Poor Ben.
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flora-...b_8295908.html

;)

Is Ben poor?

I suspect he does all right. :D

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much...-carson-worth/

Anyway, f%^k with the holocaust and or gay narrative and see how quickly you are certified insane.

Bullshit calls for ridicule, that doesn't need an agenda.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

How awful! Anti-semitism and homophobia should be accorded proper respect.

Are you saying that Carson's comments on the holocaust and on gays are accurate and substantive?

I am reflecting on the rapid and comprehensive punishment.

Okay, now describe the rapidity, comprehensiveness and nature of this punishment and why you feel it to be unwarranted.

Not agenda, but an indication of power of the constituencies.

Which constituency to you believe Carson wishes to speak to with his theories about the Holocaust and homosexuality?

Divide and conquer at work.

"the court made a distinction with Holocaust denial"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34542489

couldn't access that link for some reason--is BBC down?

Found another source for similar story: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/...de-court-rules

Anyway, the distinction is with 'Armenian holocaust denial. That one is not prohibited speech, like the denying the nazi one is in some places.

Criminalizing hate speech is always tricky, and is likely to lead to funny rulings.

Would you care to explain what any of this has to do with Carson?

Indeed!

BTW the link is good.

LOL "The poll was conducted earlier this week, it had 330 million respondents and no margin for error." :D

Carson more than implies that, because European Jews failed to avail themselves of the mystical magical power of the mere posession of firearms to somehow avert opression in the onslaught of overwhelming paramilitary/ military force, their fate was thus self inflicted.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

He certainly does.

He also more than implies that gay men (and presumably women) are made, not born, and made through the experience of sexual trauma.

What a repugnant man!

No where do I read that Carson implies that that their fate was self inflicted.

Carson made a general statement that gun control made the holocaust easier.
His argument, albeit not deep, was not malicious nor impugn the Jews.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/op...holocaust.html

In this you are virtually alone. The implications of his statement are perfectly clear.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carso...-jewish-groups

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-on-holocaust/

So, now he's feuding with the ADL, red meat for his supporters.

If there were no gun controls, holocaust could have been prevented? That is insane.

The two links do not show where Carson is being malicious. The two links indicate people foaming at the mouth, twisting and blowing up what Carson said.

Carson: If the German population (not Jews in particular) was not subjected to gun control then Hitler would have found it harder to carry out his evil deeds.

I do not agree with Carson's assertion. However his critics have multiplied and embellished and twisted his statement.

I guess anything which touches the holocaust is fraught with noise.

Carson's assertions, whatever whomever may make of them, are indicative of ignorance serving opinion.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Why then do the ADL find Carson's remarks offensive?

And do you find it offensive that Carson dismisses their concerns as mere "foolishness"?

Carson may have once been a brilliant surgeon and an uplifting figure to the African/American community but he's squandered his reputation in this quest for the GOP nomination. It's a sad coda to his once remarkable life. :(

Please drop out Ben.

The ADL just had to the noise. I guess it did not want to be seen as being left out. :D

Carson assertion although not deep (A significant portion of the Germans, whether armed or unarmed, was in love with Hitlerism;once Hindenburg passed Hitler had full control of the German professional army) was not offensive.

QFT. Both sides are guilty of this all too often.

Is that what he said? :confused:

“A More Perfect Union”

"German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s, and by the mid-1940s Hitler’s regime had mercilessly slaughtered six million Jews and numerous others whom they considered inferior … Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance."

Blitzer interview, Carson added

“The likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.”

And he is right!:cool:

Absolutely not!!! Total bullshit.
Neither of you have a clue about this period of German history.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

All one has to do is to get the army on their side and rest is history. Guns in the hands of individuals is going to stop an army with tanks, armored vehicles and missiles? Just about every dictator rises to power by an army backed coup, and of course it is easier if you already head the army.

One of the dumbest arguments for gun ownership, even a six year old will have trouble with it.

Adof Hitler didn't have the Military Reichswehr in his pocket until he changed the oath of allegiance from the Nation to himself. Before that, he had the SA until he was solidly in charge and had his own paramilitary militia to replace the SA.
Leni Riefenstahl made a film in 1933 of the fifth Nazi party rally prominently showing Hitler and the head of the paramilitary SA as equal partners in the 'new' German Reich. By the time of the next rally with Hitler firmly in charge, Ernst Roehm and rest of the SA leadership were dead, killed on Hitler's orders, and all copies of this film ordered confiscated and destroyed before Triumph of the Will was produced of the 1934 rally without mention of Roehm or the SA.
One copy of the 1933 film was made in England during a lecture tour by Riefenstahl and archived, forgotten, and lost until a few years ago, available on youtube as The Victory of Faith. I highly recommend viewing it with the thought in mind that it was made a short time after Hitler became chancellor. Realize that they hit the ground running with preparation in planning for years, just look at all the regalia and mass regimentation that seemingly suddenly appears out of nowhere. There was a vision, a plan, and no margin or tolerance for opposition in the face of Hitler's determination and the SA paramilitary's armed intimidation. Domestically, the die was cast for Germany, and those with forsight and reason left as soon as possible.


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Ridiculous. Individual victims and families, even if armed, would be basically helpless against the mobs and heavily-armed squads the Nazis deployed. Only when victims are able to gather in armed groups, such as partisan bands in non-German territory in the east, or when the Nazis had concentrated them in a defensible urban district (Warsaw Ghetto) was effective resistance possible. And of course, this resistance happened despite the most stringent gun control imaginable--possession of arms was punished by summary execution.

Since resistance happened despite total gun control, it would appear that its presence or absence wasn't the controlling factor. It seems to me the controlling factor was the ability of a group determined on resistance to secure a base of operations. Conditions allowing this never arose in Germany itself.

Hitler became very popular inside and outside of Germany for the apparent rapid economic recovery from the great depression thru employment and industrial growth. His many tunnelvisioned American fans included Charles Lindbergh, and Henry Ford, who shared his virulent antisemitism and contributed the slanderous fabrication "The Eternal Jew" to Hitler's progrom against them.
Much more factual history here:
http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-531909.html

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Exactly.

Look for the party that sucks up to the military, law enforcement and other groups of gun-toting, tough guy, he-men. Look for the party that disdains Democratic institutions such as general elections, environmentalism, unionism, programs meant to give aid to the poor, the elderly and the weak. Look for the flag waiving chest beaters, the fans of Nietzsche and Rand, those who worship wealth and power over human compassion............

There you will find the enemies of Jeffersonian Democracy, the voices of brutality and the real threat to freedom.

The man who could have wrapped up Hitler and his street goons was President Paul Von Hindenburgh.

He had the govermental power, (articles 25, 48 and 53) huge connections with the professional army and the respect of the German populace.

He despised Hitler, to whom he refused to give the chancellorship in 1932.

Yet later, under pressure from his advisors, who feared the Bolsheviks, Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor, and subsequently signed a number of acts, notably, the Reichstag Fire Decree and The Enabling Act, which gave enormous power to the Nazis.

Dunno how permanent anything Hindeburg could have done to wrap up Hitler, PvH was an enfeebled old man on death's doorstep who didn't take the Nazi threat and Hitler as seriously as he should have. Alternatively, Hitler could have just waited him out and then seized power by chicanery, as he did later to gain total control to himself. Of the many aspirants to the Weimar republic, Hitler was by far the most ambitious and prepared to seize power by any means necessary.
The whole point is that Ben Carson is apparently purposely ignorant of this critical period of world history and what was going on in Germany.


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Hindenberg could and should have wrapped-up the Nazis, but it would have been a fight, and at the end when it was really high time to do it, he wasn't up to it.

It would have been a fight; he would also have to clean up the Red Front Fighters, but it was doable since he would have the backing of the professional army. He was about to declare Marshal Law but was dissuaded by Schleicher.

I think he has a somewhat point about gun control.

There were uprisings, Like the Warsaw uprisings. Around 8,000 Polish rebels and some 200,000 civilians were killed. But also around 8,000 German soldiers. More guns may have meant more of this. Nobody would willingly go to their death without a fight.. After the first few years people had an inkling what the regime was up to.

Hitler wasn't likely to Blitzkrieg the Jewish ghettos in Germany. Even if he did, that would have meant fewer tanks and soldiers on both front lines which would have given the allies a bigger advantage and we may have been able to push quicker and harder.

It may have not stopped the genocide but armed uprisings/terrorist events within the third reich would have at least helped the allies a great deal with their counter attack. Therefore shortening the war, therefore reducing the number of people gassed

And I don't think it is stupid to discuss this issue and branding Carson a racist/idiot rather than discuss the merits of his argument (Which is all I've read - denouncement not discussion) is idiocy.

I wouldn't vote for him though.