If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   National Review asks the question no one is dumb enough to ask: "Was World War II worth it?"   (article.nationalreview.com) divider line 351
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

10564 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Sep 2009 at 7:14 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



351 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-09-04 10:42:26 AM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox:

Obama is a law nerd who happens to be black and was in the right place at the right time, scooped up by the Democratic Party for its own ends. Have you ever heard him speak without a teleprompter or without a script? Pitiful.


Yes, I have. He's an intelligent man. You don't make it into Harvard Law and become editor of the Law Review unless you're highly intelligent.

Every major politician has speechwriters and a teleprompter as a failsafe. You don't think Bush II or Clinton or Bush I or Reagan or Carter had writers and prompters (or cue cards)? Even the Gettysburg Address, one of the most important American political speeches, was written down.

Modern presidents are expected to make numerous speeches all day every day for at least four years on many controversial topics before a 24-hour news media that will parse those speeches for anything they can use to whip up controversy and get ratings. I don't begrudge them professional speechwriting and visual aids.

Next silly talking point, please.
 
2009-09-04 10:42:43 AM
Thunderpipes: Prospero424: Thunderpipes: Van Jones is a 9/11 truther. He signed that stupid ass thing days after 9/11. Farkers normally hate 9/11 truthers. Yet you all sit here and support this clown?

Wow, just....wow. If you only knew how pathetic you sound when you defend your Messiah on things like this.

Karma fail is delicious...

Oh, Bush appointed a KKK member and I defended him? Can you quote that thread? Its not about karma, it is about you liberals simply being bad people.


i131.photobucket.com
 
2009-09-04 10:47:11 AM
National Review asks the question no one is dumb enough to ask: "Was World War II worth it?"

No. Well, no if Hitler is your hero.
 
2009-09-04 10:47:36 AM
Pxtl: Thunderpipes: Van Jones

I assume you're referring to his work with STORM. While I'm not happy with it, membership to a feminist/communist activism group tells me a man is a stupid and crazy idealist - kind of like a Christian creationist fundamentalist. Somebody I don't want in the government, to be sure, but comparing it to a white supremacist group is a bit of a stretch.


Have you listened to his speeches? He is as racist as any Klansmen. If it were just Van it would be bad enough, but he surrounds himself with radical far left-wing people who have violent and totally anti-American histories, and with each one the left just says "but, but Bush" and it is sickening. Ayers, Wright, Van Jones, these are not good people. Obama keeps saying "oh, well I didn't know this or hear this", getting old.

You libs really are going to start losing political seats because of the outright attacks on Democracy the Dems are doing right now. People are pissed. Most Americans don't want this stupid health bill, but Pelosi will pass it just to stick it to everyone, think that will resonate well?

Sucks, but we have to go through the retarded left's power hungry crap for a while untill real people get tired of the BS. 9/11 truther as a top aid, I mean WTF? You poll numbers are dropping quickly.
 
2009-09-04 10:48:22 AM
Depends on whether you want to be speaking German or English right now.

i, for one, am glad i'm speaking English. I love Germany, but I'm glad i'm speaking English in America.
 
2009-09-04 10:53:27 AM
Marla Singer's Laundry: Ten pounds of ass in a five-pound bag.

post "O SNAP" flowchart, please
 
2009-09-04 10:54:49 AM
Latinwolf: Thunderpipes: Prospero424: Thunderpipes: Van Jones is a 9/11 truther. He signed that stupid ass thing days after 9/11. Farkers normally hate 9/11 truthers. Yet you all sit here and support this clown?

Wow, just....wow. If you only knew how pathetic you sound when you defend your Messiah on things like this.

Karma fail is delicious...

Oh, Bush appointed a KKK member and I defended him? Can you quote that thread? Its not about karma, it is about you liberals simply being bad people.


I *love* that picture.
 
2009-09-04 10:54:51 AM
maskedloser: Thunderpipes:
A 9/11 Truther, self avowed communist, thinks white people poison black people, as the nation's Green Job "Czar"? You guys approve of this?

If you care so much about the GOP (or perhaps Ron Paul), then speak out against those idiot teabaggers and the religious zealots before they destroy your party entirely.

You're being eaten from the inside out.


You're assuming he's not one of those types you mentioned.
 
2009-09-04 10:56:47 AM
Crewmannumber6: A little off topic, but when people say Hitler was ok at first, do they mean before or after this? Link (new window) Seems to me he was always batshiat.

Depends on what you mean by 'at first'. I don't think baby Hitler had a well-thought out plan to eliminate all the juice.
 
2009-09-04 10:56:57 AM
Thunderpipes: Pxtl: Thunderpipes: Van Jones

I assume you're referring to his work with STORM. While I'm not happy with it, membership to a feminist/communist activism group tells me a man is a stupid and crazy idealist - kind of like a Christian creationist fundamentalist. Somebody I don't want in the government, to be sure, but comparing it to a white supremacist group is a bit of a stretch.

Have you listened to his speeches? He is as racist as any Klansmen. If it were just Van it would be bad enough, but he surrounds himself with radical far left-wing people who have violent and totally anti-American histories, and with each one the left just says "but, but Bush" and it is sickening. Ayers, Wright, Van Jones, these are not good people. Obama keeps saying "oh, well I didn't know this or hear this", getting old.

You libs really are going to start losing political seats because of the outright attacks on Democracy the Dems are doing right now. People are pissed. Most Americans don't want this stupid health bill, but Pelosi will pass it just to stick it to everyone, think that will resonate well?

Sucks, but we have to go through the retarded left's power hungry crap for a while untill real people get tired of the BS. 9/11 truther as a top aid, I mean WTF? You poll numbers are dropping quickly.


I wonder if the crazy works in reverse?
I hereby declare that all Republicans eat children! How can America stand for these child killing cannibals! They must be stopped.

Oh, and Jesus told me he hates them and they need to be strung up or he will send fire and to infest our brains while we sleep! Wake up people! It's in the Bible!!!
 
2009-09-04 10:57:59 AM
Linux_Yes: Depends on whether you want to be speaking German or English right now.

i, for one, am glad i'm speaking English. I love Germany, but I'm glad i'm speaking English in America.


Absolutely, speak English or GTFO!!

/Really, that's your argument?
 
2009-09-04 10:59:14 AM
hitlersbrain: I wonder if the crazy works in reverse?
I hereby declare that all Republicans eat children! How can America stand for these child killing cannibals! They must be stopped.


Careful - people already tried something like that with GB1990 and the mods went all righty-retard.
 
2009-09-04 11:00:35 AM
SherKhan: cryptozoophiliac:

still dead

Where's the death certificate?


The thing is, it's a Hawaiian death certificate, so there's a whole lot of people who don't think it's legit...
 
2009-09-04 11:01:18 AM
Thunderpipes: Have you listened to his speeches? He is as racist as any Klansmen. If it were just Van it would be bad enough, but he surrounds himself with radical far left-wing people who have violent and totally anti-American histories, and with each one the left just says "but, but Bush" and it is sickening. Ayers, Wright, Van Jones, these are not good people. Obama keeps saying "oh, well I didn't know this or hear this", getting old.

"anti-American"? Only by the same measure that anybody who wants to change the country is "anti-American". You have to understand, Liberals view guys like Van Jones much in the same way that Conservatives view fundamentalist creationist anti-gay-marriage Christian preachers. They're frustrating, they're wrong, they're obsessively black-and-white, but they're on our side and they're bring a lot of support with them. And most of us remember knowing a few of them in our college days and have come to think of them as harmless.

Obviously it would be better if guys like that were left to their own devices, but that's not how politics works. And either way, I'm not about to kick up a stink if Obama has one or two appointees who fall into that group, since apparently the Republicans have let their radicals dominate the discourse in their party.

Look at it this way: Bush appointees gave the world the Iraq war. It's kind of hard for Obama to do worse than that.
 
2009-09-04 11:06:17 AM
Wow, it took Thunderpipes fifteen posts to de-rail this thread.

Well, it's Friday of Labor Day weekend. I suppose he's on on top of his game today. Usually it's within the first 10...
 
2009-09-04 11:08:35 AM
dillengest: caballocoa:
As for heroism, 'continuing to fight, despite knowing that you'll probably be killed' is a pretty standard definition of the word.

I'll concede the first point and agree with the definition, but ordering millions of your troops to attack without regard for casualties is stupidity and manslaughter on the part of the leaders. The grunt soldiers were the heroes, but above that was just lack of sense.

I agree with that. Only front-line troops can really be described as heroic with any certainty.

I think it was a bit more complicated for the Russian war leaders than lack of sense though. They simply didn't have enough time to equip their troops anywhere near the same standard as the Germans so they understood that the only advantage available to them was sheer weight of numbers. That was believed to be the only way they could triumph. Also there were many times more German soldiers on the Eastern Front fighting a deliberately more brutal war than was seen in the West.


If Stalin had prepared for war with Germany, like he should have, it wouldn't have forced the Russians to throw massive numbers of under-equipped soldiers into the front lines. Instead, he helped invade Poland and then sat on his rear while Germany went off on the rest of Europe. Why he just assumed that someone who planned to take over Europe, and afterward the world, would just let him sit by doing his own thing I'll never know.
 
2009-09-04 11:10:44 AM
chipspastic: hitlersbrain: I wonder if the crazy works in reverse?
I hereby declare that all Republicans eat children! How can America stand for these child killing cannibals! They must be stopped.

Careful - people already tried something like that with GB1990 and the mods went all righty-retard.


Point taken. Thanks. There's too much crazy already anyway.
 
2009-09-04 11:14:51 AM
indylaw: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox:

Obama is a law nerd who happens to be black and was in the right place at the right time, scooped up by the Democratic Party for its own ends. Have you ever heard him speak without a teleprompter or without a script? Pitiful.

Yes, I have. He's an intelligent man. You don't make it into Harvard Law and become editor of the Law Review unless you're highly intelligent.


I never said he wasn't intelligent. But there is a big difference between being intelligent and a "brilliant politician." In fact, the two have nothing to do with each other. That's why I gave the example of Buddy Cianci. Without any help he planned his own campaigns and spoke extemporaneously to anyone who would listen. Everybody loved Buddy, even with all of the unbelievable shiat he pulled. That is a brilliant politician.

Every major politician has speechwriters and a teleprompter as a failsafe. You don't think Bush II or Clinton or Bush I or Reagan or Carter had writers and prompters (or cue cards)? Even the Gettysburg Address, one of the most important American political speeches, was written down.


First of all, Lincoln actually wrote the Gettysburg Address, which is a big difference. I seriously doubt that Obama has written or even thought up anything he has said since he began running for President. I don't deny that previous Presidents have had teleprompters and whatnot, but I have heard them speak extemporaneously without external aid and Obama really stumbles there. He may be the product of brilliant politicians, but he is not a brilliant politician. I doubt anybody would even like him much if he had to speak for himself all of the time, he has no real personality or ability to move others, not particularly insightful or articulate, however objectively smart he may be. I know plenty of lawyers and engineers who are exactly the same way.

Modern presidents are expected to make numerous speeches all day every day for at least four years on many controversial topics before a 24-hour news media that will parse those speeches for anything they can use to whip up controversy and get ratings. I don't begrudge them professional speechwriting and visual aids.


I don't dispute any of that. But I was referring to the times when his true personality and speech comes through. I wasn't assailing him for using those aids, you misunderstand me.

Next silly talking point, please.


Do you even know what a talking point is? It doesn't sound like you do. I'm not a "Republican" or a "Dittohead" if that's what you think.
 
2009-09-04 11:15:22 AM
I suppose someone is going to point out how most of the experiments on the Jews weren't really 100% scientific and therefore WWII helped stop bad science.
 
2009-09-04 11:15:43 AM
Read the farking article. It's questioning the outcome of WWII. Not WWII itself. It's questioning if the ensuing cold war justified the takeover of so many countries by the Soviets and the subsequent loss of life due to the spread of Communism across the globe. One solid fact you can say about communism: the road to Communism is paved in blood.

The Soviets aren't that much different than the Third Reich. Look at the stats: The Russian revolution and subsequent regime during Stalin put the body count at around 30 million people. Another 2 million died during the takeover of Poland and Czechoslovakia after WWII. THEN...the subsequent Chinese civil war and subsequent Communist regime death toll was about 42 million.

Total loss of life due to the Communist agenda in JUST China and Russia: 74 million.

It's a valid question to ask: Was WWII worth it? From a strictly numbers standpoint, no. From a moral standpoint, yes. We did what we had to do. We had no idea of knowing how powerful the communists would become.
 
2009-09-04 11:19:04 AM
The Holocaust was a consequence of WWII. Germany was in a fight for its existence, Hitler hated the Jews, a great many of whom supported communism, and there were severely limited resources for the people of Germany. Not enough resources to go around because of the war? Exterminate those seditious Jews.

What were some other consequences of the war?
The Depression was prolonged. The federal govt surged in size and scope and never looked back. America allied itself with Stalin, who had killed 20,000,000 people before the start of WWII, and Communists took over Asia and Eastern Europe. Japanese-Americans thrown in concentration camps. Two defenseless cities were unnecessarily nuked, with most of the victims being women and children. About 2/3rds of the 80,000,000 victims of WWII were civilians.

And that bullshiat about how we'd all be speaking German? Seriously? Hitler wasn't even prepared for war with Britain and France. Germany hardly even had a navy. Hitler, like Abe Lincoln, wanted to reunite the parts of his nation.

Germany should have had Danzig, Poland should have had Slovakia. The persecution of Jews would have been less severe. And any European wars would have primarily been on the Eastern Front, between the Germans and the Russians. The US could have focused on dealing with Japan in the Pacific. Japan was hoping to avoid anything but a short series of battles with the US anyway, so aside from initiating some reprisal against Japan for Pearl Harbor, no all-out war against Japan was really necessary.

It was good that the Nazis and Imperial Japan were stopped. But not at the price the world paid for it. Certainly not at the price America paid for it.
 
2009-09-04 11:21:40 AM
Pxtl: Thunderpipes: Have you listened to his speeches? He is as racist as any Klansmen. If it were just Van it would be bad enough, but he surrounds himself with radical far left-wing people who have violent and totally anti-American histories, and with each one the left just says "but, but Bush" and it is sickening. Ayers, Wright, Van Jones, these are not good people. Obama keeps saying "oh, well I didn't know this or hear this", getting old.

"anti-American"? Only by the same measure that anybody who wants to change the country is "anti-American". You have to understand, Liberals view guys like Van Jones much in the same way that Conservatives view fundamentalist creationist anti-gay-marriage Christian preachers. They're frustrating, they're wrong, they're obsessively black-and-white, but they're on our side and they're bring a lot of support with them. And most of us remember knowing a few of them in our college days and have come to think of them as harmless.

Obviously it would be better if guys like that were left to their own devices, but that's not how politics works. And either way, I'm not about to kick up a stink if Obama has one or two appointees who fall into that group, since apparently the Republicans have let their radicals dominate the discourse in their party.

Look at it this way: Bush appointees gave the world the Iraq war. It's kind of hard for Obama to do worse than that.


So much THIS.
 
2009-09-04 11:23:15 AM
SherKhan: Fringe sites don't get my clicks.

That's why I don't read the NYTimes.
 
2009-09-04 11:23:58 AM
Nothing is ever worth anything.
 
2009-09-04 11:26:10 AM
I don't see what's so dumb about this article. Subby's headline says "the question no one is dumb enough to ask." If I had to guess why anyone would address the question "Was WWII worth it?" today, I'd read Hansen's article as a reply to Pat Buchanan's quite astonishing recent editorial, Did Hitler Want War?
 
2009-09-04 11:27:07 AM
blick: even if we discard the political considerations of destroying the axis member country's imperialistic expansion plans and the brutal nature of their regimes, there is one undeniable benefit received from it's participation in the WWII conflict, that of economics. WWII singlehandedly pulled the U.S. out of the great depression and gave us nearly 50 years of world economic dominance.

WW2 would have accomplished that even if we had just sat on the sidelines and watched.
 
2009-09-04 11:30:34 AM
crazytrpr: Who really won the war, The US. But not in the way people think on aka on the battle field. The US "won" the war because it was the only major power not blasted to shiat during the war and it didn't lose 9% or more of its population. More importantly it only suffered 450K military casualties

War does not determine who is right, only who is left.

But was WWII worth it? I don't know, but I certainly prefer it to the alternative.
 
2009-09-04 11:35:29 AM
IMHO I think WWII was a fight to see which empire will rule the world in that century.

Britian/Europe was old and busted
USSR was too backwards
Japan wasn't powerful enough
Canada was too cute

USA was the new hotness
 
2009-09-04 11:36:46 AM
Magorn:

Here's a historical irony that will bake your brain just a little. You know who the Chinese generally regard as the "hero of Nanking" for his tireless work in trying to safeguard civilians there, credited with saving perhap a quarter million people?

A German businessman named John Rabe who used his membership in the Nazi party to pressure Japanese authorities to let him set up a "safety Zone in Naking that saved hundreds of thousands of lives.


I think i saw a movie about that, it was called "Schindrer's Rist"
 
2009-09-04 11:39:03 AM
geniusiknowit: Hitler wasn't even prepared for war with Britain and France. Germany hardly even had a navy. Hitler, like Abe Lincoln, wanted to reunite the parts of his nation.

www.solarnavigator.net

I'll just leave that here.

The rest of your post is just incredibly stupid.
 
2009-09-04 11:39:30 AM
Little.Alex: May I say; it's always a pleasure to chat with other people who read.

Doesn't it amaze you that people like Robert Redford/Fonda/Democrat Congressmen go down south and suck Castro's dick? It's amazing. Or Sean Penn being a human shield for Sadam? Why does the left love tyrants? I think it's about impatience for democracy, and a contempt for average people.


Actually I haven't heard much of it because I'm only a silly Euro, however I think it was Lenin who knew exactly what to call those people - useful idiots. much like G.B. Shaw was.
 
2009-09-04 11:39:39 AM
ninjeratu:
But as far as the WAR goes, the contributions were - military - quite small.
ULTRA and lend-lease did far more than the GIs on the ground and in the
air,


Putting Western allied GIs on the ground was very important to victory and
Lend-Lease was critical but the air war over Germany, which was carried
out wholly by the U.S./Brits, was the only thing keeping the Soviets in the
game.

For example, at the height of the Allied bombing campaign against Germany
in 1943-44, the Germans still managed to build over 10,000 tanks (more than
double what they had produced in the four years from 1939-42).

Had the Brits/U.S. sat out the war and allowed the Germans and Russians
to slug it out on their own, the U.S.S.R would have eventually been forced
to sign an armistice with Nazi Germany.

Pxtl:
Basically, Fark's current approach seems to be non-stop greenlighting
of right-wing horseshiat, with headlines of alternating political persuasions.
Thus, we can keep the WSJ editorial page, the NRO, and the rest of the
unhinged WHARRGARBL world permanently in the spotlight to the absolute
death of rational discourse.


As FARK refuses to include a thread-tree for some reason, any attempts at
rational discourse are just about impossible.
 
2009-09-04 11:43:19 AM
hariseldon: As FARK refuses to include a thread-tree for some reason, any attempts at
rational discourse are just about impossible.


Thread-trees are designed for reading an entire conversation. Flat threads let you keep up on what's being said right now. Thread trees result in comments being completely missed because you're replying to a thread that the guy who posted it is long gone and nobody is checking that particular thread.

Digg's comment volume seems to have gone down since they went treed. And comment-volume is important if you want anybody to talk to.
 
2009-09-04 11:50:07 AM
hariseldon: As FARK refuses to include a thread-tree for some reason, any attempts at
rational discourse are just about impossible.


You need to join FarkSerious™.
 
2009-09-04 11:55:17 AM
Thunderpipes: Ramming bills through against American's wishes

When has this happened? I would cum in my pants if this happened
 
2009-09-04 11:56:29 AM
Millennium: crazytrpr: Who really won the war, The US. But not in the way people think on aka on the battle field. The US "won" the war because it was the only major power not blasted to shiat during the war and it didn't lose 9% or more of its population. More importantly it only suffered 450K military casualties

War does not determine who is right, only who is left.

But was WWII worth it? I don't know, but I certainly prefer it to the alternative.


True wars do not determine who was right. An if a war is decided by last man standing somebody somewhere farked up.

The result of WWII was certainly better than the alternative at Especially for the US and Canada.
 
2009-09-04 11:56:57 AM
Computers,
jets,
rockets,
atomic energy,
synthetic rubber,
and the development of mass production technique to create penicillin,

IF we knew how long it would take for those breakthroughs to develop without that long world war we could say for sure.

I'd say definitely as long as you were not one of the many who had to suffer through it or from the consequences of it.
 
2009-09-04 12:13:11 PM
The Axis carried out an unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor that killed innocent Americans, i.e. they provoked us into it. If an equivalent terrorist attack were carried out today, you bet your ass NRO wouldn't ask if a war on whatever country carried it out would be worth it (though I don't know, they might oppose it just because Obama supported it, I'm now laughing imagining that scenario and how believable it is).

We also helped stop the Holocaust.

Neither of those are mentioned anywhere in the article, way to take the conservative history revisionist knife to Pearl Harbor.
 
2009-09-04 12:16:40 PM
wkiernan: "I don't see what's so dumb about this article. Subby's headline says "the question no one is dumb enough to ask." If I had to guess why anyone would address the question 'Was WWII worth it?' today, I'd read Hansen's article as a reply to Pat Buchanan's quite astonishing recent editorial, Did Hitler Want War?"

I read Buchanan's piece, and I have to say it was stunningly, shockingly stupid. Here we have a guy who fumed endlessly about the humiliation of WWI and vowed revenge against the Allies, who railed against Jews and Slavs for years and years, and openly stated his plans to conquer Eastern Europe, slaughter or enslave the inhabitants, and replace them with Germans, but Buchanan wonders "if Hitler wanted war."

Well, duh.
 
2009-09-04 12:30:11 PM
syrynxx [TotalFark] 2009-09-04 06:20:57 AM
TFA isn't really as bad as the headline makes it seem. It asks a rhetorical question "Was all this bloodletting really worth it?" which only makes sense if viewed from the German/Japanese point of view. The Americans/British didn't do the bloodletting.

The Soviets got screwed. 25 million dead. Can you imagine a Vietnam War Memorial wall for 25 million KIAs? It would be a mile long.


Screwed isn't the right word. They got what they had coming and it was a good that it happened. Can you imagine if the war was completed and the soviets had an extra 20 million people and their country didn't get ravaged? It would have been bad news for the west.

Also it wasn't 25 mil KIA as a great deal of those killed were civilians.
 
2009-09-04 12:31:10 PM
Did anyone actually read the article? All the way through?

Maybe it's understated ("Perhaps") but I'd say this is a "Yes" vote.

Perhaps. The Holocaust was finally stopped before every Jew in Europe was killed as Hitler had planned. Germany, Italy, and Japan were transformed from monstrous regimes into liberal states whose democracies have done much for humanity in the ensuing years. And Western civilization survived its own heretical cannibals - to foster in the ensuing decades the greatest growth in freedom and prosperity in the history of the planet.
 
2009-09-04 12:39:12 PM
*checks to see if thread is still full of stupid*
*yep, still full of stupid*
 
2009-09-04 12:43:16 PM
biffstallion: This would also be worth stopping, then again if you are a bleeding heart liberal panty waist, probably not.

Since you've clearly been living in a cave for the last 10 months: the liberal "panty waists" elected a president who promised to get us out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan, where AQ actually is.

Retard.
 
2009-09-04 12:46:53 PM
I may have to shower for a week to get rid of the dirty feeling, butI have to admit most of the article is spot on....aside from it's naive interpretation of Versailles, which was one of the most short-sighted and doomed armistices aver imposed.

There isn't even academic debate anymore that the Treaty of Versailles was the single biggest catalyst in creating an atmosphere in Germany that was ripe for exploitation by the Naitnoal Socialists.

Beyond that, though, the article is an accurate - if superficial - analysis.

/Agreeing with something from NRO? I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit.
//A little stunned to see a NeoCon mouthpiece depart from the "We saved your ass" mantra.
 
2009-09-04 12:49:46 PM
rohar: Linux_Yes: Depends on whether you want to be speaking German or English right now.

i, for one, am glad i'm speaking English. I love Germany, but I'm glad i'm speaking English in America.

Absolutely, speak English or GTFO!!

/Really, that's your argument?


SPEAK ENGLISH OR DIE (new window)
 
kgf
2009-09-04 12:51:17 PM
nopokerface

randomjsa: How many people read the article and just didn't take the retarded submitters word for it?

I just did. Wow subby, you are a massive douche.


This.

And a little splashover on the mods. Who greenlights this crap?! Why geenlight a headline when it has nothing to do with the article at all?
 
2009-09-04 12:56:57 PM
'6 million' Jews or the entirety of Western Civilization?

Take your pick.

The prize that goes to the victors of WWII is cultural disintegration in the short term and the Caliphate of Europe-stan in the long one, and Israel.

Hooray for victory.
 
2009-09-04 12:58:43 PM
DNRTFA, but let me say this:

Over 50 million people died.

50 m-i-l-l-i-o-n.

Has anyone any idea how much suffering that was? Do you people set such little value on human life?

I believe the point of Pat Buchanon's book, The Unnecessary War (I've only read a review)is to look at the diplomatic blunders that were made so as to better avoid them in the future. He was savaged as a nazi a few days ago in Fark for asking such questions. So much for intellectual discourse.

Today, a case could be made that the US, like Britain with its gaurantees to Poland, is over extended with alliances and empire. Especially the west as a whole with NATO. NATO should have been disbanded in 1989.
 
2009-09-04 01:00:41 PM
Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: indylaw: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox:

Obama is a law nerd who happens to be black and was in the right place at the right time, scooped up by the Democratic Party for its own ends. Have you ever heard him speak without a teleprompter or without a script? Pitiful.

Yes, I have. He's an intelligent man. You don't make it into Harvard Law and become editor of the Law Review unless you're highly intelligent.

I never said he wasn't intelligent. But there is a big difference between being intelligent and a "brilliant politician." In fact, the two have nothing to do with each other. That's why I gave the example of Buddy Cianci. Without any help he planned his own campaigns and spoke extemporaneously to anyone who would listen. Everybody loved Buddy, even with all of the unbelievable shiat he pulled. That is a brilliant politician.


First of all, Lincoln actually wrote the Gettysburg Address, which is a big difference. I seriously doubt that Obama has written or even thought up anything he has said since he began running for President.


Obama is famous for writing much of his own material. He's a little weak extemporaneously. He knows that, and he compensates for it. But unlike most politicians, Obama writes much of his own speeches, and, quite famously, he wrote his own books instead of had them ghostwritten.

You are an ignorant person.
 
2009-09-04 01:00:55 PM
this is quite sophomoric for VDH.
 
Displayed 50 of 351 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report