Yes folks...the conspiracy theorists have turned on each other!!!!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by MaherFan

Interesting thread, any bets going on as to when Lanny will realise he is debating issues with someone who has yet to hit puberty?

I say 2 more pages

Well, I've been suspecting that all along, but I've been holding out hope. The only things missing have been "nanny nanny boo boo" and "my dad is bigger than yours". The dufus is very close to sliding onto the ignore list.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MaherFan

Interesting thread, any bets going on as to when Lanny will realise he is debating issues with someone who has yet to hit puberty?

I say 2 more pages

Nice of you to add your insight.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nice of you to add your insight.

Come on, he does have a very good point. White Doors has done nothing to back himself up. The only thing he's done is attempt to cloud the issue with irrelevant points. He continually tries to call people out, and demand more infformation in support of their argument, but when people demand that he do the same, he runs away and hides or makes some glib comment, like that will get him off the hook. To be honest with you Azure, you have HOZ and White Doors as your primary support on issues, and that's not a good thing. Both have a habit of disappearing once the heat gets turned up and don't support their side of the argument. I give you a ton of credit, you support your side pretty well and cause people to rethink their position or find more infomration to support themselves or opinions to counter yours. That's how debate works. Not hit and run attacks of glib comments that aren't backed up. The behavior of the other two weaken your position, especially when you attempt to support them. IMO, you should be hammering them to stand up and present the case they are trying to argue.

It does not surprise me that HOZ and White Doors take this appraoch in trying to debate their case. Its the same way the administration is. Frankly, this is one of the reasons why people dislike the Bush administration so much, their glib nature in dealing with serious issues. As opposed to talking about the issues and finding the common ground the right like to try and minimalize the opinion on the other side and ignore the message. Instead of taking the debate and proving/disproving the points, like how it should be done, they dismiss the problem or try to sluff it off. That is frustrating for people and ends up harboring many bad feelings towards the administration and those who support it. The numbers don't lie. 29% and falling like a rock. People are getting turned off in droves, and it prevents those on that side of the fence with real ideas to improve things from being heard. So when you are fighting to get your point across, remember that you have tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber that are making your job that much more difficult.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Come on, he does have a very good point. White Doors has done nothing to back himself up. The only thing he's done is attempt to cloud the issue with irrelevant points. He continually tries to call people out, and demand more infformation in support of their argument, but when people demand that he do the same, he runs away and hides or makes some glib comment, like that will get him off the hook.

MaherFan is doing the same thing, if you want to put it that way.

You think he's going to be back to debate with White Doors? I don't.

There is no problem with healthy debate, but I can't stand it when people randomly pop in and say something stupid, then leave and never read the thread again.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

There is no problem with healthy debate, but I can't stand it when people randomly pop in and say something stupid, then leave and never read the thread again.

I agree whole heartedly. But what is worse is the glib SOB that continues to make drivebys and doesn't get hammered for his actions. Those guys usually hijack the thread and take it where it does not need to go.

[MaherFan]

I was merely pointing out the futility in arguing with this white doors kid, it is obvious that he is just a troll looking to poke the eyes of the posters on this forum. This white doors is obviously just a young pre-adolescent just looking to provoke you... and if that isnt the case, then the poster is just permanently ignorant

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MaherFan

I was merely pointing out the futility in arguing with this white doors kid, it is obvious that he is just a troll looking to poke the eyes of the posters on this forum. This white doors is obviously just a young pre-adolescent just looking to provoke you... and if that isnt the case, then the poster is just permanently ignorant

He has a opinion, just like you. Lanny has the right to call him ignorant, because Lanny debates with him. You on the other hand, are randomly making comments about someone you don't agree with, yet you don't have any part in the debate.

If you think he is ignorant, prove it to him.

[nuckles]

White Doors get's his info from Fox News

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well I was using hyperbole but...basically replace terrorist with communist in your original post and you'll see what I'm getting at.

I know exactly what you are getting at and it is far different that MaCarthyism. Again this is a debate for another thread that isn't about CT.

[White Doors]

It would be a sad day indeed when I felt I had to post links to back up my 'claim' (?) that Bush is not indeed as bad as Hitler and also my other crazy claim (?) that a passenger jet did indeed hit the pentagon.

These people, are facts - no matter what Lanny spouts off about with assorted links to more questions. Look - questions are good - but Lanny is saying that he does not think a passenger jet hit the pentagon and Bush is just as bad as Hitler, there is no debate anymore.

There is clearly a lack of historical knowledge on the other poster's part and it is an excercise in futility to argue otherwise.

Why should I post links denying outrageous conspiracy theories?
All one has to do is look it up in the encycopedia for cripes sakes.


Ok.. Here you go:

Here's Hitler. Lots of other links. Spend some time, have a look around.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...uery=Hitler&ct=

Here's Bush - let's see if everyone can tell the difference in the two.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...W%2C%20Bush&ct=

Here's 911:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...1%2C%202001&ct=


Those people are facts. If you have troubles with them they are yours and yours alone. Or you can take them up with Encyclopedia Britannica.
They are a questionable source.. LOL

All in all, this is the end result when history classes aren't even a mandatory in school. I'm sure half the people on here can't even recall living with the cold war.

Yes - a sad day indeed.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by nuckles

White Doors get's his info from Fox News

biting commentary

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by MaherFan

I was merely pointing out the futility in arguing with this white doors kid, it is obvious that he is just a troll looking to poke the eyes of the posters on this forum. This white doors is obviously just a young pre-adolescent just looking to provoke you... and if that isnt the case, then the poster is just permanently ignorant

It is pointless to debate with me on this subject yes, because the facts back my assertion that, Bush is NOT the same as Hitler and a passenger Jet did, indeed, slam into the pentagon on 9.11.

The facts back my claim (?) that these are true and valid.
If you are so wise I'm sure that you can refute them. Feel free to look at the britannica links above.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

It is pointless to debate with me on this subject yes, because the facts back my assertion that, Bush is NOT the same as Hitler and a passenger Jet did, indeed, slam into the pentagon on 9.11.

The facts back my claim (?) that these are true and valid.
If you are so wise I'm sure that you can refute them. Feel free to look at the britannica links above.

OK--let's set aside for the moment the claim about the pentagon, because it's not what this thread is about. You're merely trying to use it to win an argument about something else--namely, Lanny's comparison of Bush to Hitler.

Let me first say that it's probably the case that you and I agree on this point. Personally, I think Bush is probably not very much like Hitler. That doesn't mean I like Bush, but Hitler was a special kind of evil person--not your run-of-the-mill corporate thug like Bush is. I think Hitler was a delusional megalomaniac who rallied the populace's fear into a nationalist aggression and used that energy to wage war and commit mass murder--he was also a racist, which I don't think Bush is, at least not explicitly. Inasmuch as Bush uses fear, he uses it to generate consensus, not aggression. He also hasn't committed genocide--and though he is arguably responsible for many deaths, that can be said for most presidents. Bush and his people are undoubtedly responsible for MANY electoral irregularities--but none of them rise to the level of "rigging" an election. Elections have not been suspended, and indeed the Republicans look to be victims of a huge backlash in the next couple of years.

However--you need to realize that you're getting schooled big time in this thread. Posting links to biographies of each person and then inviting everyone to read them just makes you look even worse. Lanny made specific inferences about information that won't be found in the biographies--so even though I agree with your claim, such as it is, your so-called "evidence" actually proves nothing. The problem is one of two things: either you're so sure you're right that you forgot to argue your point--or you're not actually interested in a debate, just in baiting Lanny.

Which is it?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

It would be a sad day indeed when I felt I had to post links to back up my 'claim' (?) that Bush is not indeed as bad as Hitler and also my other crazy claim (?) that a passenger jet did indeed hit the pentagon.

If your claim is so right, and so infallible, you should be able to bury me with evidence that proves me wrong. It's really easy. I do it to you all the time.

These people, are facts - no matter what Lanny spouts off about with assorted links to more questions.

Sorry bub, but they are not "facts". As long as there are wholes in the story, they are not facts, they remain a theory. Relativity is an accepted "fact" by many, but it is not proven, hence it being a theory.

Look - questions are good - but Lanny is saying that he does not think a passenger jet hit the pentagon and Bush is just as bad as Hitler, there is no debate anymore.

There is plenty of debate. That is why we are here. If you don't care to debate, then why are you even here? No one appeciates your adolescent hit and run behavior. No one likes a guy who calls someone out then doesn't have the sack to back himself up. If you don't care to debate, and don't care to back yourself up, then why do you stay here?

And again, do NOT put words in my mouth. I have never said Bush was as BAD as Hitler. I pointed out many similarities between the two in regards to the administration of their respective offices. If this is too complex for you to follow, STFU and learn something. You're annoying parroting of what ever the hell is coming from FoxNews is joke. Do yourself a favor and learn to think for yourself, not some talking head from a propaganda organ. Critical thought is a wonderful thing, try using it sometime. Oh wait, that would require you to actually THINK, so forget that.

There is clearly a lack of historical knowledge on the other poster's part and it is an excercise in futility to argue otherwise.

A lack of historical knowledge? Hmmmm, I point out the parallels and actually back them up with examples FROM history, and you say "there is no comparison", and you have the better grip on history? Wow.

Why should I post links denying outrageous conspiracy theories?
All one has to do is look it up in the encycopedia for cripes sakes.

If you call someone out, you better back it up. And a link to an encyclopedia is not support. That's like arguing that Gretzky was a more talented player than Lemieux and then putting a link up to Gretzky's stats at hockeydb.com as your proof. The numbers are nice, but WHY do you believe that? The point is to defend WHY you believe that, and provide more than a link to a generic article from a source that is routinely out of date in regards to current events.

Ok.. Here you go:

Here's Hitler. Lots of other links. Spend some time, have a look around.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...uery=Hitler&ct=

Here's Bush - let's see if everyone can tell the difference in the two.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...W%2C%20Bush&ct=

The onus is on YOU to present why you see no link. Dropping two generic links and then saying to "do the research yourself" is not defending yourself. All that does is prove the point that you don't have the intellectual capacity to prove or disprove an argument.

Here's 911:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...1%2C%202001&ct=

BTW, The 75 words on both topics was extremely informative. I love how you drop the links from a subscription service. Nice touch. Classic "I don't have anything to back me up, and you'll have to pay to prove that" strategy.

Those people are facts. If you have troubles with them they are yours and yours alone. Or you can take them up with Encyclopedia Britannica.
They are a questionable source.. LOL

Yes, they are a questionable source. An encyclopedia is NOT the last word on any subject. It is the starting point to gain generic information. If you haven't grasped that concept yet, you haven't got past grade 5. Try writing a research paper with only encyclodepia references and see how quickly your GPA takes a hit and how quickly you get laughed out of class. Encyclopedias are generally dated and highly inaccurate. They are nothing more than a popular summary of what is "accepted" information on the subject. Then again...

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...%20physics&ct=

Look! I just read 75 words (of 579) on Quantum Electrodynamics, that makes me an expert! The encyclopedia is the end game for information and what it says is irrefutible!!!

All in all, this is the end result when history classes aren't even a mandatory in school. I'm sure half the people on here can't even recall living with the cold war.

Yes - a sad day indeed.

Something tells me you weren't even born when the cold war was raging, so save your BS.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Let me first say that it's probably the case that you and I agree on this point. Personally, I think Bush is probably not very much like Hitler.

And here is EXACTLY what I said (cut from this thread).

"Hitler light. The parallels between them and their methods are striking. Consider..."

And then I went on to outline the parallels between the two administrations. At no time did I say Bush WAS Hitler incarnate, as White Doors is trying to contend. What I pointed out what the striking similiarities between the two during their rise to power and some of the mechanisms they used while in office. How that equates Bush to being as bad as Hitler I have no idea (but those who refuse to acknowledge history are inclined to repeat it). But hey, White Doors is very good at trying to put words into someone's mouth. I guess when you don't have the capacity to provide backup for your point, you have to resort to discrediting the opposition.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

OK--let's set aside for the moment the claim about the pentagon, because it's not what this thread is about. You're merely trying to use it to win an argument about something else--namely, Lanny's comparison of Bush to Hitler.

Let me first say that it's probably the case that you and I agree on this point. Personally, I think Bush is probably not very much like Hitler. That doesn't mean I like Bush, but Hitler was a special kind of evil person--not your run-of-the-mill corporate thug like Bush is. I think Hitler was a delusional megalomaniac who rallied the populace's fear into a nationalist aggression and used that energy to wage war and commit mass murder--he was also a racist, which I don't think Bush is, at least not explicitly. Inasmuch as Bush uses fear, he uses it to generate consensus, not aggression. He also hasn't committed genocide--and though he is arguably responsible for many deaths, that can be said for most presidents. Bush and his people are undoubtedly responsible for MANY electoral irregularities--but none of them rise to the level of "rigging" an election. Elections have not been suspended, and indeed the Republicans look to be victims of a huge backlash in the next couple of years.

However--you need to realize that you're getting schooled big time in this thread. Posting links to biographies of each person and then inviting everyone to read them just makes you look even worse. Lanny made specific inferences about information that won't be found in the biographies--so even though I agree with your claim, such as it is, your so-called "evidence" actually proves nothing. The problem is one of two things: either you're so sure you're right that you forgot to argue your point--or you're not actually interested in a debate, just in baiting Lanny.

Which is it?

Sorry Iowa, I just can't bring myself to have a serious debate on wether Bush is as bad as Hitler. There is no point. It's a disgusting thought anyne who thinks it has a serious lack of knowledge in history or has been watching waaay too much cable news.

Other than that I agree 100% with your post. When I see ridiculous asseritions, I can't help but call them for what they are but you are correct, I am not going to get into a 'serious' debate about it because there is no serious debate to be had. They are not even close to being the same. Any serious person can see and admit that.

And that's my only point. Lanny is 'baiting' me by trying to get me to even entertain the thought of Bush being comparable to Hitler and I will not. No matter how much you hate Bush, the two are not comparable.

A Serious discussion would be - who was worse - Hitler/Stalin/Mao?

That I could have a serious discussion about.
I hope you see what I'm trying to say here.

[White Doors]

BTW, The 75 words on both topics was extremely informative. I love how you drop the links from a subscription service. Nice touch. Classic "I don't have anything to back me up, and you'll have to pay to prove that" strategy.

there was a free trial available.

[White Doors]

They are nothing more than a popular summary of what is "accepted" information on the subject. Then again...

And THAT lanny was my EXACT point.
thank you.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Sorry Iowa, I just can't bring myself to have a serious debate on wether Bush is as bad as Hitler. There is no point. It's a disgusting thought anyne who thinks it has a serious lack of knowledge in history or has been watching waaay too much cable news.

Other than that I agree 100% with your post. When I see ridiculous asseritions, I can't help but call them for what they are but you are correct, I am not going to get into a 'serious' debate about it because there is no serious debate to be had. They are not even close to being the same. Any serious person can see and admit that.

And that's my only point. Lanny is 'baiting' me by trying to get me to even entertain the thought of Bush being comparable to Hitler and I will not. No matter how much you hate Bush, the two are not comparable.

A Serious discussion would be - who was worse - Hitler/Stalin/Mao?

That I could have a serious discussion about.
I hope you see what I'm trying to say here.

You clearly don't see Lanny's point. He's saying that some of the policies Bush has implemented are similar. I could say that the Liberals implementation of the gun registry is comparable to Hitler's and I would be right. However, that's still far different than saying Chretien/Paul Martin=Hitler.

[White Doors]

I'm shocked that people think this is even worthy of debate, but here goes:

[quote=Lanny_MacDonald]Hitler light. The parallels between them and their methods are striking. Consider...

Hitler was installed, then re-elected.

Bush was installed, then re-elected.

Bush was not installed he was elected fair and square:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Hitler had Reichstag allowing him to assume massive powers through the Enabling Act.

Bush had 911 which allowed him to ram home the Patriot Act, which has become a massive power grab.

They are not even close to be similar in scope:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm


The Reichstag Burns

Adolf Hitler, the new Chancellor of Germany, had no intention of abiding by the rules of democracy. He intended only to use those rules to legally establish himself as dictator as quickly as possible then begin the Nazi revolution.
Even before he was sworn in, he was at work to accomplish that goal by demanding new elections. While Hindenburg waited impatiently in another room, Hitler argued with conservative leader Hugenberg, who vehemently opposed the idea. Hitler's plan was to establish a majority of elected Nazis in the Reichstag which would become a rubber stamp, passing whatever laws he desired while making it all perfectly legal.
On his first day as chancellor, Hitler manipulated Hindenburg into dissolving the Reichstag and calling for the new elections he had wanted - to be held on March 5, 1933.
That evening, Hitler attended a dinner with the German General Staff and told them Germany would re-arm as a first step toward regaining its former position in the world. He also gave them a strong hint of things to come by telling them there would be conquest of the lands to the east and ruthless Germanization of conquered territories.
Hitler also reassured the generals there would be no attempt to replace the regular army with an army of SA storm troopers. For years this had been a big concern of the generals who wanted to preserve their own positions of power and keep the traditional military intact.
Hitler's storm troopers were about to reach new heights of power of their own and begin a reign of terror that would last as long as the Reich.
President Hindenburg had fallen under Hitler's spell and was signing just about anything put in front of him. He signed an emergency decree that put the German state of Prussia into the hands of Hitler confidant, Vice Chancellor Papen. Göring as Minister of the Interior for Prussia took control of the police. Prussia was Germany's biggest and most important state and included the capital of Berlin.
Göring immediately replaced hundreds of police officials loyal to the republic with Nazi officials loyal to Hitler. He also ordered the police not to interfere with the SA and SS under any circumstances. This meant that anybody being harassed, beaten, or even murdered by Nazis, had nobody to turn to for help.

Consider the memorandum written by Alberto Gonzales - then the president's attorney, now his nominee for attorney general. He wrote that the Geneva Convention was "obsolete" when it came to the war on terror. Gonzales reasoned that our adversaries were not parties to the convention and that the Geneva concept was ill suited to anti-terrorist warfare.

He was referring to the role of non-combatants and POW. The Geneva convention agrees with him in his assertion. You have to be a uniformed soldier part of a national army in order for the Geneva convention to apply to you:

International humanitarian law permits members of the armed forces of a State party to an international armed conflict and associated militias who fulfil the requisite criteria to directly engage in hostilities. They are generally considered lawful, or privileged, combatants who may not be prosecuted for the taking part in hostilities as long as they respect international humanitarian law. Upon capture they are entitled to prisoner of war status.

If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered "unlawful" or "unprivileged" combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705

In 1941, General-Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the head of Hitler's Wehrmacht, mustered identical arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front. Keitel even called Geneva "obsolete," a remark noted by U.S. prosecutors at Nuremberg, who cited it as an aggravating circumstance in seeking, and obtaining, the death penalty. Keitel was executed in 1946.

And rightly so, the USSR troops met all criteria of being legal combatants.

Hitler said:

"The German people are not a warlike nation. It is a soldierly one, which means it does not want a war, but does not fear it. It loves peace but also loves its honor and freedom."

Bush said:

"We're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror. Free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people. Free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want."

And lets jump to a quick list which we know both used to their advantage while in office!

The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of 'preventive war'. The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors. The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'. The establishment of 'Homeland Security'. The dehumanization of 'foreigners'. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters - including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies.

Not sure there you're getting at with that list, but suffice to say, the USA was atacked and Germany was not. Unless you believe that Poland made the first move?

And finally, my favorite...

Hitler used Christianity to give his words absolute authority and decried any who dissented as unpatriotic. Bush uses Christianity to give his words absolute authority and decries any who dissent as unpatriotic.

Hitler was an atheist. And he was a Nationalist first and foremost, not a Christian. i think we can all agree that Bush is a Christian first and foremost no?

Some rather interesting similarities, don't you think?

Bush may not yet be judged a mad man by those in North America, but his behavior sure has some in the international community wary of what the United States has up it's sleeve.

Anyways - like I said, there are no moral similaroties here at all and it's plain to see.