary to win.
Remind me, has:
Hillary Rodham Clinton been indited for any crimes whatsoever? Has Hillary Rodham Clinton been found guilty by an American court for any criminal or civil offense? How would the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton, be worse than the deprivations of war, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, committed by the Nazi regime? Can you name a single concrete policy from her platform that would be worse than the industrialized murder of over 6 million Jews and millions of Slavs?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will give you Fulton and Edison--though actually Nikola Tesla was far his superior; Edison was simply better at marketing. And Tesla of course was born a Serb in the Austrian Empire.
Twain was a good writer, but others like Jack London and Melville did not really change the world; at least they are not acknowledged as the major pioneers of schools of thought like many German writers. Here I have to rely on the opinions of other scholars, since I do not read German--though some famous German writers have been oft translated. But would anyone really wish to compare Thoreau with Kant in terms of influence? Thoreau was just an amusing pre-new age lightweight. I never knew any English majors who took him seriously. The idea of going off to live on Walden Pond has its appeal to young people at some point, but serious students want their lives to amount to more than that. Kant is someone you have to take seriously, disagree with him or not. Likewise even an atheist like Nietzsche.
To defeat Germany in WWI it took the combined efforts of the other major nations of Europe plus the wealth and troop numbers of the United States. Germany remained the largest European nation outside of Russia, with the most natural resources, and a still large population of people with military experience, even after the war. Why do you think Germany was able to rebuild its military and economic might so quickly, so that it very nearly won WWII? German tanks were better than anyone else's tanks--why was that? Germany was on the way to producing an atomic bomb, well ahead of the other European nations--the one thing that America beat them to. But even then, America did not have the bomb until after Germany surrendered. And America had the help of Einstein, who was born and raised in Germany; and J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was the son of a Jewish textile importer who had immigrated from Germany in 1888.
Samprimary, you have never refuted me in any valid way, except in your own distorted imagination. Revising history by misrepresenting it is not valid evidence. Though your approach is a little more pretentious, in that you pretend to cite past statements (taken out of context and misinterpreted by you), you are still doing no more than hurling insults.
Why don't you want to make a sincere effort to think, to really deal with actual, substantive facts and logical arguments? What would it cost you?
Tom, I would simply note that it is logically impossible for anyone to be wrong about everything. You are just trying to be insulting. This is childish arguing, not mature debating--or discussion, if you want to use a less contentious term.
[ May 25, 2016, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried really hard to catch up on the recent posts in this thread...but it all seems like a Monet painting...up close it's all noise but from far away it's clearly Ron saying something factually/morally questionable, some nice posters trying to borrow him a clue...Rakeesh & samp being mean & personal & trying to force a clue on him...meanwhile Ron gets mad at friendly poster & shots are exchanged...rinse & repeat. Sometimes change of subject...rinse & repeat.
Hmmm...this cycle also described several disscussions where I've been in Ron's place.
Anyway.
My grandmother once told me a story. Of a man who walked down a street and fell in a big hole. The man tried very hard to get out of the hole and it took almost everything he had to get out. The next day he fell in the same hole and it was a little easier to get out of. The next day he remembered to dodge the hole. And eventually he just started using a different street.
It seems like you guys have fallen in this hole before.
posted
Interesting perspective, Stone_Wolf_. Though I would quibble about your phrase: "Ron gets mad at friendly poster...." They haven't been friendly posters, and rather than get mad, despite my disgust at their immature behavior, I have been patient enough to try to explain things to them reasonably. That just makes them madder and meaner. They seem to be determined to incite me to indulge in the same kind of spirit they do. My refusal to do so is another argument against them, and in their hearts, they know it.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Germany remained the largest European nation outside of Russia, with the most natural resources, and a still large population of people with military experience, even after the war.
England & France combined had more resources, population, GDP, and industrial capacity than Germany did.
quote: Why do you think Germany was able to rebuild its military and economic might so quickly,
It was a strategy based on being able to unopposed annex nations and loot their treasuries; the arms build up was unsustainable and would have led to the collapse of the German economy if WWII didn't start when it did.
quote: so that it very nearly won WWII?
Germany at virtually no point during the war was likely to have won the war outright. They were never capable of invading England even if they had managed to clear the RAF. They were also never capable of the logistics to have pushed past Moscow even if somehow they had managed to take the city (they were never more then 14 km away).
The entire German operational means of production was not well suited for total war production; their total production of AFV's was woefully behind the Soviet Unions and barely more than Englands. The odds were stacked against Germany right from the start and every victory only managed to push back the inevitable.
Even if we were to grant Germany complete victory in Europe by 43' the end result would've been just the United States nuking Germany with something on the order of over a hundred nuclear bombers sometime in 1947; according to an professional nuclear warfare operations consultant I know of who posted about this considerably and wrote a book series based on the premise.
quote: German tanks were better than anyone else's tanks--why was that?
This isn't even remotely true and is basically just you being a Wehreaboo. The best tank is the tank that manages to get where you need it to be when you need it. The Sherman and T-34/85 are basically the two best tanks of the war in terms of being a tank. Over 70% of all tank casualties came from sources other than other tanks, tank on tank duels rarely happened. But rather the effectiveness of a main battle tank depended on cooperation with all branches of the armed forces working in combined arms operations.
The majority of German tanks were a complete waste of industrial resources; broke down too often, consumed too much fuel, and could't fight once they got to the front as a result. A tank that breaks down is a useless tank. Only a single regiment of Panthers were used shortly by France post war. While the T-34 and Sherman were widely exported.
quote: Germany was on the way to producing an atomic bomb, well ahead of the other European nations
Not true, the Manhatten Project, which was a cooperative effort between a variety of Allied nations was considerably ahead of Germany the entire time from it's inception. Germany was late to the effort and barely got anywhere.
quote: But even then, America did not have the bomb until after Germany surrendered.
And? What is this supposed to mean? How does this relate to you're point? This is a non-sequitor.
quote: And America had the help of Einstein, who was born and raised in Germany; and J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was the son of a Jewish textile importer who had immigrated from Germany in 1888.
The Manhatten Project was a cooperative joint effort employing tens of thousands of personnel consisting of thousands of technicians and hundreds of scientists from a variety of nations; mainly Americans. And Oppenheimer was born in the United States.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: To defeat Germany in WWI it took the combined efforts of the other major nations of Europe plus the wealth and troop numbers of the United States.
Are you under the impression that Germany took on the whole of Europe by its lonesome in WWI? Some of the other nations of Europe were actually part of the Central Powers. Whole huge swaths of Europe in fact. Empires even.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As difficult & frustrating it can be to disclose your world view for public preview, it is essential! And I encourage you to do so. If for nothing less than a low consequence place to try & see what a public reaction might look like.
I say low consequence bc unlike work or church for instance, you aren't going to have the awkwardness of running into samp or Rakeesh at the water cooler. However it can be SO PAINFUL to not have instant praise when issuing new ideas or philosophy...and not even a lack of praise, but actual hostility...AND criticisms of parts of what you are saying that you thought were just obvious truths, and not even your main point! It's hard and it's polarizing & angering & nessecary.
If even only for your piece of mind that your ideas can withstand attack...or not.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: To defeat Germany in WWI it took the combined efforts of the other major nations of Europe plus the wealth and troop numbers of the United States.
Are you under the impression that Germany took on the whole of Europe by its lonesome in WWI? Some of the other nations of Europe were actually part of the Central Powers. Whole huge swaths of Europe in fact. Empires even.
It should also be pointed out that the Germans decided very early on to focus on defence on the Western front aside from a couple of major offensives when it seemed prudent and instead put their effort in trying to crush the Russian Empire who seemed so much weaker and their front much more flexible for maneuver war.
If the Germans hadn't had so much pressure on Russia and if the Entente had made some smarter choices the war probably would've been over in 1917.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elison R. Salazar, I have to dispute most of your claimed facts. First of all, I did say Germany was more powerful than any one other nation. Your statement that England and France combined had "more resources, population, GDP, and industrial capacity" only agreed with my statement.
Yes, Germany annexed Austria and some other territories, but that is not the only reason they quickly built themselves up into a military power great enough to challenge the other nations of Europe.
You are quite mistaken in your denial that the Germans could have won WWII. Some military historians who knew what they were talking about have said that the British air force was "on the ropes," and have estimated that if the Luftwaffe had continued their bombardment of British air power only a few more DAYS, Britain would have been unable to oppose a German invasion.
Many military experts have also observed that the Allies were on the verge of defeat, and would have been (after all France had fallen, Poland and the Balkans had fallen, Scandinavia had fallen, all that was left was Britain) if Hitler had not decided to attack Russia instead of finishing the job in the west.
The misguided "Operation Barbarossa" almost succeeded in defeating Russia--at the peak, German tanks were in sight of the Kremlin in the first Autumn after the invasion of Russia.
Germany squandered at least three opportunities to win the war outright. This gave time for America to enter the war and build up troop strength in Britain capable of launching a counter-offensive, that finally turned the tide.
The only other nation that actually fought with Germany was Italy. No other nation in Europe made any major contribution to the German war effort. Bulgaria may have been counted as an ally, but it contributed only minor military forces, that were all used against Russia. While the USA was building up its forces in Britain--and supplementing the British fleet and air force--the US armored forces led by Patton took on Rommel in northern Africa, bailing out the British mechanized units that had been on the defensive, then moved on to attack Italy.
All military analysts of comparative tanks in WWII regard the German Panzers as being the best tanks, at least in the early part of the war. The Sherman tanks were a later addition, that were only a factor after the USA entered the war. The advanced Russian models were not introduced until late in the Russian campaign. At the start of WWII, Germany had the best tanks. Period. That is one reason why their "Blitzkrieg" tactic was so effective, and blew right through the French lines (surrounding the Maginot line), went all the way to Paris, and later almost made it to the Kremlin. (By the way, I used to play a game by Milton Bradley called "The Russian Campaign," and competed with players all across the country by mail. I was even nationally ranked for a while among the top 50.)
That reminds me of another mistake Hitler made that potentially cost Germany the war--his decision to stop using the "Flieger Corp" because of setbacks when it was poorly used in Crete, to which Hitler over-reacted. Actually it was a very effective tactical element, where paratroops were dropped behind enemy lines to cut supply lines and catch enemy forces in a pincers. On the battlefield, the Flieger Corp added a considerable force multiplier effect.
It is really hard to understand how the Germans could have lost the war--they had so many advantages, so many clear opportunities to have won the war. Many blame misjudgements by Hitler.
Germany did have a project to develop an atomic bomb. They might actually have built an atomic bomb before anyone else, if it were not for the Allied bombing of the German heavy water processing plant, and related research facilities. Germany had scientists capable of building the bomb. Here is what Wickipedia says about the Nazi effort to develop nuclear weapons:
"The German nuclear weapon project (German: Uranprojekt; informally known as the Uranverein; English: Uranium Society or Uranium Club), was a clandestine scientific effort led by Germany to develop and produce nuclear weapons during World War II. This program started in April 1939, just months after the discovery of nuclear fission in December 1938, but ended only months later due to the German invasion of Poland, after many notable physicists were drafted into the Wehrmacht.
"A second effort began under the administrative purview of the Wehrmacht's Heereswaffenamt on 1 September 1939, the day of the Invasion of Poland. The program eventually expanded into three main efforts: the Uranmaschine (nuclear reactor), uranium and heavy water production, and uranium isotope separation." Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapon_project
Of course we also should not forget the German rocket program. They virtually invented the military use of rockets like the V-2. At the end of the war, over 1,500 German scientists were recruited by the Allies, mainly the USA.
[ May 26, 2016, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so it's 'move on to pretending there aren't critical challenges to my assertions of similarity between Trump, pre-war Hitler, and Clinton in descending order of awfulness' phase of this particular discussion.
Well, we've been there before. Obama's grandmomma totally said he was born in Africa, amirite?
(Stone_Wolf, if this post wasn't sufficiently 'mean' for you to clutch your pearls over, lemme know and I'll amp it up to give you something to criticize while pretending Ron is gabbing in good faith.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seemed fine to me. You accomplished your apparent goal of making sure Ron knos that you kno that he is dishonest. I bought pearls...for my wife, before we wed. I've never clutched them tho. Nor am I a lil old grandma as you seem to be characterizing me as.
I'm sure you can handle the "heat" of my comments.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ]Samprimary, you have never refuted me in any valid way, except in your own distorted imagination.
Here's a question for you, Ron -
Do you sincerely not remember what happened in the last two elections, where I went pretty directly head to head against you on your predictions?
Do you sincerely not remember the "Barack nate dhlana" shit you put us through?
Do you sincerely not remember any of the times you've tried to argue evolution vs. creationism?
This is a for real question. I want to know if you can literally think that I've never refuted you 'validly' because you have memory issues, or because your brain simply takes almost any or literally all instances in which you've been refuted and simply discards it to try to avoid some sort of psychic pain related to shattering your worldview of yourself as a greatly wise and logical person who sees himself as so much better than the average person.
hell, to bring up my favorite individual ron absurdism, do you remember that time you were certain that star wars' midichlorians were based off mitochondria and I actually got to use being a tremendous star wars nerd to point out that your grasp of biology is terrible? I mean, I enjoyed that. Did you? Do you even remember these things?
I'm serious, give me more insight.
Tell me if any of these instances rings a bell.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, I was essentially correct in everything I said. Your repeated lying about it does not make your falsehoods true. I backed up my sound, logical arguments with documented facts. Especially about the proven fact that evolution is scientifically impossible, and contrary to the vast bulk of solid, concrete evidence. Not you nor anyone else has ever disproven anything I said about that, and I am willing to debate anyone on earth on the subject, fairly and honestly, sticking only to the facts. Which I have done, all along.
I maintain that the evidence is Obama was born in Kenya, and was never qualified to run for president. That, of course, was not his fault. But it is the fault of gullible people like you who do not seem to care about the U.S. Constitution, and refuse to question the mainstream party line, and of the biased mainstream media who never did their job to vet Obama properly. Someday, sooner or later, people like you are going to be faced with conclusive proof that all our criticisms of Obama were valid and true, and you never had any excuse for refusing to face the evidence we conservatives supplied.
Can you honestly say that Obama is a "uniter"? Can you honestly deny that Obama has made the country more grievously divided, especially along racial lines, than it ever was before? Can you deny that Obama has given nothing but support for the "Black Lives Matter" movement, many of whose spokespersons have openly called for killing police and even killing any whites? Can you honestly deny that this potentially brings America to the brink of race war? Can you honestly say that Obamacare is a good thing? Can you honestly say that Obama has not made all our allies in the world distrust us, and all our enemies in the world laugh at us? Can you honestly deny that Obama has weakened our armed forces to a level not seen since the 1940s? Can you honestly say that the Iran deal was not a total disaster, and could only have been negotiated by total incompetents? Can you honestly say that anatomical males should be allowed into ladies' rest rooms, locker rooms, and showers? (I admit, that is so indecently extreme that I did not even imagine it would ever happen!)
[ May 26, 2016, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Can you honestly say that Obama has not made all our allies in the world distrust us, and all our enemies in the world laugh at us?
posted
False claims, everything totally untrue. Biased reporting. Contrary to basic common sense and 99% of all news reports. These articles are so stupid they are not worthy of further comment. Do not confuse our allies' respect for America based on history, with respect for the present Obama administration.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you have any data at all to dispute the data presented in either the Gallup or the Pew Research Center studies? I mean, they give you the raw data and the methodology. What is your criticism of the methodology? Neither Gallup or Pew are considered partisan. Do you have any evidence that they are?
You want to dispute data? Have some data of your own.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, I was essentially correct in everything I said.
No! That's the entire point of asking you what you remember! The whole, endlessly absurd argument you offered about Obama's grandmother apparently being recorded on video saying. We've had this discussion ('discussion') before, because it needs to come up literally any time you make the ridiculous assertion that you have always been correct and 'never been validly refuted' because all it means is that you simply do not have the mental capacity to understand when you are caught saying untrue things.
here:
quote:You posted a video where you said that you could see Barack's grandmother saying "barack nate dhalani"
People really seriously tried to explain to you, over and over again, that the video did not actually show this. At first it could have been assumed that you were possibly just confused with the language used. But it was explained to you multiple times. The video did not show barack's grandma saying what you claimed it did. It didn't show it at all. There was no video of it. It cut away and offered it as a sound clip with no attached video of Barack's grandmother.
People explained this to you over and over again. We asked you to provide a timestamp in the video where you were claiming the video showed Barack's grandmother saying barack nate dhalani. You continued to attest that the video showed something that it completely, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, did not show. Repeated rewatchings of the video in question pretty much showed that what you were saying was false, but you kept insisting it was true and becoming increasingly agitated and demeaning towards everyone who was observing that you were saying completely and unambiguously incorrect things. You went into your standard tirades about other people's intelligence and how nobody else is logical or has a clear mind or can see the truth because obviously the way you described the video was absolutely true (it wasn't)
It was absolutely amazing. You started to sound, literally, just outright insane.
Every time you make the absolutely ridiculous assertion that you've never been factually refuted, this comes to mind, because it perfectly encapsulates how laughable that claim really is, moreso than the literal hundreds of times you've been more generally refuted on issues of politics, sciences , or social issues. You literally just can't even admit you were wrong about the issue of barack's grandmother, even when you were using it as centrally valid evidence of your obama Birtherism.
Do explain this, Ron!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Elison R. Salazar, I have to dispute most of your claimed facts.
And I look forward to destroying you. I hang out with a *lot* of PhD's and people getting their PhD in history and they've discussed much of the same content to death; and since they are wiser and more knowledgeable I listened. You are a poor sod who doesn't know what he's getting into.
quote: First of all, I did say Germany was more powerful than any one other nation.
No, this was not your claim. You were attempting to make the claim that Germany ~is just so sugui da na~ due to some intrinsic superiority in its culture and mindset. Acknowledging that Germany is not more powerful than any two other European powers together basically undercuts the point you're trying to make.
quote: Yes, Germany annexed Austria and some other territories, but that is not the only reason they quickly built themselves up into a military power great enough to challenge the other nations of Europe.
Read Wages of Destruction, it's all about how schizo the German Nazi regime was and how dysfunctional the Reich was and how prone to failure the arms build was; the Austrian and Czech gold reserves were instrumental for allowing Germany to deficit spend their way back to having a military.
quote: You are quite mistaken in your denial that the Germans could have won WWII. Some military historians who knew what they were talking about have said that the British air force was "on the ropes," and have estimated that if the Luftwaffe had continued their bombardment of British air power only a few more DAYS, Britain would have been unable to oppose a German invasion.
Again, this is a myth.
quote: Many military experts have also observed that the Allies were on the verge of defeat, and would have been (after all France had fallen, Poland and the Balkans had fallen, Scandinavia had fallen, all that was left was Britain) if Hitler had not decided to attack Russia instead of finishing the job in the west.
The History Channel doesn't count as "Experts". Additionally this is shifting the goal posts; Germany victory is often defined as also "winning in the East vs the Soviet Union" if they don't fight the Soviet Union, then can you say that they've won?
quote: The misguided "Operation Barbarossa" almost succeeded in defeating Russia--at the peak, German tanks were in sight of the Kremlin in the first Autumn after the invasion of Russia.
Do you even know where the Soviet industrial centers were at that time? Or how much left of even European Russia remained? Or just how much larger the logistical impossibility taking Moscow would've made the German situation right at the moment Siberian reserves reach the front line for the Winter Counter-Offencive that almost broke the Wehrmacht then and there? You're looking at purely lines on a map and not the logistics or operations side of things.
quote: Germany squandered at least three opportunities to win the war outright. This gave time for America to enter the war and build up troop strength in Britain capable of launching a counter-offensive, that finally turned the tide.
You're positing a counter-factual narrative that would require Germany make perfect decisions and win battles that they didn't doesn't at all imply that they "almost won the war"; especially when this presupposes not just one battle, or two, but at least three? This is nonsense.
Applesauce if you will.
quote: The only other nation that actually fought with Germany was Italy. No other nation in Europe made any major contribution to the German war effort. Bulgaria may have been counted as an ally, but it contributed only minor military forces, that were all used against Russia. While the USA was building up its forces in Britain--and supplementing the British fleet and air force--the US armored forces led by Patton took on Rommel in northern Africa, bailing out the British mechanized units that had been on the defensive, then moved on to attack Italy.
You're just randomly typing on the keyboard; there's no context to anything you are saying; they contribute nothing to your argument that Germany "Almost won".
Remember this is a dual edged sword; remember that the Allies themselves had made many mistakes on various levels but won anyways; if you wish to suppose a alternate history where they didn't make their mistakes; how can you say that the Allies couldn't have not made those mistakes either and won in half the time?
quote: All military analysts of comparative tanks in WWII regard the German Panzers as being the best tanks, at least in the early part of the war.
But the war was not only fought in 1940; but all the way to 1945 with Germany making ever more impractical designs and making little improvement to this military-industrial complex to increase output. So what if the Panzer III was arguably the best early war tank (It wasn't)? Overall the best tank designs were not German.
Additionally, your claim was "German tanks were better than anyone else's tanks--why was that?" You didn't specify whether they were early war or late war; German tanks were not the best tanks overall. Attempting to specify early war tanks is shifting the goalposts (and is also wrong).
quote:That is one reason why their "Blitzkrieg" tactic was so effective, and blew right through the French lines (surrounding the Maginot line), went all the way to Paris, and later almost made it to the Kremlin. (By the way, I used to play a game by Milton Bradley called "The Russian Campaign," and competed with players all across the country by mail. I was even nationally ranked for a while among the top 50.)
Again with the random typing of assertions without context. You have zero understanding as to why Blitzkrieg worked, and it wasn't because the Panzer III was a good tank (it was, but not because of whatever stats you think it has for tank duels, it was awful at that), but because the Germans were first in implementing mechanized warfare as a combined arms operation between the different service branches.
quote: That reminds me of another mistake Hitler made that potentially cost Germany the war--his decision to stop using the "Flieger Corp" because of setbacks when it was poorly used in Crete, to which Hitler over-reacted. Actually it was a very effective tactical element, where paratroops were dropped behind enemy lines to cut supply lines and catch enemy forces in a pincers. On the battlefield, the Flieger Corp added a considerable force multiplier effect.
Germany rarely held sufficient control of the skies or the logistics to make use of them in that role after Crete regardless; there aren't any obvious situations where they would've been useful in Russia.
quote: It is really hard to understand how the Germans could have lost the war--they had so many advantages, so many clear opportunities to have won the war. Many blame misjudgements by Hitler.
Germany was doomed from the start; it is actually a wonder that they lasted as long as they did.
quote: ermany did have a project to develop an atomic bomb. They might actually have built an atomic bomb before anyone else, if it were not for the Allied bombing of the German heavy water processing plant, and related research facilities. Germany had scientists capable of building the bomb. Here is what Wickipedia says about the Nazi effort to develop nuclear weapons:
This is well beyond myth; the Manhatten Project was a huge undertaking and Germany had not anywhere near the resources or production capacity to have possibly have gotten the bomb first; but again, you're delving into illogical territory; "If they hadn't bombed the heavy water facilities" is history channel thinking; it's nonsense. Why couldn't Germany have bombed the Allies effort? You're trying to illogically minimize the achievements of the Allies and them making correct strategic decisions to deceptively advance your point.
The bit you quote give no indication that the Germans had any ability to have gotten ahead of the Allies considering the sheer imbalance in resources that they could throw at the project.
quote: Of course we also should not forget the German rocket program. They virtually invented the military use of rockets like the V-2. At the end of the war, over 1,500 German scientists were recruited by the Allies, mainly the USA.
This has no context; its History Channel bs. So what? It was a waste of resources that brought Germany no closer to winning the war. Notice how the Allies instead of bizarre wonder weapon one off projects instead focused their efforts on armaments that let them win the war sooner.
You are not only not really responding to my arguments except in the most broadest of brushes, but you're basically just spouting popular notions of history and History Channel nonsense. What's next, Germany would've won if they weren't messing about with the occult?
[ May 26, 2016, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
