DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on October 10, 2015, 02:38:36 PM
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ben-carson-jewish-group-talking-%e2%80%98foolishness%e2%80%99-on-holocaust/ar-AAfhVlk
Yep.
He would rather be right than president.
I hope I get to vote for him.
-
Actually it IS foolish. Germans did not own guns in 1930 before Hitler came to power because they were poor and could not afford to buy guns. Germany had a total collapse of the economy due to the costs of WWI and the reparations demanded of them. Germany was far more damaged by the Depression than Americans were.
There was collapse of the German monarchy, followed by a war between the Communists and the Social Democrats and the various parties of the right. Then the Depression came, and it was even worse. The German people certainly felt threatened by thieves and physical violence before Hitler came along. But the did not buy guns because they were broke.
I don't think that Ben Carson would get much of the Jewish vote, anyway.
-
Germans did not own guns in 1930 before Hitler came to power because they were poor and could not afford to buy guns.
That makes it mysterious that there was a confiscation.
-
I did not say that Germans had NO guns, I said that they had FEW guns and no means to obtain more.
By the way, if you had a gun and no groceries and were not a thief, where would you take your gun to borrow money against it?
What religion might predominate among pawnshop owners?
It certainly made sense for Hitler to confiscate guns. But there were not enough to overthrow any government, assuming that this would have been possible. Germany's police were quite well armed, because there was a LOT of unrest in the Reich from 1918 through 1933. AS I recall, even my college European history books failed to describe Germany in this period.
When I was teaching in the Cascades in 1964, I spent a lot of time talking with the physics and chemistry teacher, Herr Heinrich Schapp, who was born in 1923 and grew up in Germany, so I ordered some books from the Bookmobile and read up on it. A rather exciting time. Herr Schapp loved to talk and liked my cooking better than his own. He was dragooned for expressing anti-Nazi musings into the Afrika Korps, and spoke both German and Frisian, which is very like English. He was captured near the Kasserine Pass in Tunisia and sent to an Alabama POW Camp.
In small towns in Missouri, there are very few Jews, but if you wanted to find one, the town pawnshop would be a likely place of where to find one.
Of course, you could also search the phone book for names containing the syllables Gold, Silver, Berg and Blat.
Germany had pawnshops and they were very often run by Jews. That is why Hitler was able to stir up so much hatred of Jews: they are the one's that ended up with the signs of wealth from Grandpapa's estate, as the financial crises in the Reich after WWI impoverished nearly everyone. People who dealt in gold tend to never be impoverished anywhere.
I do not recall Herr Schapp telling me anything about any gun confiscations. His family was from Bremerhaven, and volunteered to develop land annexed from Poland in 1941, so I imagine they were fairly poor. Middle class urban Germans were not interested in becoming farmers.
-
I did not say that Germans had NO guns, I said that they had FEW guns and no means to obtain more.
By the way, if you had a gun and no groceries and were not a thief, where would you take your gun to borrow money against it?
What religion might predominate among pawnshop owners?
So Jews had easy access to guns in the 1920s?
I had not considered this.
But I don't see how it helps your argument.
I know that the real extent of the damage being done was as hidden as possible as long as possible.
But that was helped by the co-operation of the victims as well.
I really do think the same thing could be done here.
Why make it so easy?
-
I imagine that Jews had the same limited access to guns as other German citizens in the 1920's, unless they owned a pawnshop that dealt in guns.
Most Germans did not own guns because they could not afford them. Perhaps some thought that it was a bad idea because they had young children.
I have read some novels of the period, but none of the characters were armed except cops and soldiers.
But Germany during the Weimar Republic was an entirely different society with entirely different views on things compared with Americans in 2015.
Ben Carson was not there, it was a rather foolish remark, since it makes him sound like he was smarter than everyone's Uncle Izzy. It sounds to some like he was blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.
Clearly, the sane thing for any Jew in the Reich to do when Hitler came to power was to sell everything and get the Hell out.
Austrian, Polish and Lithuanian Jews would also have been wise to do this. But to mention it publicly d be politically unwise.
Carson has this tendency to put his foot in his mouth. Trump does the same, but more obnoxiously and louder.
-
Ben Carson was not there, it was a rather foolish remark, since it makes him sound like he was smarter than everyone's Uncle Izzy. It sounds to some like he was blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.
And this is precisely what he did not say.
If you have to misquote him to make it sound foolish, perhaps it is not foolish in the first place.
Lets talk of Malmedy. Where this happened to Americans.
There were dozens of captured Americans in the early part of the Battle of the Bulge. Most of them laid a rifle down and raised his hands.
Then this group was lead into a field and sprayed with machineguns, it was clumsily done and there were several escaped into the forest.
The word got around, soon it became a lot harder to find Americans willing to surrender, the fight became meaner and dirtier until the Germans had to lay down their rifles and raise their hands.
This is not exactly how it went for the Jews that were rounded up and sent to concentration camps , but it is parallel, in this respect. The Americans who surrendered are not to be blamed for their plight as their captors abused their trust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre
-
It is exactly what it sounds like: if the Jews had armed themselves, they would have survived in greater numbers. Therefore, because Anne Frank did not get herself an AK-47, she was gassed without any resistance. Otherwise, she would have scared them Nazis away and she could have narrated her own docudrama.
The soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge were, of course, soldiers, sworn to fight and armed to fight. They were not comparable to Anne Frank or anyone's Uncle Izzy.
Carson would have been better off just saying that the shooting was a tragedy. We are discussing this because he provoked controversy over something that has no meaning at all to whether he should be elected president.
His eyes were not on the prize; his eyes were on the flies in their eyes.
My point is that Carson, like Trump, puts his foot in his mouth and it makes him look foolish.
Not that either of them will likely get the nomination, anyway.
-
The soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge were, of course, soldiers, sworn to fight and armed to fight. They were not comparable to Anne Frank or anyone's Uncle Izzy.
Their situation was not comparable until they were disarmed, then it was equal.My point is that Carson, like Trump, puts his foot in his mouth and it makes him look foolish.
Not that either of them will likely get the nomination, anyway.
If they speak the truth as they see it , they are doing what the pros call a gaffe.
Vive'le gaffe.
-
Trained soldiers in their 20's and 30's are far more dangerous than an assortment of Jews who are probably terrified.
I do not think that Carson had much of a point.
It is always unwise to compare anything to the Holocaust in any political speech.
-
Trained soldiers in their 20's and 30's are far more dangerous than an assortment of Jews who are probably terrified.
I do not think that Carson had much of a point.
It is always unwise to compare anything to the Holocaust in any political speech.
You are entirely within your rights to accept or reject arguments as you please/
But the Holocaust should not be repeated.
This is why we must not learn from the circumstances?
Ben Carson did not say that the victims were at fault for their plight.
You do seem to be saying that surrendered and disarmed POWs are more fair game than surrendered and disarmed civilians.
All right, these same Germans shot more than an hundred unarmed Belgians in the next few days , being unarmed made the massacring just that much easier.
I really can't see how Dr. Carson's comment on this subject is even slightly controversial.
The Third Reich did disarm Jews and other conquered peoples , then killed a lot of them.
-
Any politician should know by now that it is simply stupid to compare anything to the Holocaust.
Go to Holocaust Memorials, say never again and leave it at that.
-
Sure has never stopped the Bush = Hitler references, or that Republicans = Nazis
-
Any politician should know by now that it is simply stupid to compare anything to the Holocaust.
Go to Holocaust Memorials, say never again and leave it at that.
But when they are asked , they should not answer?
I guarantee that I will not always agree with Dr. Ben Carson, but it will take a much more serious "mistake" on his part than this to make me not appreciate hos forthrightness.
-
Appreciate the Hell out of his forthrighteousness, but get serious. Do we need a president that causes constant useless controversy every time he opens his mouth?
Someone asks if you think a Muslim should be president, what you say is 'since we are talking about an imaginary person, I would say I cannot honestly comment on that: if there were a specific candidate, then I would do what every American should do when they vote: judge his or her abilities carefully and then decide.'
That is not dodging the question, and it would not provoke controversy.
The Republican Party knows that there are a sizable number of voters who will vote against any Black person. They also know that they will get nearly all those votes UNLESS they run Carson. They need every vote then can get. Angry Old White Guys are a smaller percentage in 2008. They have been replaced by Millienian=ls, and that is why we will not be hearing much from the Republicans against Gay marriage this time around. They know that that is a losing issue.
How much did it cost to get all those seduced and abandoned White women to come out and denounce the philandering Herman Cain?
They were not drugged or tricked into sleeping with the Boss Man. I tend to think that they did not all pop up out of a civic sense of responsibility.
It seemed to be quite effective to subject Ol' Herman to a public pussywhipping with the resolute Mrs Cain standing there presiding over the debacle.
Is there an ex-CIA Director still around in the Republican Oligarchy? Does he still have pals and buddies in the Dirty Tricks Department?
Might he have a motive?
-
Appreciate the Hell out of his forthrighteousness, but get serious. Do we need a president that causes constant useless controversy every time he opens his mouth?
Someone asks if you think a Muslim should be president, what you say is 'since we are talking about an imaginary person, I would say I cannot honestly comment on that: if there were a specific candidate, then I would do what every American should do when they vote: judge his or her abilities carefully and then decide.'
I love that very thing. I am sick of seeing triangulation happen and pandering follow polls . It is so gross and unhidden that it is practically nothing but an insult.
That is not dodging the question, and it would not provoke controversy.
What is the controversy? There is a clause of our constitution that makes a religious test for office forbidden , this is not going to change. An honest answer is very appealing , and it is an opinion that many Americans would agree with. I note that although there are a few Muslims in statehouses and congress there are none running for president , not even as a Democrat. If my advice was asked I might say much the same thing, Islam is problematic as a philosophy and scary as a social movement.
If you were asked that question , what would you say?
The Republican Party knows that there are a sizable number of voters who will vote against any Black person. They also know that they will get nearly all those votes UNLESS they run Carson. They need every vote then can get. Angry Old White Guys are a smaller percentage in 2008. They have been replaced by Millienian=ls, and that is why we will not be hearing much from the Republicans against Gay marriage this time around. They know that that is a losing issue.
If they can't vote for a black guy , then they are welcome to vote for a Democrat, it will be just like the old days.How much did it cost to get all those seduced and abandoned White women to come out and denounce the philandering Herman Cain?
I don't know and I don't know who to ask . They were not drugged or tricked into sleeping with the Boss Man. I tend to think that they did not all pop up out of a civic sense of responsibility.
It seemed to be quite effective to subject Ol' Herman to a public pussywhipping with the resolute Mrs Cain standing there presiding over the debacle.
Yes, I am also suspicious of this circumstance, it recalls strongly the attack on Justice
Thomas, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination) But just because it is done the same way does not prove it is done by the same people.
Tho I really can't find evidence , I suspect the Democrats , but another Republican candidate is also possible.
Is there an ex-CIA Director still around in the Republican Oligarchy? Does he still have pals and buddies in the Dirty Tricks Department?
Might he have a motive?
As for motive , no, not against Herman Cain , that race was Bush free.
-
There were no Bushes running. That does not mean that there were no Bushes at work.
That does not mean that Olebush or perhaps some of his CIA pals did not cause those women to all come tell their tales of how Black Mr Cain seduced White women. It certainly put an end to his candidacy. I do not thin=k all those women told their tales simply because they were worried about sedUctions in the White House.
After the Great Public Pussywhipping, Cain sank below the horizon and so did all those women. No books came t, no reporters investigated, it just *poof!* vanished.
In any event, this time there is Jeb! who has traded his reviled surname for an exclamation point. Perhaps Carson will just fade away.
-
Gotta love the rampant toothfairy-like accusations, with not one shred of any proof
-
Thomas attacked Carla Hill. She did not want to testify, she was subpoenaed and forced to testify. It is pretty obvious that Clarence Thomas was not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.He is the laziest guy that has served on the court in a century. He rarely speaks or asks questions and rarely writes much. And his wife is up to her neck in conflicts of interest.
It seems that no one bothered to track down the women who ratted on Herman Cain. They would be the ones to ask. But after the Great Pussywhipping, Cain was no longer of much interest and no publication bothered to run an exposé. He was not guilty of anything in any legal sense, but his fall from grace was probably considered something he deserved. The women were not lying, they were simple encouraged to tell the truth, and probably not out of any sense of civic duty. It is not actually illegal to bribe someone to tell the truth. On the other hand, they would not have wanted to become even more famous as women whose fame was derived from sleeping with the boss.
-
We'll all look forward to you getting back to us with even 1 bit of evidence to back up any of the ongoing speculative accusations & claims. Until then, this could be the beginnings of a weak selling fiction novel. Keep up the effort
-
So why did all those women rat out Cain after years had gone by?
That is the big question.
-
I guess you're going to have to ask them if you're that caught up in it, Notoriety?...Ideology?...Opportunity? No one really knows since there's no EVIDENCE of anything stemming from the CIA or the Bushies.....unless you want to fantacize & brainstorm some more for your apparent fictional novel, you're working on. Oh wait, you love to apply the backwards mindset that no evidence is concrete evidence, because they're just that good at hiding things, right? Is that what you're going with?
-
Thomas attacked Carla Hill.
No.
There is not even an indication of such a thing.
The most she accused him of was ribald and sexist remarks that she found irritating.
Not so irritating that she didn't follow him to a new job when he was transferred.
Just how offensive is a boss that you can loose him by just doing nothing , but instead you follow him to his new assignment ?
I see her as a creature of the Democratic machine, here rewards since have been pretty good.
This is a little different than the incidents that sunk the Gary Hart candidacy and failed to sink the Clinton Presidency, Mz Hill was smoke with no fire.
I regret the loss of Herman Cain, he had some things in common with Trump , but one grade more reasonable.
I don't think that a conspiracy is necessary to explain the Herman Chain accusers , but it could be , and it could be those Democrats that conspired , as they sometimes do.
-
I regret the loss of Herman Cain, he had some things in common with Trump , but one grade more reasonable.
Cain was less an egotistical bloewhard than Trump, but that is not hard to do.
I don't think that a conspiracy is necessary to explain the Herman Chain accusers , but it could be , and it could be those Democrats that conspired , as they sometimes do.
I see no reason why Democrats would have tried to torpedo Cain. Cain was a headache for the Republican establishment, and a blessing to the Democrats.
There is a PBS documentary on Carla Hill they ran earlier this year that explains her entire ordeal.
She did not want to testify at all.
But she felt bound to tell the truth.
Her motive was not to ruin Thomas's chances.
She was cruelly treated for simply telling the truth.