Trump ally Rep. Scott Perry says FBI seized his cellphone

@ElwoodBlues Sieg Heil, Comrade.

@sunsporter1649 Poor sporty! Sporty can't refute the facts about Trump's own chosen FBI director allowing the raid on Trump, so sporty is reduced to the [i]silliest[/i] ad hominem fallacies,[b] LOL!!![/b]


I mean, DUUUDE!!! Didn't you know the communists and the Nazis were MORTAL ENEMIES? Did you think the siege of Leningrad was a camping trip gone wrong? Don't you know [i]any [/i]WWII history???

@ElwoodBlues Sieg Heil, Comrade.

@sunsporter1649 I mean, DUUUDE!!! Didn't you know the communists and the Nazis were MORTAL ENEMIES? Did you think the siege of Leningrad was a camping trip gone wrong? Don't you know any WWII history???

@ElwoodBlues On August 23, 1939–shortly before World War II (1939-45) broke out in Europe–enemies Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union surprised the world by signing the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, in which the two countries agreed to take no military action against each other for the next 10 years. With Europe on the brink of another major war, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin (1879-1953) viewed the pact as a way to keep his nation on peaceful terms with Germany, while giving him time to build up the Soviet military. German chancellor Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) used the pact to make sure Germany was able to invade Poland unopposed. The pact also contained a secret agreement in which the Soviets and Germans agreed how they would later divide up Eastern Europe. The German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact fell apart in June 1941, when Nazi forces invaded the Soviet Union.

@sunsporter1649 Like I said, the communists and Nazis were MORTAL ENEMIES!

In Germany in the 1930s,
the Nazis bitterly opposed the Social Democrats;
the Nazis bitterly opposed the Socialists;
the Nazis bitterly opposed the Trade Unionists;
and the Nazis bitterly opposed the Communists.

When I say "bitterly opposed" it means the Nazis sent brownshirt thugs to disrupt rallies and fight in the streets against their political opponents. The Nazis were a reactionary party reacting against the left wing in Germany at the time. The Nazis built their platform on racism, nationalism, and fear of the foreign. The Nazis were ALWAYS anti-left wing.

@ElwoodBlues Is that why the ny slimes supported them both?

@sunsporter1649 Only in your imagination, [b]LOL!!![/b]

P.S. Lend/Lease was smart Realpolitik, nothing more.

@ElwoodBlues I suppose the name walter duranty somehow escaped your notice, eh?

@sunsporter1649 Indeed, I never heard of him before. He was WELL before my time. I looked him up though. He was a pro-Stalin Englishman. Can't find any evidence he was pro-Hitler at the same time, can you?? BTW, when did one Moscow based British journalist become the whole NY Times?

@sunsporter1649 You're ducking the question. Do you have any evidence Duranty was pro-Hitler? Since you ducked it, I assume the answer is no.

The NY Times ignored the Holocaust?? That's the most idiotic statement I've read in YEARS!! [b]ROTFL!!![/b] Thanks for the belly laugh!!!

You gotta tell me, which of your right-wing moronic sources led you to believe that???

[quote]Throughout World War II, the American media published and broadcast timely, detailed, and accurate accounts of what was happening to the Jews in Europe. The New York Times alone printed nearly 1,200 articles about what we have now come to call the Holocaust, about one every other day.

The articles in the Times and elsewhere described the propagation of anti-Semitic laws in German allied countries; death from disease and starvation of hundreds of thousands in ghettos and labor camps; mass executions in Nazi-occupied Russia; and mass gassings in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek. The articles also indicated that these were not isolated incidents, but part of a systematic campaign to kill all the Jews in Europe.[/quote]


Lemme emphasize that again:
[b]The New York Times alone printed nearly 1,200 articles about what we have now come to call the Holocaust, about one every other day.[/b]
Dude, you gotta tell us what jokester misled you about the NY Times & the Holocaust.

@ElwoodBlues Yeah, it only took until late 1944 for the ny slimes to figure it out, right after the US Army overran several of the awful places and they could not hide it any longer. And I see you ignore the hookers and castro, wonder why? Yard slugs making up their own history again? By the way, found those "less than 100" American citizens you abandoned to the raghead terrorists yet?

Sporty, Sporty. These 2 paragons of The Master Race actually wore these shirts to one of MAGA’s Nuremberg rallies:

[image deleted]@sunsporter1649

But hey, we wouldn’t expect you to deviate from the Reich-Wing playbook!

@sunsporter1649 [quote]Yeah, it only took until late 1944[/quote]
[b]DEAD WRONG AGAIN!!![/b]

Your inability to do basic math is tripping you up. Look, 1200 articles, every other day. That means 2400 days worth of articles during WWII. How many years is 2400 days? Get out your calculator, I'm sure you can handle that!!

Please please please, you gotta tell us what jokester misled you about the NY Times & the Holocaust!!! Was it your favorite cartoonist??

@ElwoodBlues "The reason is that the American media in general and the New York Times in particular never treated the Holocaust as an important news story. From the start of the war in Europe to its end nearly six years later, the story of the Holocaust made the Times front page only 26 times out of 24,000 front-page stories, and most of those stories referred to the victims as “refugees” or “persecuted minorities.” In only six of those stories were Jews identified on page one as the primary victims.

Nor did the story lead the paper, appearing in the right-hand column reserved for the day’s most important news – not even when the concentration camps were liberated at the end of the war. In addition, the Times intermittently and timidly editorialized about the extermination of the Jews, and the paper rarely highlighted it in either the Week in Review or the magazine section.

What kept American journalists from recognizing the significance of the systematic murder of six million people? Worldwide carnage on an unprecedented scale helped obscure the Jews’ plight. There was also skepticism bred by fake atrocity reports during the previous world war. The Roosevelt Administration’s determination to downplay the news also contributed to the subdued coverage. But the media had enough credible information to treat the news of the extermination of the Jews as important. And the New York Times played a critical role in why it didn’t.

For no American news organization was better positioned to highlight the Holocaust than the Times, and no American news organization so influenced public discourse by its failure to do so."

@ElwoodBlues " The New York Times was in touch with European Jews’ suffering, which accounts for its 1,000-plus stories on the Final Solution’s steady progress. Yet, it deliberately de-emphasized the Holocaust news, reporting it in isolated, inside stories. The few hundred words about the Nazi genocide the Times published every couple days were hard to find amidst a million other words in the newspaper. Times readers could legitimately have claimed not to have known, or at least not to have understood, what was happening to the Jews.

The Times’s judgment that the murder of millions of Jews was a relatively unimportant story also reverberated among other journalists trying to assess the news, among Jewish groups trying to arouse public opinion, and among government leaders trying to decide on an American response. It partly explains the general apathy and inaction that greeted the news of the Holocaust.

We do not know how many Jews might have been saved had the Times acted differently. We do know, however, that the possibilities for rescue were never truly tested.

It is also clear that had the Times and other news organizations decided that the extermination of the Jews was important, the paper could have and should have highlighted it, regardless of whether it would have saved lives. The press alone could not have altered the currents of public discourse that swamped the news of the Jews’ destruction, and certainly a single newspaper by itself could not have accomplished that. Still, the Times had a moral and professional obligation to do more than be swept along with the tide."

@sunsporter1649 Nice attempt to move the goalposts, dude!! Here's your original claim: [quote]The same ny slimes that ignored The Holocaust?[/quote] Every quote you've posted continues to prove that original claim wrong, [b]LOL!!![/b]

@ElwoodBlues Yard slug embarrassed again, better hide under your rock until you can come up with better lies