Holocaust? What holocaust?

[Gipper]

Hey Everyone,

Watch Glenn Beck tomorrow night to see his historical documentary on left wing murder regimes including the Left's beloved Stalin and Mao. It will correct a history of lies by the Left on these progressive monsters.

Do not let young child watch this. It will be very disturbing.

Americans know about the Jewish holocaust. Most don't know about the holocausts committed by all the other left wing monsters of the 20th century.

Watch or DVR Beck tomorrow night. Can I count on you?

Your Beloved Most Conservative Friend
xxxooo

 

[Pandora]

Hey Everyone,

Watch Glenn Beck tomorrow night to see his historical documentary on left wing murder regimes including the Left's beloved Stalin and Mao. It will correct a history of lies by the Left on these progressive monsters.

Do not let young child watch this. It will be very disturbing.

Americans know about the Jewish holocaust. Most don't know about the holocausts committed by all the other left wing monsters of the 20th century.

Watch or DVR Beck tomorrow night. Can I count on you?

Your Beloved Most Conservative Friend
xxxooo

That is going to be a good show. I wish he had more than just an hour

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Are you a Ron Paul supporter?

I figured you must be, since he doesnt seem to like Jewish folk much either.

aka he puts America before Israel....

 

[Capitalist Pig]

so, when does my ban take place???? Any minute now? Will it be a full ip-ban?

You should chill out Saxon. Before you go apoplectic, note that I'm not telling you to shut up or stop expressing your opinion. I'm just suggesting that you're being a little ridiculous about the whole movie trailer setup here.

One man, one lie. Only one of them could survive.... he wanted the truth, but they wanted him dead. In a world where the freedom to speak is cherished, no one could have imagined how far they were willing to go to stop the truth............

Coming soon to a theater near you. DeZionism For more information go to www.dezionismmovie.com

It's just a little over the top is all I'm saying. Pull it back a little, cuz it makes you sound insane. Also the Palestinian propaganda photos where the Israeli soldiers have white hot satan eyes doesn't help your case either.

As for the substance of your arguments, yes, you are right, the difference in numbers does matter. However, if the Germans intention was to simply hold Jews in large camps and allow them to slowly starve to death, rather than to specifically round them up for immediate extermination, would the holocaust not be a tragedy? Does the truth of what happened in the Ukraine make what the Nazis did less tragic? Is your obvious dislike of Israel influencing your opinion at all? You point out inconsistencies, and then seem to imply that they somehow prove the non existence of the entire event. Are you suggesting that Bergen Belsen, Auschwitz, and Dachau did not exist? Or are you simply making the claim that the holocaust (while admittedly horrific) has been exaggerated?

 

[Capitalist Pig]

You are very confused about both the Nazi Party which was a military state socialism which is nothing like many other types of socialism. Hippies living on a commune is socialism too but it's about as far away from a Nazi mindset as one can get.

The difference is the use of force. Both styles would demand that people give up personal freedoms in the name of living lives for the betterment of the collective. Thus the hippies in the commune can only exist in a group of volunteers. This kind of socialism I have no problem with. Every other kind of socialism however seeks to impose its will on many who did not volunteer to be part of it. This can only be done through force. The socialist left in America today wants to hide the force of the federal government beneath a silk handkerchief covered in hearts. But make no mistake, your cooperation is not optional. The gun is there whether you choose to see it or not.

And this is where your youth & inexperience really shows through. As for the KKK it was at one time a mostly southern group and the south was many controlled by Democrats. However the deception you are trying to perpetuate here is that you are pointing at "way back when" and not at who is the KKK "TODAY". For about the last half of a century the KKK has been a Conservative Republican supporter. In fact in the most recent election one KKK group even had a direct link from their website to Ron Paul's for fund raising.

The KKK doesn't believe in affirmative action. Therefore they vote Republican. Not agreeing with affirmative action does not make one a racist simply because that position is also supported by people who actually are racists. Your position is essentially that if two people agree upon a single issue, they must agree on every issue. The KKK was a Democratic organization in it's youth. In the America of today, the KKK has no political home. They choose to vote Republican not because they are welcome within the party either publicly or privately, but simply because the Republican party (theoretically) does not believe in handouts for anybody, and such a position would take many handouts away from minorities.

Here's your history lesson for the day... [/COLOR]

The PARTIES changed over the years but the different schools of thought remained the same. At the time of the civil war, the Republicans were considered the "Liberals" and the democrats were the so called "Conservatives." Originally the Democratic party appealed to the lower classes, who were mostly farmers and since most of the plantation owners and farmers depended on slave labor in one way or another they didn't like the "radical" idea of freeing the slaves and therefore putting them all out of work. Ironically, when the slaves were all freed they mainly joined the democratic party because they mostly made up the minimum wage tax bracket (this was all during reconstruction), and moved North to avoid discrimination. So a lot of the freedmen identified with the democratic party, but still had a liberal mindset. Later, as the democratic party supported things like affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, etc., all the conservative people jumped ship on the Democratic party and switched sides. So, while the parties themselves have changed locations, the two philosophies have not moved at all. Strange huh?

You should research the voting records of both the Republican party and the Democratic party during the Civil Rights era, and the 100 years leading up to it. It was the Republican party that pushed civil rights from prior to the civil war all the way up to the 60s. It was the Democrats who blocked these attempts. The Democrats changed when the country changed (on this issue). The Republican party has remained the same. The Democrats had a large majority in Congress at the time of the passage of the civil rights act of 1964. But if you research the voting records, you will see that congressional Republicans voted for it at a much higher percentage than did Democrats, since legislation of that kind had been supported by Republicans for over a hundred years prior. All of this my friend begs the question, Why would a racist Democrat who hates the new direction of his party leave that party to join an organization that was founded upon, and is still strongly supporting, the principles of that very thing he hates. It doesn't make sense.

The switch happened back in the 50's and 60's when the Northern Democrats supported the civil rights movement, but the Southern Democrats wouldn't go along with that and switched to the Republican party to avoid it.

Again I've got to ask. Since the Republican party had been pushing legislation of this kind for a hundred years prior to 1964, and actually voted for the civil rights act at a much higher percentage than did the Democratic party, how could these ship jumping racist Democrats have imagined that they would have more of a home in the Republican party?

That change in party affiliation is why the current Republicans can say with a straight face that the Democrats opposed the civil right bill. Many Southern Democrats did oppose it, and they switched to the Republican Party because of it.

I can absolutely say it with a straight face, because it is true. The Republican party has a history it can be proud of. The Democratic party has a history that it would very much like to pin on the Republicans. Unfortunately for them, and you, history has not yet been rewritten.

Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrats

[/QUOTE]

The encyclopedia by general consensus is unacceptable as source material in any respectable university for a reason.

 

[top gun]

Again I've got to ask. Since the Republican party had been pushing legislation of this kind for a hundred years prior to 1964, and actually voted for the civil rights act at a much higher percentage than did the Democratic party, how could these ship jumping racist Democrats have imagined that they would have more of a home in the Republican party?

I can absolutely say it with a straight face, because it is true. The Republican party has a history it can be proud of. The Democratic party has a history that it would very much like to pin on the Republicans. Unfortunately for them, and you, history has not yet been rewritten.

The encyclopedia by general consensus is unacceptable as source material in any respectable university for a reason.

Well your last line pretty much tells us everything else you site is BS (the encyclopedia is a big bad scary liars book ... right!)

But hey I'll weigh in just to make the true connection as to why your twisting is irrelevant. While it's true that the Party of Lincoln was the more antislavery Party back in that day as they were more Liberal on social issues that changed dramatically over time. The philosophies of the two Parties made a 180 degree change in the late 50's early 60's. Segregationists left the Democratic Party in droves and switched to the Republican Party mainly due to the Democratic platform going head first for civil rights and equal rights.

And as we see still today the hard South is really almost the only solid block that could even be called Republican anymore. In summation we are talking about not a couple years of this major shift in policy but the Democratric Party leading the call for civil rights and equal rights for 5 or 6 decades. Your going back to Moses or the Civil War only highlights the true weakness of your postion today.

Your argument is basically like saying that the sinner who found God and devoted the rest of his life to helping the regular working man or person without is the bad guy today, and the previous evangelist that's fallen and is now currently little more than a common street thug is today's champion.

Not gonna fly dude. You can put wings on a pig but that still don't make him an eagle!

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Well your last line pretty much tells us everything else you site is BS (the encyclopedia is a big bad scary liars book ... right!)

Try again genius. Reread what I wrote, and I have faith that you'll be able to decode my cryptic statement as questioning the inherent accuracy of WIKIPEDIA, not encyclopedias/books in general.

But hey I'll weigh in just to make the true connection as to why your twisting is irrelevant. While it's true that the Party of Lincoln was the more antislavery Party back in that day as they were more Liberal on social issues that changed dramatically over time. The philosophies of the two Parties made a 180 degree change in the late 50's early 60's. Segregationists left the Democratic Party in droves and switched to the Republican Party mainly due to the Democratic platform going head first for civil rights and equal rights.

Just so ya know guy, all you have done is repeat what you already said previously, without actually answering my question. I'm sure if you reread the question that I asked, you'll come up with a way to not answer the question I actually asked, rather than not answering the question you imagine that I should have asked.

Just for the purposes of clarification, I'll restate my question. Why would racist Democrats upset about the new direction of their party leave it to join the party that ALWAYS HAD BEEN, AND STILL WAS fighting for civil rights? It doesn't make sense buddy.

And as we see still today the hard South is really almost the only solid block that could even be called Republican anymore. In summation we are talking about not a couple years of this major shift in policy but the Democratric Party leading the call for civil rights and equal rights for 5 or 6 decades. Your going back to Moses or the Civil War only highlights the true weakness of your postion today.

True, the South is more conservative than the northeast. There are still plenty of Democrats in the south however. Since you are clearly trying to make the ignorant argument that the majority of southern conservatives are racists, perhaps you'd like to explain why Hillary Clinton did so well in the south against Barack Obama IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY where there were no Republicans voting.

Your argument is basically like saying that the sinner who found God and devoted the rest of his life to helping the regular working man or person without is the bad guy today, and the previous evangelist that's fallen and is now currently little more than a common street thug is today's champion.

What I'm doing is rejecting the idea that the Republican party is different now then they were then. The Republican party believes in equal rights for all. Therefore we can't be expected to jump on board the special privileges train, since we have no guilty past that we need to distract people from. I accept that the Democratic party saw the error of their former ways, and I believe that they are now overcompensating in a vain attempt to get people with short memories to forget who they were, and that in fact some of those "old" Democrats are still serving today.

Not gonna fly dude. You can put wings on a pig but that still don't make him an eagle!

Not only is my argument flying "dude", I do believe I'm achieving orbit, your ineffectual attempts at interception notwithstanding.