The reason for the deathstar

[KirkSkyWalker]

No need: WILGA's own argument concedes my points, i.e. that that takeover didnt' occur until 4 years after 1934.
And his own linked article holds that there was significant resistance starting after 1938, as noted here.

[User1442]

Saddam Hussein didn't take over a democratic republic, however-- he was a barbaric dictator who took over a barbaric dictatorship, so there was no real diference.
Likewise, tn contrast, when Hitler took over Germany there were a significant resistance.
The reason that the USA had the 2nd Amendment was so that the states could resist a federal coup; and that's one reason that it didn't happen in over 200 years.

Hitler was appointed in march 1933. There was virtually no opposition to him when he rose to power! None of what has been said by anyone here supports what you said.

[KirkSkyWalker]

You sure love to quibble, but I hate it. I was obviously using the phrase "when" in reference to a certain period in history-- not a certain instant.

I was also making a point, not indicating a proposal to waste my time quibbling over technicalities with those AR's who missed it.

[User1442]

You sure love to quibble, but I hate it. I was obviously using the phrase "when" in reference to a certain period in history-- not a certain instant.

I was also making a point, not indicating a proposal to waste my time quibbling over technicalities with those AR's who missed it.

Ok, if you don't want people to disagree so much, then be more specific. At any point in this debate, you could have said "I think your getting the wrong idea of what i mean't. And really until the very end there wasn't much resistance, and even when there was a resistance, it wasn't very large. Maybe we have dragged this out a little too much, but you haven't exactly been receptive to our points. Maybe we've been debating apples and oranges, but you could have pointed out at any time your holding an orange.

[KirkSkyWalker]

(

[User1442]

I said there was "significant resistance," and this was correct.

If there was ever a proper counter to this, then I would have clarified-- but there wasn't: just cheating-arguments and ad hominemns. And it's a double-standard to expect me to properly redress an improper counter-argument.

No, there was virtually NO resistance. We have presented articles from Wikipedia. You have presented.......what? Absolutely no references. Your debating tactics have amounted to whining and ranting about how no one else is right and you are wrong. Add some references! Unless your going to do the whole "Im right, and blah blah blah, so i shouldn't have to reply." Add one damn reference to back you up, i dare you. IF your right, im not gonna be angry or embarrassed. Its ok to be wrong. However your lack of evidence and stubbornness to concede points when confronted with evidence, is extremely frustrating.

[KirkSkyWalker]

I said there was "significant resistance," and this was correct.

If there was ever a proper counter to this, then I would have clarified-- but there wasn't: just cheating-arguments and ad hominemns. And it's a double-standard to expect me to properly redress an improper counter-argument.

No, there was virtually NO resistance. We have presented articles from Wikipedia. You have presented.......what? Absolutely no references. Your debating tactics have amounted to whining and ranting about how no one else is right and you are wrong. Add some references! Unless your going to do the whole "Im right, and blah blah blah, so i shouldn't have to reply." Add one damn reference to back you up, i dare you. IF your right, im not gonna be angry or embarrassed. Its ok to be wrong. However your lack of evidence and stubbornness to concede points when confronted with evidence, is extremely frustrating.

[User1442]

I said there was "significant resistance," and this was correct.

If there was ever a proper counter to this, then I would have clarified-- but there wasn't: just cheating-arguments and ad hominemns. And it's a double-standard to expect me to properly redress an improper counter-argument.

No, there was virtually NO resistance. We have presented articles from Wikipedia. You have presented.......what? Absolutely no references. Your debating tactics have amounted to whining and ranting about how no one else is right and you are wrong. Add some references! Unless your going to do the whole "Im right, and blah blah blah, so i shouldn't have to reply." Add one damn reference to back you up, i dare you. IF your right, im not gonna be angry or embarrassed. Its ok to be wrong. However your lack of evidence and stubbornness to concede points when confronted with evidence, is extremely frustrating.

Like I said, all you do is rant and rave. Come back when your ready to actually debate. And let me guess, your next reply will be another childish remark with still no references.

[Mike DiCenso]

Just to step in and say that Leon is right in this case, all anyone has ever asked of KSW is to show some proof when he makes a statement about something. It's not necessarily the idea that people disagree with, just that we do not take things always at face value, especially if it is an extraordinary claim.

Also, at this point, I'd like to say that if the point of resistance by Germans to Hitler and the Nazis is not in some way brought in line with the original OP of the thread somehow and soon, that it will get split off into a thread of it's own, probably in the "Other" forum.
-Mike

[Praeothmin]

That is quite easy:
The Wikipedia article stated that, while there were some small group that resisted Hitler regime and what it stood for, the majority of the people backed Hitler up, just like in SW, where the majority of the people seemed to back up Palpatine and his reign of power, with a small group (the Rebels) were mounting resistance to the Empire...

While there are some specific differences, the gist of both events are a lot more similar than dissimilar...

[Mr. Oragahn]

No, there was virtually NO resistance. We have presented articles from Wikipedia. You have presented.......what? Absolutely no references. Your debating tactics have amounted to whining and ranting about how no one else is right and you are wrong. Add some references! Unless your going to do the whole "Im right, and blah blah blah, so i shouldn't have to reply." Add one damn reference to back you up, i dare you. IF your right, im not gonna be angry or embarrassed. Its ok to be wrong. However your lack of evidence and stubbornness to concede points when confronted with evidence, is extremely frustrating.

Now if that is not trolling...

[Mike DiCenso]

Be that it may, Praeothmin has already taken action, and KSW was banned for 2 weeks. If he (KWS) or his proxy SarahStar continues this sort of behavior after returning, then he'll receive further discipling.
-Mike

[User1442]

Be that it may, Praeothmin has already taken action, and KSW was banned for 2 weeks. If he (KWS) or his proxy SarahStar continues this sort of behavior after returning, then he'll receive further discipling.
-Mike

Was I out of line? I was getting pretty heated for a while.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Oh, so Sarahstar was him as well?

@ leon
I wouldn't see why you'd get anything. You're fine, mate. Don't bother. ;)

[Praeothmin]

Be that it may, Praeothmin has already taken action, and KSW was banned for 2 weeks. If he (KWS) or his proxy SarahStar continues this sort of behavior after returning, then he'll receive further discipling.
-Mike

Was I out of line? I was getting pretty heated for a while.

While getting pretty heated, you did not insult him, you pointed out that he was failing to provide evidence.
I did feel you were close to starting insulting him, and had you done so, I would have given you a warning, but you didn't, so don't sweat it... :)