Crap Throwing Monkey

Sort-of disagreeing. I'm not agreeing with the post-war apologists, just stating their views, and pointing out the unsurprising congruence of Kurt's opinions with them.

The Ambien Defense. Worked for Patrick Kennedy.

You should be more compassionate, considering her death was an "accident". How the !@#$ do you "accidentally" strangle and beat to death a 10-year old?

Did they? I hadn't heard...but I'm not surprised. The Democratic/Republican parties need more Republicans/Democrats like Lieberman. I had no idea we had strikethrough tags here, either. Cool...

In Kurt's defense, he's not revising history. He'd actually have to know something about it to revise it. The claim that Nazi Germany served a vital and noble purpose as a bulwark against communist expansion is most commonly heard expressed by former members of the SS. A lot of Waffen-SS members, in particular, like to claim that the Waffen-SS, due to its multinational character (non-Germans couldn't serve in the German Army, but the combat arm of the SS was open to them), is the prototype of NATO. Somehow, given his racial theories, I don't find Kurt's parroting of other typically Nazi views all that surprising...

They have to get endorsed by leading Democrats and Republicans, for starters...

Can you be more specific?

Sorry, I'd like to...but it's hard not to vote for Frank. Classic basset hound look to him...

Actually, I believe that article was written in the Stalingrad-Kursk-Kiev time frame (i.e. between November '42 and January '44). It's actually another Ehrenberg article from April '45 that Kurt believes - mistakenly, of course, it is Kurt - he's quoting. My books on the Eastern front are still packed away, including my Ehrenberg references, so I can't verify that right now.

He was. I've read them. I've also read the STAVKA denounciation of him for them. You see, Ehrenberg was a rabble-rouser, but he did not represent official Soviet policy. Which was the point of contention. Kurt says Ehrenberg, as Propaganda Minister, set policy with his writing. I countered with the simple fact that the policy-makers (up to and including the Soviet Minister of Propaganda) denounced Ehrenberg for it. Kurt ignored that...because I was a big ol' meanie to him. Kurt ALSO doesn't understand that, concerning the topic of Red Army atrocities in Germany and Ehrenberg's causal role (or lack thereof) in them, his mistaken belief that Ehrenberg was the Minister of Propaganda speaks directly to the subject of the rest of his mistaken opinions. He THINKS my discussion of Ehrenberg was trivial...in fact, his misunderstanding of Ehrenberg's role in the war both causal and demonstrative of his complete misunderstanding of the late war perid. And because he's too much of a !@#$ing dolt to put it together.

Unfortunately, you're so bloody uncoordinated about it that you just end up slapping yourself in the face repeatedly.

No, actually you called Ehrenberg the Soviet Minister of Propaganda: No, the larger issue is that, while you think you're informed, you're actually pretty much a total idiot who can't even keep his facts straight, much less hang them on a coherent framework. If you think Ehrenberg was the Minister of Propaganda setting the policy of genocide for the Red Army...it rather calls into question your entire interpretation of Soviet policy, seeing how you can't even get that rather basic fact correct. One also has to wonder, if Ehrenberg was calling for a genocide campaign against Germans, why he didn't just exhort Red Army soldiers to marry them...

Yeah. Explain to me again how Ilya Ehrenberg was Stalin's propaganda minister...

You're arguing physics with a physicist by quoting a theologian drama trustee...and I'm the pseudo-intellectual?

He hasn't published a single physics paper in any sort of reputable journal. I have several. If I say the physics is wrong, and Schroeder disagrees, I am the more credible source. He is wrong. His theory is unmitigated bull sh--, for the reasons I have already shared - and you've ignored in your breathtaking narrow-mindedness - repeatedly. I think the more important question is: how is a Nazi like yourself so easily taken in by a Jewish theologist. The answer, I think, is clear: you're a dumbass.

Classic.

Ah, irony...

That one's my favorite, along with his "marital genocide" explanation of racial purity.

And I explained it to you: although special relativity dicatates that time dialation will occur, it breaks down for the Big Bang because 1) there's no objective basis for choosing what is in fact an arbitrary frame-of-reference, and 2) the scale of the Big Bang was such that special relativity cannot fully describe conditions, but must include quantum mechanics, and no one has yet successfully merged quantum mechanics with special relativity. But you ignored the explanation of a published physicist (namely: myself), rather preferring the theological discussions of a drama trustee (you're right, he's not even a professor) at MIT. This is because, as I've said, you're a !@#$ing idjimit. You can't even discuss the topic...because you're a !@#$ing idjimit. All you can do is say "Mr. Potato Head knows more than you, because the initials 'MIT' occur somewhere in his curriculum vitae!"...because you're a !@#$ing idjimit.

Not exactly the same. It would be more coherent.

Look at a map. From Mexico to the Marshalls, there's virtually nothing. No shipping routes, for the most part. Pretty much the least-travelled of any open ocean on the planet. I can believe they went unseen for nine months...hell, I'm actually surprised they were even found at all.

I went back eariler and re-read some of his posts, just to verify once again that he is, in fact, a Nazi. Man, some of his post are a riot. The discussion about the MIT drama professor that proved the Big Bang lasted six days and not 15 billion years was a hoot.

Oh, you're so full of hate...

Is he the Syrian President or the Syrian Minister of Silly Walks?