World Net Daily: The Nazi's did it, we can too!

[Northgate]

This is your modern conservative movement folks:

World Net Daily (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50198):

lied when he said: "Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic - it's just not going to work." Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society."

I tell ya'. That's one way to win over the American population. Use Nazi's as a reference on how to [b]"rid themselves" of 12 million Mexican vermin.

Brilliant stroke guys. Keep going for it. It's a sure fire winner at the polls.

:lol:

[Gene Clean]

*waiting for CC to come in and start asking 1739390 questions so he can derail the topic*

[e1618978]

The web page does not say anything about Germany or Nazis.

BTW - even though he calls himself a libertarian, I am pretty sure he would be against most libertarian stuff (unlimited immegration, gay marriage, legal drugs, etc).

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by e1618978
The web page does not say anything about Germany or Nazis.

Obviously the page has been changed, as the OP cut and pasted from the site.

Hopefully someone has a screenshot.

[BRussell]

Yeah I saw the original yesterday or the day before.

[Chris Cuilla]

Google cache:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:M3vQdfUrHtYJ:www.wnd.com/news/article.asp%3FARTICLE_ID%3D50198+vox+day+german+je w&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
e#s...you aren't playing correctly.

First you find a website that contains some contrarian view or position that you (even many people) find "outrageous", then you deliberately misquote (or imply) or conjecture what they really meant to say and present that as "proof" of their* evil-ness.

* Extra points if you can establish some (tenuous) "endorsement" by the current U.S. administration.

My real views are obnoxious enough, I don't need help from external websites.

Here is a thought - one real benefit (of many) that the mexican immegrants bring to us is that they piss off people like Mr Vox, who then move somewhere else.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Google cache:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:M3vQdfUrHtYJ:www.wnd.com/news/article.asp%3FARTICLE_ID%3D50198+vox+day+german+je w&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Right.

So, considering you just erased a post in which you basically stated that the OP was making shit up, I take it that you've reconsidered that opinion?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by e1618978
My real views are obnoxious enough, I don't need help from external websites.

I was wrong about the misquote. The Google cache shows this. Nonetheless, my comments of that kind of approach (based on observations in previously threads) are not completely unwarranted.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Right.

So, considering you just erased a post in which you basically stated that the OP was making shit up, I take it that you've reconsidered that opinion?

Well...considering:

a) that when you go to it now and do not see the text he quoted, and
b) that poster's general temperment and demeanor

I'd say my comments we're not compeletely off-base (for the general tactic used here in PO). In this specific instance they turned out to be, and I corrected it (immediately), and admitted as much in my previous post.

P.S. You'll notice I made the effort to correct myself too. Do I get slammed for making the (understandable) error and correcting? One? The other? Both? Which is it?

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You'll notice I made the effort to correct myself too. Do I get slammed for making the (understandable) error and correcting? One? The other? Both?

1) I'm glad you sourced it in the Google cache.
2) I'm glad you corrected your post.

While you may not agree with the typical political-leanings of the OP, I think it's a stretch to imply (in your deleted post) that he was misquoting something in such a radical way. Although, truth be told, when I clicked the link and didn't see the text I was curious, too - which prompted me to ask if anyone had a screenshot of the page in question.

I'm actually impressed that you took the effort to correct your post and to provide the info.

[Gene Clean]

You should apologize for it, not erase every trace left and replace it with a Google cache.

Don't hide your mistakes, apologize for them and move on.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by audiopollution
1) I'm glad you sourced it in the Google cache.
2) I'm glad you corrected your post.


Thanks.

Originally posted by audiopollution
While you may not agree with the typical political-leanings of the OP,

That's not my issue.

Originally posted by audiopollution
I think it's a stretch to imply (in your deleted post) that he was misquoting something in such a radical way.

Perhaps. But I've seen (very) similar kinds of things throughout PO. Perhaps not direct misquotes but setting two things from disparate sources together to create a false apperance. Like that.

Originally posted by audiopollution
Although, truth be told, when I clicked the link and didn't see the text I was curious, too - which prompted me to ask if anyone had a screenshot of the page in question.

When I saw your post, I immediately began trying to source an "original". I made the wrong assumption in this case. My bad. I actually try very hard to NOT do that.

Originally posted by audiopollution
I'm actually impressed that you took the effort to correct your post and to provide the info.

Thanks. I need (and try, though not always successfully) to practice what I hope others will do as well.

[Bergermeister]

I hate to be picky, but "we" as in "we are" shoudl be "were" in the following sentence:

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'd say my comments we're not compeletely off-base (for the general tactic used here in PO).

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Bergermeister
I hate to be picky, but "we" as in "we are" shoudl be "were" in the following sentence:

Pick away. I think I Was going for "weren't" and blew the re-edit. Complete "brain fart" there. Thanks.

[Bergermeister]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Pick away. I think I Was going for "weren't" and blew the re-edit. Complete "brain fart" there. Thanks.

No problem, as I had a spelling mistake in mine: should.

The one that drives me made is when people misues "your" for "you're" which is pretty common; even found two instances on CNN.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Bergermeister
No problem, as I had a spelling mistake in mine: should.

The one that drives me made is when people misues "your" for "you're" which is pretty common; even found two instances on CNN.

They all drive me nuts. And I truly want to smack myself when I'm dumb enough to do it.

[e1618978]

Are we actually going to talk about the Nazi guy, or is this just some kind of meta-discussion?