KurtGodel77
-
Posts
932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by KurtGodel77
-
-
Well hurrah for the Liberals. They continue their attack on our culture, our sacred institutions and on the very foundations of our Christian society. Gays can now marry in New Jersey. What's next? Marrying pets? Group marriage? Sex with little boys? Liberals are such pigs.
Of course its very nice of them to show there true colors before the election. Mark my words Liberals, you just lost the election. Poor little things, America seemed ready to accept your cowardly 'agenda'. Too bad you 'blew' it. You guys like blowing things, huh?
I see you've taken a lot of grief for this post. Little nor none of it was deserved.
I don't oppose homosexual behavior as strongly as some. But I do feel that, ceteris paribus, children are better off being adopted by straight couples than by gay couples.
-
Substitute the word "Jews" for "Americans" and you have a speech that not even Hitler would have made. Thanks for speaking your mind so fully.
-
and it says kurt did post 1:59, so he deleted, or someone else....
The mods deleted my post, and apparently they deleted the CTM post to which I was responding. I have the feeling this is the mods sending a none too subtle message they've had enough of the fighting between CTM and myself. I can't say I blame them.
-
Are you trying to say you disagree with my take on Clinton? I'll tell you about the problem I have with Clinton. It's one thing for a guy to be up-front with women, and to tell them he's only interested in casual sex. No lies, no dishonesty, the women know what he has to offer, and they can take it or leave it.
Clinton's sex life was nothing at all like that. Sneaking around, lying to Hillary, lying to the American people: "I did not have sex with that woman." He went after married women. I don't like that. I don't like the furtive, dishonest nature of Clinton's sex life, and I feel that carried over to his public life. Look at the numerous broken promises he'd made to the American people.
-
-
He was a communist stooge who comitted genocide against the Nazis?
Oh, wait...wrong Democrat, sorry.
You're not very good at moving on to the next subject, are you?
-
Can we at least bring the definition of race argument here? No? Well how about the whole FDR/Stalin thing? Not that one either? Can CTM and I at least hurl insults at each other? No? Too bad.
Actually, what I'd really like is to intelligently discuss controversial issues without namecalling, and with each participant defending his or her own views with logic and information.
-
Where in the sam hell am I, oh ya, the sew liberal thread
Buddy, you seem like a nice guy and all, but you really need to get some sleep.
-
Once, numbskull, once.
And I had a nice rebuttal to your Fleming nonsense (like how you can't defend your thoughts, you can only defend the pedigree of the idiots that tell you what to think). But KRC closed the thread to spare you more embarrassment.
BTW, the Post also called Fleming "delusional". I looked up the review.
I interpreted that whole "subspecies" comment to have been made with me in mind. Between that post and yours, that's two out of seven.
I find it odd that you A) respond to my Fleming quote by doing a hatchet job on the guy, and then B) act outraged or disgusted when I proceed to defend him. You were the one who raised the issue of Fleming's credibilty, so please don't wet your panties when I point out he's been featured on NPR, PBS, A&E, and the History Channel.
-
Looks like I was alluded to twice within the first seven posts. Not bad!
I had a nice rebuttal to your Goebbels reference, but I deleted it. No sense in spoiling a good thread through yet another shouting match.
-
You know what my biggest problem with Clinton is? The fact people voted for him. What on earth is it about a sleazy used car salesman-like womanizer which makes people think he ought to be the president of the United States?
-
Too bad you skipped my post!
If you want to know, I've read the Diary of Anne Frank. Twice. I've seen the video footage of the Jews in the concentration camps.
But you know what else I've seen, that maybe you haven't? Video footage of the Ukrainians Stalin starved. It's easy to forget them when you've never seen a picture. Until you see their faces, you won't understand at a gut level why it was so important for the Soviets to be kept out of the heart of Europe.
The fate of the Axis's victims is widely discussed. The fact the Allies murdered more people--both through engineered famines and through extermination bombings--is quietly ignored. Through these means, people are deceived into thinking WWII was a war between the good Allies and the evil Axis.
-
You're quoting Fleming???? The same asshat that said ten thousand deaths on 9/11 (before the death toll was known) no big deal, just the cost of being America, and justified it by saying "Well, we started it."? The same fool that thinks FDR kept Rommel from overthrowing Hitler because it would hurt his reelection chances, and bribed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor so Germany would declar war on the US?
You knew I wouldn't be silly enough to agree with your portrayal of Fleming, right? As this thread has shown, you're not always the best at remembering the views of those with whom you disagree. So I'll put a big asterisk next to your representation of Fleming's 9-11 views. In The New Dealers' War, Fleming never so much as hinted that FDR bribed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. He wrote that FDR imposed an oil embargo on Japan for the purpose of provoking an attack; which is in fact what happened.
Fleming actually knows less about Dresden than you do. You're actually quoting a bigger idiot than you to justify your own stupidity?
Ah, so at least you're willing to admit there are those less intelligent than myself. If this is your attempt at flattery, it's failed!
"Praised in the Journal and Post." Right. Where? Both newspapers are online, you should be able to link a book review.The Washington Post described Fleming's book as "A gripping, controversial, informative, and sometimes infuriating look at FDR's leadership as the nation entered and fought WWII." The Wall Street Journal wrote, "Roosevelt haters will love this book--and even admirers will find themselves frequently disconcerted."
Moreover, the back of the book had this to say:
Thomas Fleming is author of more than forty books of fiction and nonfiction. . . . Fleming is a frequent guest and contributor to NPR, PBS, A&E, and the History Channel.Obviously NPR, PBS, A&E, the History Channel, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal take Fleming seriously. But hey, maybe all of them are wrong, and you alone are right! Just because a guy got a PhD in physics from MIT doesn't mean he knows anything about physics, and just because an historian is respected by the host of groups I've mentioned above doesn't mean he knows anything at all about history!
And check the notes and bibliography on "The New Dealer's War" (I assume you have it readily available, since a huge chunk of your drivel comes from it). What's his source for his Dresden nonsense? Yep, you guessed it: the aforementioned and already discredited Irving.
Wrong again. Not one Irving reference in there.
Below are the real footnotes for his excellent Dresden section:Schaffer, Wings of Judgement, 96Knightley, Philip The First Casualty, New York, 1975, 315
Schaffer, Wings of Judgement, 98-99; Sherry, The Rise of American Air Power, 261.
Schaffer, Wings of Judgement, 102-103.
Edit: a quick search revealed that Fleming has indeed been featured on NPR, as well as on PBS
But don't let this stop you from utterly destroying your own credibilty by attacking his.
-
No. Kurt, if he responds at all, will just respond with "Monkeyface, you are a liar", as he always does when confronted with facts.
Wrong, as usual. The historian I'm going to quote is Thomas Fleming, whose book has been praised by the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. He writes the following:
The British, led by Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, never tried to apologize for Dresden. Harris sneered that the protestors were motivated by a sentimental attachment to "German bands and Dresden shepherdesses." He insisted the city was "a mass of munition works"--a lie.In other words, your analysis was more a reiteration of British propaganda than historical fact. Flemming writes a more detailed description of Dresden elsewhere:
On February 13, the day after Yalta ended, the American and British air forces combined to produce the ultimate terror raid of the European war. One would almost think Roosevelt's comment to Stalin that he felt more bloodthirsty than a year ago had been passed on to them. Such an unlikely leak was not necessary. Armed with the presidential authority to "dehouse" Germans in the name of the Strategic Bombing Survey, General Arnold had already ordered his subordinates to cooperate with the British in morale- (a.k.a. terror-) bombing.The USAAF had signed aboard the British proposal, Thunderclap, a joint assault on cities in Eastern Germany. Adding to everyone's enthusiasm was the belief that a demonstration of British-American air power would "add immeasurably" to FDR's strength in negotiating with the Russians at the postwar table.
On February 3, while the Yalta conference was convening, the Americans hit Berlin in the first act of Thunderclap. Over 900 American bombers took part, killing an estimated 25,000 civilians. Almost all the bombing was done by radar, the by now standard code word for blind. In the next few days, Munich and Leipzig received the Thunderclap treatment, a combination of high explosive and incendiary bombs.
From February 13 to 15, it was Dresden's turn. This old city, rich in architecture and history, was often called "the German Florence." Bombed by two waves of British planes followed by a massive American assault, which dropped 475 tons of general bombs and 292 tons of incendiaries, Dresden was engulfed in a Hamburg-like firestorm that incinerated tens of thousands of people. No one will ever know the exact number of deaths because the city was jammed with at least 500,000 refugees who had fled eastern Germany to escape the oncoming Red Army. After much debate, an original figure of 300,000 was reduced to 60,000 dead and another 30,000 injured. More than 7,000 public buildings and 30,000 houses were destroyed. A German war correspondent who visited the ruins wrote, "A great city has been wiped from the map of Europe."
When the story of Dresden's immolation appeared in Swiss and other neutral country newspapers, U.S. Army Air Force officers grew more than a little alarmed for their reputations. Various generals hastily put on the record their hitherto unmentioned opposition to Thunderclap raids. The British reacted with considerable nastiness. One of their top RAF officers gave an interview to an AP reporter, frankly admitting both the American and British were aiming at killing and dehousing civilians and creating chaos in Germany. The newsman reported that "Allied air bosses" had decided to adopt "deliberate terror bombing . . . to hasten Hitler's doom."
What do we say? asked a frantic information officer at USAAF headquarters. The American air chiefs huddled and decided there was only one solution: lie. They claimed the censor had erred in clearing the AP reporter's story and solemnly declared there had been no change in American bombing policy; attacks were still directed "against military objectives." General Marshall got into the act, asserting that at Yalta the Russians had asked for Dresden to be bombed. The record shows that the Russians requested raids on Berlin and Leipzig but never mentioned Dresden.
Secretary of War Henry Stimson backed up the army air forces in a Washington press conference, roundly denouncing terror bombing. But Stimson, nobody's fool, was uneasy with the ongoing controversy over Dresden. In England, Churchill was under fierce attack in Parliament for resorting to barbarism. Stimson asked for photo-reconnaissance pictures of Dresden to prove that "our objectives were military in nature."
The request was nervously forwarded to General Arnold, who was recuperating from a heart attack in Florida. He wrote in the margin: "we must not get soft." Whether Stimson ever saw any pictures is doubtful. Dresden had no war industries worth mentioning, except a small factory that made lenses for gunsights. The secretary of war dropped the subject.
-
-
Yawn. Talk to me when you have evidence of it.
You want evidence? Here's evidence. First, here's what I said:
Your original contention was that if you and Schroeder were to disagree about physics, we should assume you're right, because you've published papers. This, despite the fact Schroeder has a PhD in physics from MIT! Your failure to acknowledge that others may also have the right to participate in the discussion is one of the many reasons I've concluded you're about as arrogant as they come.Suppose you were to engage Schroeder in an intelligent debate regarding his theory and your objections to it. Maybe he'd argue that your objections would disappear if the observer came into the picture a fraction of a second after the Big Bang began. Or perhaps he'd find some other way to intelligently respond to these objections. You have not, as far as I know, read his book; nor have you mentioned sending him these objections of yours in an effort to get him to respond. That's fine, but you haven't earned the right to act as though there's zero possibility of his having an intelligent refutation.
Now here's what you apparently heard:
it's hard not to sound arrogant with a guy who says stupid sh-- like "This book by a theologian who once chaired the drama department at MIT trumps your eight years of study in physics."You completely and totally misrepresented what I wrote. I didn't mention Schroeder's drama expertise as a reason to believe his views of physics. What I talked about was his PhD in physics. The words you put into my mouth had literally nothing to do with what I actually said. If you're incapable of honesty when representing what I've written, I have to assume you're equally incapable of historical honesty. I don't care how smart you think you are, or how much you think you know. Your credibility in my book is now precisely zero.
The issue of whether Schroeder has a PhD in physics is totally unrelated to your dishonest portrayal of my posts. I'll address it here. I have a copy of Schroeder's book right in front of me, and here's a little material from the back flap:
Gerald Schroeder earned his B.S., M.S., and PhD in physics from MIT, where he taught for several years before moving to the Weizmann Institute in Israel. His professional scientific publications have ranged across many subjects, from the radon atmosphere of the moon to mammary gland formation of breast milk. The results of his research have been reported in Time, Newsweek, and leading newspapers across the world.The book itself was published by the Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster.
-
I wasn't accusing you of misrepresenting my ideas. However, your earlier post came across as though it was intended to defend CTM's dishonesty. If that wasn't what you were trying to do, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
-
Let me get this straight: Monkeyface's dishonesty is acceptable because you feel my ideas are a watered-down version of Nazism. Well . . . as long as you claim the person with whom you're arguing is a Nazi, of course it's acceptable to tell as many lies as you so choose! Who would have thought differently?
-
Arrogance is rarely warranted. But when one is dealing with KurtGoebbels77...it's one of those rare times it actually is; it's hard not to sound arrogant with a guy who says stupid sh-- like "This book by a theologian who once chaired the drama department at MIT trumps your eight years of study in physics."
Typical dishonesty. I mentioned that man's PhD in physics--from MIT no less--until everyone was probably sick about hearing about it. For you to deliberately omit this crucial fact in your post cannot be due to simple forgetfulness; and is a clear case of deliberate misrepresentation. If you're willing to be this blatant about misrepresenting what I've written, I have to believe you're at least equally likely to misrepresent the sources you talk so much about but never provide links to.
-
But on the other hand, if FDR hadn't supported the Soviets in perpretrating genocide against the Germans, they could have invaded the Middle East from both North Africa and the Caucasus, collapsing the British empire a few years early, keeping Palestine in the hands of the Palestinians, and largely suppressing any other Muslim threat from the region (no Iranian revolution, no Pakistan to play footsie with Afghanistan, no Muslim Brotherhood).
FDR, in fact, supported Islamic terrorism!
I see that in your own way, you're attempting humor. I preferred you when you were merely arrogant and insolent. At least then you were being who you really are, instead of trying to be something you're not.
-
You really sounded more mature than usual, at least up until you mentioned Wikipedia. You'd have been better off keeping your statements vague, and acting as if I'd done something far more foolish than looking up a couple of figures from Wikipedia.
In our discussion, CTM made the following observations:
- The Soviets didn't engage in genocide against the Germans
- FDR's Dresden bombing was a legitimate military operation
- A book which describes the intersection between physics and Genesis is fundamentally mistaken
I can easily imagine there are those who would welcome a defense of FDR and Stalin, while opposing a monotheistic work. These people are perhaps the ones who sent you those PMs. However, I noticed a few comments on this thread itself expressing annoyance at the direction the conversation had taken. I felt it would have been a more productive discussion had CTM spent less time calling me names, and more time articulating his point of view. Moreover, it wouldn't have hurt had CTM shown occassional flashes of--not of humility, because that's asking too much--but at least of something other than complete arrogance. This is especially true regarding topics about which he knows little, such as FDR's warm feelings toward Soviet communism.
-
And yet...you did. I explained it quite clearly: you're confusing the biological and sociological definitions of "race". Maybe I used too many big words, so let's try this: "Race" can mean more than one thing. It depends on the context. You don't even know what context you're using it in.
Are you deliberately being blockheaded, or does it just come naturally to you? The definitions of race I found were clearly biological definitions. When using the term race, I've always intended it in its biological sense. I see no justification for you bringing the sociological definition of race into this discussion at all. That definition lacks relevance, and has served to confuse the discussion.
Unreal. I am a published physicist. I already described how Schroeder - who is a theologian who has published nothing in physics in his entire career - was factually incorrect.You don't get it, do you? Your original contention was that if you and Schroeder were to disagree about physics, we should assume you're right, because you've published papers. This, despite the fact Schroeder has a PhD in physics from MIT! Your failure to acknowledge that others may also have the right to participate in the discussion is one of the many reasons I've concluded you're about as arrogant as they come.
Suppose you were to engage Schroeder in an intelligent debate regarding his theory and your objections to it. Maybe he'd argue that your objections would disappear if the observer came into the picture a fraction of a second after the Big Bang began. Or perhaps he'd find some other way to intelligently respond to these objections. You have not, as far as I know, read his book; nor have you mentioned sending him these objections of yours in an effort to get him to respond. That's fine, but you haven't earned the right to act as though there's zero possibility of his having an intelligent refutation.
Ah, irony. Your ideology blinds you to facts. You wouldn't even know one if it bit you in the ass.One fact which has been biting me on the behind--repeatedly, I might add--is that you're intolerant, egotistical, and unwilling to have real discussions. You've often told me my view of something is incorrect, without articulating the alternative view you embrace. On the one hand this is prudent--if you put your own views out there I'd be able to expose them to the same level of scrutiny you subject my views to. On the other hand, it's very inconsiderate of the other people who may be reading this thread. They perhaps want to know not just that your stance differs from mine, they want to know in what you actually believe. Moreover, it does make it hard to move the discussion forward when your only response to anything I write is, "You don't know what you're talking about; you're an idiot."
Perhaps you have zero interest in moving the discussion forward, and that's fine. But the others reading this thread are getting increasingly annoyed with the direction things have taken, and rightly so. It's time to start doing something differently.
-
I am not even gpoing to try to retend to be an expert regarding this whole sordid topic. It seems to me, if I recall a miltary history calss in my distant past, that far greater than 165 tons of incendiery bombs were used by the allied bomber fleets. he number of 165 tons I believecpomes from he bombing missions in March folliwng those of the 13th through 15th of February. If my recollection is correct, than Kurt Gpedl is wrong, kind of. It would appear he is understating the use of bombs on Deresden during that (in retrospect) ill advised raid.
Flame away, again, I am not presenting myself as any kind of expert, just someone who hopes something like this episode never has to be repeated in my lifetime.
You may be right about this. I got the 165 tons figure from Wikipedia. The authors of that article seemed eager to downplay the significance of the Dresden bombing; and using a low figure for the incendiary boming tonnage would certainly play into that.
-
Actually, no it doesn't. I have to side with the monkey on this one. You are trying to use the result to determine the intent. Look up historical revisionism (or negationism). Things does not work that way. They never have and never will.
What makes you qualified to determine discrepancies between stated purpose and intended purpose? Your opinion of what you want the purpose to be in this situation?
Thanks for posting your views in a logical way, without resorting to personal attacks. In general, I've found that people's actions speak more clearly and honestly about their underlying intentions than their words do. This is especially true when their self-interest is at odds with honest communication.
In this case, there are obvious reasons why the Allied governments wouldn't want to come out and say they intended to kill a bunch of German civilians. However, I've read propaganda produced by Allied governments telling the German people they are collectively guilty for the crimes the Nazis committed. Collective punishment is a natural extension of this line of reasoning; and certainly played a role in the Allied decision to engage in extermination bombings.
Pat Tillman's Brother on the Administration
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
You'd celebrate the death of Americans, but I'm the retard here.
So tell me, retard, do you think terrorists deliberately single out the dumbest and most ignorant Americans for their attacks? Because last time I checked, the people getting killed were mostly business travelers on airplanes, finance people in the World Trade center, and military staff in the Pentagon. There were also brave firefighters and police officers who risked (and sometimes lost) their lives trying to save others. Which of those deaths did you celebrate, retard?