Summations Only

Ah, right, the organisation tells lies.Well on that basis it would be hard to find one that doesn't. One survivor who's so important that he takes the plural. Also he has several different names, such as Renos Avraam, Clive Doyle, and Graeme Craddock.Then there's the tapes of what was happening in the compound, and the reports of the arson investigators ... It might indeed "be "predictable" that I couldn't make sense of that sentence, but it is in no way a side-step".A little googling around shows that there is in fact a link between the word "sheeple" and Holocaust survivors, namely that that epithet has been applied to people who believe Holocaust survivors. For example.I sha'n't quote this because I don't want to get holocaust denial on these forums. It doesn't wash off.So, sheeple are people who believe that the Holocaust happened but don't believe in David Icke's lizard men. Sounds good to me. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Those without an argument fall back on a Godwin no matter how far the stretch. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

And predictable you provide no evidence to back up your allegation. Provide the evidence and source and someone might want to give your argument some credence. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Obviously, when do terrorists tell the truth?

---

Defending your property against illegal government invasion has nothing to do with terrorism. Let me break it down for you, even though I’m sure I will have to repeat myself 10 times anyway.
The holocaust started in the 1930s.
Some Jews escaped, and told others in the outside world of the atrocities.
No one wanted to believe them, and they were accused of elaborating the situation, starting conspiracy theories, and being anti-german.
When you stated that sheeple is a term that is intended to imply that the underlying cause of their failure to believe mad things is mindless conformity rather than not being mad.
I said the same thing was said of Jews who escaped the holocaust.
You didn’t understand, or something. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But to insinuate it is mine is nothing more than a weak strawman, as I said nothing of the sort.

quote:

---

Those without an argument fall back on a Godwin no matter how far the stretch.

---

It’s obvious you have no clue what Goodwin is. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Do you actually have evidence of some illegal government invasion in either case? Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Some of our clients recently were personal friends of Michelle Bachmann, talking about what a wonderful candidate she was. I've never found it so hard to keep my opinions to myself in front of clients, and given some of the oddities we've had that's saying something. I was helped that they assumed I'd never heard of her, so it was easier to play along than express an opinion. Given that the average Bachman supporter is unlikely to have heard of Europe, let alone any of its politicians, I suppose the assumption makes sense from their point of view.

Really?

quote:

---

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%)."[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussionregardless of topic or scopesomeone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

---

BTW that is Godwin not Goodwin. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

All this proves is that you can look something up on the internet, not the ability to understand what it means.
People not believing Jewish survivors in 1940, of the atrocities being committed in Europe, has nothing to do with a comparison of Nazis. I compared nothing to the Nazis. I spoke of Holocaust deniers in the early years of WWII. Once again you are grabbing straws and trying to attack me rather than my message, fortunately your kung fu is no good. One can speak of Jews and the Holocaust and have no comparison of the Nazis or Hitler, just as I did. You showed your hand to soon, just as you did in another thread when you accused me of breaking forum rules, your understanding of the topic at hand, is as usual, way off. ROFLMFAO!!!1111!!!!
Typical of posters of your caliber to go after a fat-fingered typo; the internet is littered with people like you. you would probably know because you never have one. Ah, the original Ad hominem is back. Where were you? Yeah the Waco Massacre. The ATF, FBI, and army at Ft. Hood broke the law, just to attack some eccentric Christians, who were minding their own business. Do you have evidence on the contrary? Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

I asked for evidence, not simply unsupported assertions. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

What does you non-sequitur to Jews and the holocaust have to do with the discussion? Other than to inflame the conversation. You do realize who perpetrated the holocaust against the Jews don't you? As the the holocaust is not at all relevant to this thread you have committed a Godwin. So that's a no?Also, please expalin what the ad hominem is in Jar's question. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

do you want to stay on topic or not? I have explained it already, I have no idea why every poster on here demands that I repeat myself to them after every post. figure it out or don't figure it out, I'm tired of repeating something I have already stated.I never claimed ad hominem in Jar's question. did you notice the word "original"? are you even reading anything here?you are silly if you think i committed a godwin. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

i never asked for you to call me names, so do you own homework, I aint providing you with shit asshole. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

So as expected you have no evidence to support your claim of some illegal government invasion in either case? Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

I think it takes more than a mention of Hitler/Nazis/Holocaust to qualify as a Godwin. Even the text in your post says the poster has to criticize a point by comparing that point to beliefs held by Hitler/Nazis. However weak AE's arguments are, they don't seem to me to be guilty of being a Godwin. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

I have had the same problem many times. For me it is usually more of a religious topic rather than political. People have just outright asked me "what church do you attend"? I usually try and side step the question by saying "my family has been members of.. (insert my dads church)..since before I was born. Then I quickly change the subject back to something I am doing for them...anything that has to do with the job. Politics Ii handle the same way, I'll make some meaningless blanket statement and try a quick redirect.Christine O'Donell, S Palin and Bachmann would be completely amusing if there wasn't so many people who actually supported these morons. Buzz likes the word sheeple, that's what I see when I look at their supporters. IMO ther seems to be quite a few more sheelpe who blindly follow these morons without never doing a little thinking for themselves about whether these people really represent what is in their best interest.