Reply With Quote
In my mind it only indicates that Pat Robertson still subscribes to the erstwhile anti-imperial emphasis in the GOP, not that he supports Hitler, or anything like that.
What does it indicate? His view would have been in the mainstream of the GOP in the 1940's. It's not too different from the tone of Bob Taft before 1941.
In my mind it only indicates that Pat Robertson still subscribes to the erstwhile anti-imperial emphasis in the GOP, not that he supports Hitler, or anything like that.
No doubt.....Stalin, Lenin, Pot Pol, Hitler....these were murderous SOBs...
More strawman again. Where's your argument? Nobody denied Hitler was a murderer.
It's not the 1940's. We know Hitler was mentally insane. We know he had every intention of attacking the Soviets, minimum.
If we're 99% sure he would have gone on with his powertrip, why speculate otherwise?
I'm surprised you suggest even 1% uncertainty. Are you suggesting it wasn't completely certain?If we're 99% sure he would have gone on with his powertrip, why speculate otherwise?
Why are you defending Hitler?
No doubt, what if he had defeated The Soviets? ...all those natural resources available, no way we could have stopped him from marching right through Europe...
Who's using deflection now?
Second, if you agree why are we having this discussion? Without the premise of that 1%, what argument does Buchanan have exactly?
Are you OK?
We're lucky he attacked the USSR. If he hadn't, he'd have been much tougher to beat in Europe.
I'm not familiar with his latest book, except in a very sketchy way, and I'm not defending his thesis. All I said was his argument in the OP was plausible, (though not persuasive to me) and that it amounts in no way to Hitler boosterism. As I see it, neither you nor Dan have refuted this.
If Hitler had simply planned on supplying his troops past Summertime the Soviet Union was his.
That Buchanan defends Hitler is intellectually dishonest and a smear. Pure and simple.
Boosterism? And you don't have to outright defend Hitler to be on the wrong side of the issue.
See the banner.
I've indicated, repeatedly, that I don't stand with Buchanan. But saying he defends Hitler is irresponsible and feebleminded.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-07-2009 at 03:49 AM. Reason: per nbadan, defend instead of support
Wow.....and to think Pat Buchanan lies all the time....
Pat Buchanan being wrong, or a liar, doesn't make your opinion right, Dan. You just parroted lefty blogs instead of reading and thinking for yourself.
Now defend is support?
I guess that's a matter of perception...I'm betting I Know what side of the forum will support your argument...
Mincing. Strike the word *support*, if that's so different in your mind. It isn't in mine.
Another hasty generalization. Do you believe in guilt by association, Dan? That would surprise me.
No, there's a big difference...for instance, I will defend Buchanan's right to stick his foot, or rather his writing hand, in his mouth any day of the week, but I won't support what he writes if I don't philosophically agree with it..
Nor does anyone require you to. But smearing him baselessly because you disagree doesn't help your case. And that's really all you've done.
While I may disagree with him, and I do, I also believe he defends Hitler...
But you can't adduce even a particle of textual support for this view. So much the worse for your belief.
You have come very close to the Wild Cobra-esque --
*it is true because I believe it, and you are wrong because you disagree*
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions