The GREAT Presidents...

[crimresearch]

Funny how one could say that the Nazis treated them worse and be so ignored by such an ignorant individual. Yes, the Nazis were worse, but that does not excuse the fact that the United States had concentration camps.

Just because one person rapes and another person rapes then murders doesn't make the person who rapes a decent guy.

It's quite telling that you resorted to such dishonesty in order to try to make me somehow wrong. Attacking my use of the word concentration camp then somehow turning it into the "Japanese were treated as bad as the Jews were."

I'm not giving in to supposedly politically-correct phrasology to try to lessen the fact that Japanese were forced off their land in camps... that is, they were CONCENTRATED into camps based on their race, something that the Nazis did to the Jews and others.

I am not comparing the starvation and torture of the Jews with the Japanese, only the fact that they were herded into camps. Of course, the Japanese weren't fed steak everyday, either, but not being treated as the Jews were does not excuse that in the slightest. How you got that is beyond me; I suppose lacking intellectual integrity may be a factor. Having your head up your *** may also be why you can't seem to see properly.

So in other words, when called on your own hyperbole and revisionist misuse of language, you resort to childish insults, strawmen, and projection of your own intellectual dishonesty...

Sorry but that trick wasn't amusing when the last hundred or so trolls tried it, and if anything, you have even less to offer than they did.

 

[varwoche]

Just as I am waiting for Sushi to show us any evidence of similarities in treatment and conditions between Konzentrationslagers like Dachau and US camps like Manzanar, I suspect I'll be waiting a long time for him to back up the notion that 'concentration camps' is not a revisionist political substitution of a loaded term intended to 'educate' in the same manner as David Irving wants to educate.

David Irving is a racist of the worst sort. Are you equating Sushi to David Irving?

New readers, take into account that Crimresearch makes this sort of inference frequently.

 

[Larspeart]

So, what, we're only supposed to talk about the Presidents we think are great and not take issue at all with other people's choices?

Um... pretty much, or I'd have asked for more.

Besides, I asked for 5, and you gave two. I asked to discuss GREAT Presidents, NOT to slam poor ones. You have done none of the above, and have taken this topic SO off-course with your rhetoric, I can't seem to right the train.

Knock it off.

People like you make me want to vote GOP/Dem...

 

[Larspeart]

You know why Andrew Jackson excecuted that soldier?

He had a 17 year old soldier under his command excecuted because he didn't clean his cooking gear.

That's it.

Truthfully most of the information about Andrew Jackson strikes me as him being a really big scumbag.

-INRM

It is called 'insubordination', and every soldier knows the penalty. Look, when small infractions are allowed, it gives 'men who fight' reason to make medium infractions, and it gives officers justification to let THOSE slide as well. This, in turn, leads to LARGE infractions, like...

'take that hill, or we shall all surely die!'

'no, sir.'

Rules in the military are there to SAVE lives. I hate to bring up a semi-cheesy movie, but watch 'a few good men'. I sided WITH the Marine's in that movie. I hate to say it, because I am not some military-loving war-hawk, but I understand the PURPOSE for such rules. To be in te military is to except a certain way of life that is different.

So, I side with Jackson. My guess if he gave a direct order, and the soldier told him to shove it up his ass. Telling 'Old Hickory' to do that woudl have been KNOWN suicide to ANY soldier under Jackson anyway.

and 17 back then is not what 17 is today. You were a grown man at 17 back then. Nowadays, some 'men' aren't grown-up at 30.

 

[shanek]

Um... pretty much, or I'd have asked for more.

Isn't it implicit that if you ask someone to mention someone who's great in a discussion group then that automatically opens the door for other people to disagree?

Besides, I asked for 5, and you gave two.

I've given seven. Knock it off.

I asked to discuss GREAT Presidents, NOT to slam poor ones.

I've only "slammed" ones other people, including you, said you were great. I'm sorry if I offended your worship of the holy Saint Lincoln, but you'll get over it.

 

[shanek]

Rules in the military are there to SAVE lives. I hate to bring up a semi-cheesy movie, but watch 'a few good men'. I sided WITH the Marine's in that movie. I hate to say it, because I am not some military-loving war-hawk, but I understand the PURPOSE for such rules. To be in te military is to except a certain way of life that is different.

You obviously didn't pay much attention to that movie (which was based on an actual case that writer Aaron Sorkin's sister was a military lawyer for), as it demonstrates the problems with this mentality and how it costs lives. Willie Santiago died because two Marines follwed an immoral order. Maybe you missed it at the end when the two defendants were dishonorably discharged:

Downey: What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong!

Dawson: Yeah, we did. We were supposed to fight for people who couldn't fight for themselves...We were supposed to fight for Willie.

"I was only following orders" was the excuse given by the Nazis and by Calley. It doesn't excuse anything.

and 17 back then is not what 17 is today. You were a grown man at 17 back then. Nowadays, some 'men' aren't grown-up at 30.

Interesting. And what did evolution change in our biology over the last 200 years? Or is it merely our perception that has changed?

 

[CFLarsen]

You obviously didn't pay much attention to that movie (which was based on an actual case that writer Aaron Sorkin's sister was a military lawyer for), as it demonstrates the problems with this mentality and how it costs lives. Willie Santiago died because two Marines follwed an immoral order. Maybe you missed it at the end when the two defendants were dishonorably discharged:

Downey: What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong!

Dawson: Yeah, we did. We were supposed to fight for people who couldn't fight for themselves...We were supposed to fight for Willie.

"I was only following orders" was the excuse given by the Nazis and by Calley. It doesn't excuse anything.

Shanek, you obviously didn't understand the point of that movie.

The point was not that they followed an order, given to them by their commanding officer, which caused loss of life. The point was that they followed an illegal order. That's why Col. Jessup was arrested!

Somebody please repost this for shanek, because he is seriously wrong. Let's see if he can handle the truth...

 

[Sushi]

So in other words, when called on your own hyperbole and revisionist misuse of language, you resort to childish insults, strawmen, and projection of your own intellectual dishonesty...

Sorry but that trick wasn't amusing when the last hundred or so trolls tried it, and if anything, you have even less to offer than they did.

Yes, please explain how I am revisionist.

Oh, that's right, you're an idiot. That explains a lot... Shouting "revisionist" every time someone disagrees with you or even shows you how you are wrong on the use of "concentration camps"...

You're a joke of a human being. Get off the internet.