0
   

The Holocaust Is A Lie

 
 
Josef cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2009 03:55 am
@Aspen cv,
Aspen;69196 wrote:
Why is it that none of you guys can think for himself?

I once wondered that too. The answer is they are afraid. If they say anything "wrong" they would be put on one list or another or gang stalked or dragged into one high profile case or another.

YouTube - Organized Stalking Target testimony

Do read all comments posted under this video.

Why do you not see any good leaders emerging as was the case prior to 1980's? Because they are destroyed as soon as they are detected on radar. United States is the ultimate contradiction of terminology.

FYI Holocaust denial is now a punishable crime in much of Europe.


I am quite aware that free speech is not allowed in many other countries, that is why America is known as the
"Land of the free and the home of the brave." We have a Constitution that recognizes a free man's right to express himself in any way he wishes without being oppressed by a tyrannical government. We also have the right to defend ourselves and our loved ones with arms, which is certainly taboo in most other countries, so don't tell me about how your God-given freedoms are denied to you.

What sort of truth needs a law to prevent its being questioned? If the so-called "Holohoax" is entirely true, and everything you are told about it is the gospel truth, why would the Jews want to outlaw any discussion of it? Its verity should be able to stand inspection by anyone at any time without their being subjected to imprisonment for questioning certain facets of it.

Just because there are people who examine some details of the legend, and have certain doubts, is that any reason to throw them into prisons for punishment? For what crime? Inquisitiveness? What are the Jews afraid might be exposed? Why are they so hysterical in their defense of its every stated detail?

It seems that there is much worry on the part of the Jews that if any one little detail is found to be fabricated, the whole house of cards might come tumbling down around them, and they won't be able to play on the sympathies of the world's misinformed people any longer.
0 Replies
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2009 04:04 am
@Josef cv,
See? Josef, I posted my proof against your theory A SECOND TIME, yet you do not acknowledge it.
Josef cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2009 04:20 am
@bisurge,
bisurge;69199 wrote:
It was on the freaking first page.


No one has ever suggested that not a single Jew ever died in the camps. Of course there were many who succumbed to typhus, malnutrition, pneumonia, exposure, and lots of other causes, but on the other hand, there were more German citizens dying of the same reasons, and it isn't unreasonable to surmise that a lot of the dead bodies in the photos were of many people other than Jews. At the end of the war, there were people dying all over the Reich because of a blockade of food supplies and medicines by the "allies" (meaning the Jews who ran the governments), which caused mass deaths of everyone in Germany. There were also some 225,000 German civilians (old people, women and children) who were fire-bombed to death in Dresden even after the result of the war was no longer in question. Such circumstances as these cast a lot of doubt on the Jewish version of the "Holohoax."

In Hitler's last will and testament, he said, in part, " ... It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked exclusively by those international statesmen who either were of Jewish origin or worked for Jewish interests.

I have made too many offers for the limitation and control of armaments, which posterity will not for all time be able to disregard, for responsibility of the outbreak of this war to be placed on me. Further, I have never wished that after the appalling First World War there should be a second one against either England or America. Centuries will go by, but from the ruins of our towns and monuments the hatred of those ultimately responsible will always grow anew. They are the people whom we have to thank for all this: international Jewry and its helpers ...

The seed has been sown that will grow one day ... to the glorious rebirth of the National Socialist movement of a truly united nation."
0 Replies
 
Josef cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2009 04:23 am
@bisurge,
bisurge;69201 wrote:
See? Josef, I posted my proof against your theory A SECOND TIME, yet you do not acknowledge it.


What you posted is proof of nothing - not even solid evidence of anything.
0 Replies
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2009 05:35 am
@Josef cv,
Proof of nothing? Those people didn't see Jews dying? Jews themselves didn't see each other dying? Hitler truly believed that Jews caused all of Germany's problems, because he addressed it many times. How is that proof of nothing? You're saying all historical accounts are fake, all photos of death are obviously not Jews, and Germans suffered just as much of the Jews? How come afterward, Jews in camps were found malnourished etc., but the German guards weren't? You never even addressed the accounts. Basically, you're saying it's a giant conspiracy to blame Germany. A wide conspiracy involving Jews, many countries, many soldiers, and fake photography, video, etc.

If you don't think any of that accounts for anything, because one person said that the Holocaust is a lie, then I refuse to reason with someone as stubborn and idiotic as you. Even Germans have admitted the Holocaust; German guarding the death camps. I guess they're part of the conspiracy, too!
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2009 07:50 am
@Josef cv,
Josef;69198 wrote:
I was hoping some illiterate fool would jump on that, and you fulfilled my every hope, Shlomo.

"Guys" is not the subject, fool, it is "none," as in "not one," which is singular, and "guys" is only a descriptive pronoun.

"Not ONE (of you guys) can think for himself." Got it?


None is still treated as plural, genius.

follow the link:

http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/1026513/9903.htm
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2009 07:59 am
@Josef cv,
Josef;69149 wrote:
Why is it that none of you guys can think for himself?


There are actually two problems here. One of this is mentioned above. The second is that Josef said "you guys" and then switched to "himself". Anyone with basic language skills knows that "you guys" is 2nd person and "himself" is 3rd. The subject of this sentence is actually the two words, "you guys", and the verb is "think". "you guys" is plural and "himself" is singular. The correct sentence would be "Why is it that none of you guys can think for yourselves?"

I take Latin and Latin sentence structure is the same as English sentence structure when translated. In Latin, the endings decide the grammatical structure of words. In Latin, one ending translates as "you all". "you guys" is pretty much the same thing. Also, one ending translates to "yourself", one ending translates to "himself". The two words must agree or else we would've lost points on translations. Furthermore, the verb ending had to agree.

So basically, you used a second person plural with a third person singular. Doesn't make any sense at all.
0 Replies
 
Josef cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2009 08:14 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;69211 wrote:
None is still treated as plural, genius.

follow the link:

http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/1026513/9903.htm


Thank you for proving my point, old sport. I meant it as singular. You are still a dunce, so accept it.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2009 08:43 am
@Josef cv,
Josef;69215 wrote:
Thank you for proving my point, old sport. I meant it as singular. You are still a dunce, so accept it.



if we recall what you said earlier:

Quote:
I was hoping some illiterate fool would jump on that, and you fulfilled my every hope, Shlomo. "Guys" is not the subject, fool, it is "none," as in "not one," which is singular,



Did you follow the link? It explains why your reasoning was flawed:

"A common misconception is that none must always be treated as singular. The customary support for this view is that none necessarily means "not one" (implying singularity); in fact, "none" is just as likely to imply "not any" (implying plurality)."





Hmmph...interesting


I wonder if josef will admit he was wrong....probably not.
0 Replies
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2009 09:38 am
@Josef cv,
Once again, Josef ignored my post about the 2nd person plural subject and the 3rd person singular object.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Nov, 2009 12:15 pm
@bisurge,
bisurge;69226 wrote:
Once again, Josef ignored my post about the 2nd person plural subject and the 3rd person singular object.


he ignores you a lot.
Josef cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 12:45 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;69228 wrote:
he ignores you a lot.


You are both quite ignorable.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 04:19 am
@Josef cv,
Josef;69233 wrote:
You are both quite ignorable.


Especially when you criticize other people's grammar only to have it thrown back into your face. :headbang:
Josef cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 08:24 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;69246 wrote:
Especially when you criticize other people's grammar only to have it thrown back into your face. :headbang:


You're beginning to sound pitiable, old sock. Boy up, and admit your inferiority to almost everyone, sonny.
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 08:49 am
@Josef cv,
Josef;69253 wrote:
You're beginning to sound pitiable, old sock. Boy up, and admit your inferiority to almost everyone, sonny.

I like how you think you're so great. You think you have the right to make fun of people, and you always think you're right even when there's evidence against you. Even when you don't address all the evidence. And I like how you hypocritically complain about grammar and spelling mistakes, but make them yourself.
Josef cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 08:50 am
@bisurge,
bisurge;69256 wrote:
I like how you think you're so great. You think you have the right to make fun of people, and you always think you're right even when there's evidence against you. Even when you don't address all the evidence. And I like how you hypocritically complain about grammar and spelling mistakes, but make them yourself.


Example, please.
Josef cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 08:54 am
@bisurge,
bisurge;69256 wrote:
I like how you think you're so great. You think you have the right to make fun of people, and you always think you're right even when there's evidence against you. Even when you don't address all the evidence. And I like how you hypocritically complain about grammar and spelling mistakes, but make them yourself.


You'd probably like to know me a lot better, wouldn't you, Einstein?
0 Replies
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 09:10 am
@Josef cv,
Josef;69257 wrote:
Example, please.

You think you're so great because you freely do those other things.
Josef;69253 wrote:
You're beginning to sound pitiable, old sock. Boy up, and admit your inferiority to almost everyone, sonny.

There you are making fun of people.
bisurge;69213 wrote:
There are actually two problems here. One of this is mentioned above. The second is that Josef said "you guys" and then switched to "himself". Anyone with basic language skills knows that "you guys" is 2nd person and "himself" is 3rd. The subject of this sentence is actually the two words, "you guys", and the verb is "think". "you guys" is plural and "himself" is singular. The correct sentence would be "Why is it that none of you guys can think for yourselves?"

I take Latin and Latin sentence structure is the same as English sentence structure when translated. In Latin, the endings decide the grammatical structure of words. In Latin, one ending translates as "you all". "you guys" is pretty much the same thing. Also, one ending translates to "yourself", one ending translates to "himself". The two words must agree or else we would've lost points on translations. Furthermore, the verb ending had to agree.

So basically, you used a second person plural with a third person singular. Doesn't make any sense at all.

You completely ignored that.
Josef;68985 wrote:
Oh, I have been to your profile, old sport, and also one of the threads you started. Your spelling is so atrocious that it gave me a headache trying to decipher what you meant by such illiterate scribbling, so get yourself an education before you post to me again, please.

There's you making fun of peoples' English.
Josef;69149 wrote:
Why is it that none of you guys can think for himself?

There you are making one. Using a second person plural subject with a third person singular object? The subject, the direct object, and the indirect object have to agree if they're referring to the same person/people. And in this case, the subject and the indirect object do refer to the same person/people. I can't tell if it's singular or plural because of your mistake.
bisurge;69210 wrote:
Proof of nothing? Those people didn't see Jews dying? Jews themselves didn't see each other dying? Hitler truly believed that Jews caused all of Germany's problems, because he addressed it many times. How is that proof of nothing? You're saying all historical accounts are fake, all photos of death are obviously not Jews, and Germans suffered just as much of the Jews? How come afterward, Jews in camps were found malnourished etc., but the German guards weren't? You never even addressed the accounts. Basically, you're saying it's a giant conspiracy to blame Germany. A wide conspiracy involving Jews, many countries, many soldiers, and fake photography, video, etc.

If you don't think any of that accounts for anything, because one person said that the Holocaust is a lie, then I refuse to reason with someone as stubborn and idiotic as you. Even Germans have admitted the Holocaust; German guarding the death camps. I guess they're part of the conspiracy, too!

And you never answered how it could even be conceivable to claim that every single eyewitness account to the loss of Jewish life directly through German hands is false. That would mean thousands of people are part of this Jewish conspiracy.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 09:14 am
@Josef cv,
Josef;69215 wrote:
Thank you for proving my point, old sport. I meant it as singular. You are still a dunce, so accept it.



if we recall what you said earlier:

Quote:
I was hoping some illiterate fool would jump on that, and you fulfilled my every hope, Shlomo. "Guys" is not the subject, fool, it is "none," as in "not one," which is singular,



Did you follow the link? It explains why your reasoning was flawed:

"A common misconception is that none must always be treated as singular. The customary support for this view is that none necessarily means "not one" (implying singularity); in fact, "none" is just as likely to imply "not any" (implying plurality)."





Hmmph...interesting


I wonder if josef will admit he was wrong....probably not.
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 09:21 am
@Josef cv,
He never even addressed the fact that he referred to everyone as "you guys" (2nd person) and then "himself" (3rd person)? That's more agreement problems. Since they are referring to the same people.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/01/2021 at 06:54:55