Free speech hypocracy.....Part II

[Umfriend]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
It wasn't me that made the comparison, but the person I was quoting. This is a typical liberal tactic. Get all emotional and put words in people's mouths. If you want to balance one crime with another, that's fine. I was attempting (forgive me if I failed through your haze of indignance) to assert that the crimes of the nazis were met with the full infamy which was their due, while those of Stalin had little to no infamy attached, and the full weight of Hitler's crimes continues to plague us all in a very negative and destructive way.

Now breaks my wooden shoe!
If you do not support the view you quoted, state so or don?t quote it as apparent support for your statement that

Anything bad that happens to White people in general or Germans in particular is apparently "just desserts"

Either you agree with that quote and see it in support of your statement (which I assumed to be the case, and mind you I DID NOT compare Stalin against Hitler or Dresden against Stalingrad, I commented on the comparison made in the quote you used ONLY. This is a very insert whatever it is you are tactic. Stray from the argument and just spew new, rather unrelated (read Ukranians) statements to confuse the discussion), or you do not agree with the quote, in which case I wonder why it was posted at all.

To be sure, I did not react at all to your submission that

Anything bad that happens to White people in general or Germans in particular is apparently "just desserts" according to the media dickheads that attempt to tell everyone how to think.. and seemingly will be till the end of time.

With this I simply disagree. Certainly, the crimes of the Nazi regime get a lot more attention in history lessons. Which is quite logical as these included starting wars and occupying other countries (mine amongst them). As far as hitlers crimes plaguing ?us?, I do not know who or what you are talking about, but ppl who are plagued by that should wonder why that is??

So KvH, what do you think about the quote you took from the review?

Sincerely,
Umf
BTW: WTF is indignance? I trust it is not a compliment?

[KvHagedorn]

Honestly, I don't know what you're driving at, umfriend. The point and logic of your argument is completely lost on me. Indignance is the noun form of indignant. Look it up. Basically, you are being very stubborn that this argument be fought according to your own set of parameters, which apparently even you yourself do not find very clear. I take pains to be clear when I wish to make a point, so you would do well to read my words and not try to read anything into them that you would like to ascribe to me to fit whatever predefined type of person you think I am. Sometimes I say something in a certain way to make an obtuse point, true, but most people get it. Unfortunately some do not, and I'm sorry if you are one of these people.

Since your first language is Dutch, you might fall into some traps common to other Dutch-speakers which makes some of the things you say hard to understand. The language is very close to English, but some of the ways you express yourselves are very different, and just like with British English when heard by Americans, when you speak in your own idiom, it is often difficult to get just what you are trying to say. Some of us remember Jorden, who obviously had a point to make sometimes, and seemed very confident he was making one, but who we did not understand because he used this same idiomatic thinking. Be plain in what you are asking me and stop being angry.. I can tell you I have really given you no cause for that, at least.

[Umfriend]

KvH: You could very well be right, would not be the first time such would happen to me here. Can't say I get it, but I trust you have the right of it here. I guess I did not get the point of you quoting that part of the review on that book and misunderstood everything afterward. Should I have pissed you off, than I apologise sincerely.
Umf

[Joel]

Here's something to think about.

DEMOCRATS PLAY BLOOD SPORT WITH LOTT

It has been said the Republicans treat politics like a gentlemanly game of golf, while Democrats and liberals see it as a blood sport where no rules apply.

The Lott case may be an example of this.

Lott's remarks may have been inappropriate, but it is clear that he is not a racist and he has apologized and made clear that he did not mean to say he supported segregation.

But that is not good enough for the Democrats and the minions. They want Lott's head, as further evidence that Republicans as a whole are racist.

No matter that Jessie Jackson called New York "hymietown."

Or, as NewsMax editor Christopher Ruddy wrote recently, two liberal media icons made racist comments and very little was said about. It.

In July of 2001, while on the Imus show, Dan Rather slammed CBS news execs for forcing him to report on the Gary Condit story.

Rather said on air, "What happened was they [CBS management] got the willies, they got the Buckwheats. Their knees wobbled and we gave it up."

Of course, the "Buckwheat" term is used to describe a frightened black man. At the time of Rather's use of the term, NewsMax noted that other public figures had gotten into hot water, even lost their jobs, for using the term.

Not limousine liberal Dan Rather.

Ruddy also asks about Rather's CBS colleague Mike Wallace.

Wallace once said, with film rolling, that blacks and Hispanics had difficulty filling out loan applications. According to Wallace, they were simply too busy "eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write.

Ruddy asked why Rather and Wallace have not been asked to resign.

Joel