Exactly, and they call themselves "Americans" too. LOL. Can u imagine if the Revolutionary War had been fought by people like them? We'd still be living under the British, for certain.
__________________ Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.-Dr. David Berlinski, Philosophy
Most people believe Evolution not because they themselves are dumb, but cause they trust the "experts" who are feeding them evolutionary fast food, and so they don't bother questioning whether or not it's true.
Last edited by Star428 on Oct 12th, 2015 at 08:28 PM
Yay, an actual specific! You stopped dodging!- even though it was not mentioned in your original post, or the first page of the thread at all, so it is pretty obviously you're retroactively coming up with something, but hey, better late than never, eh?
... but, alas, not something actually unconstitutional. The president does have a lot of discretion over what the DoJ focuses on and always has, Reagan and Bush have done so in the past. when two Republican presidents have directly done similar things via executive orders without calls of unconstitutionality, that rather says the objection is more political opposition rather than actually constitutional in nature. The courts have also ruled on the matter, and found this to be the case.
Yes, he did originally intend not to do so without congress, and this is one of the things politifact called him on, but that doesn't mean it is not within his power.
Now your argument is "Well, sure it would've happened, but at least they'd taken Nazis with them!".
Sure, while taking down Nazis is a nice cause, it does not actually have anything to do with preventing them from getting killed- which was the actual claim Carson made.
Spending effort getting out of the country was a much better use of their effort.
And no, disorganized civilians vs police and military are not going to result in anything like that kind of casualties. Again, there were armies with tanks and artillery that didn't do so.
This 'the Jewish population of Germany-' who, btw, were themselves German and thus often going to be reluctant to take up arms against their own country, even if it was turning against them- 'spontaneously turns into an effective guerilla army' is a fun fantasy, but that is what it is, a fantasy, and trying to base policy on fantasy is not very sensible.
Also I like how you're trying to turn 'calling on someone trying to use the holocaust for a pet cause' into something shameful. It's pretty blatant, you're trying to reshape the conservation by mimicing other people's responses, but it doesn't really work because in the case of Carson's statements it *is* a fantasy, it is still factually incorrect, and dancing around the words won't change that.
It hardly matters why, what matters is that is what you actually wrote, and tried to act defensive about a change of subject you did not, in fact, include in your statements.
You asked for quote, quote was provided. Now you're trying to argue motive and such- but you're still asking people to have 'naturally' assumed you were talking about a topic change you forgot to include.
And moving on to further 'gotchas,' and since you have moved on to the subject of examining motive, when then called on this, you were quite evasive on providing what you did mean, requiring multiple posts to do so, suggesting that you were scrambling backwards and did not have a specific other 'unconstitutional' act in mind.
You have an interesting definition of 'caught'
You've been factually caught out on every turn here, you just act like accusing others in response and pretending the wounded party changes that you were, in fact, factually wrong.
The problem is the Jews didn't have enough weapons to protect themselves to begin with.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
How exactly do you envision a bunch of Jewish civilians organizing armed resistance against the German military in a country where they had essentially no allies among the civilian populace?
There's one case of Jews taking up arms against the Germans. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. It was an absolute massacre. Something like two dozen Germans killed with thousands of Jewish casualties.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
Because even you admit that it wouldn't have saved them, which was the actual claim Carson made. You're just upset because you've attached another requirement beyond that. That's called shifting goalposts*.
Also, they were Germans themselves, you know.
*You know, I have noticed a tendency in your part to be more interested in 'winning' a conversation, even if it means moving off the original subject and onto something else, than discussing the original point. Stuff like 'ah ha, prove I said X!' 'but at least they'd have taken down a lot of Nazis with them,' etc.. And when caught, you simply shift over to a new topic.
So thinking about this and what to do about it, I say.... go ahead, blame the big bad Q all you want Obviously, this is my fault.
That's right, it's really my fault for not picking up on your prior unstated topic shifts, or the other times you've demanded proof of someone calling you on something to get out of an argument, even when I'm not the one in the thread. And this one here? Why, it's also my fault for not knowing that by 'defend themselves and prevent the holocaust' when what was obviously actually meant was 'take some people with them'.
Congratulations! You can now feel good about yourself!
KMC Community Forums
Oct 12th, 2015 08:22 PM
