“Why is it OK for the left to hate the Jews?”
#ProTip, Bill. It’s always been OK for the left to hate the Jews. Hitler was a leftist, after all. And yet they foolishly continue to vote for leftists.
10 thoughts on “A Question From Bill Maher”
Comments are closed.
In German the Nazi party acronym was NSDAP. ‘NS’ for Nationalsozialistische aka National Socialist. Socialist. Not exactly a ‘Right Wing’ concept…
A ‘Right Wing’ concept? Territorial Justice, aka the Wild West or Colonial America. There are houses around where I live, built pre-1800 that besides having completely uneven wide plank wooden floors, have incredibly thick wooden shutters. Such that when closed form an open cross. Not for religious reasons. Unless your religion involves use of a musket.
I think the proper term is smooth bore cap and ball flintlock.
Did you know that the US military is returning to smooth-bore small arms? Sabot rounds. They did it for tank guns and they are doing it for small arms.
You cannot call the new infantry weapon a “gun” because your drill instructor will make you recite “this is my rifle (mimes shouldering it) and this is my ‘gun’ (mimes putting his hand somewhere), this is one is for shooting, this one is for fun.”
I heard this one from the guy-behind-the-counter-who-gave-you-they-keys-to-the-rental-airplane in flight school, a retired Army MP. The provocation was a group of National Guard troops carrying their small arms filed into the diner for lunch on their stop at the FBO and I used the “G” word.
Don’t know what the big deal was with flight-school rental-counter guy. The flight school and FBO was supposed to be family safe, however, so he mimed putting his hand on his hip, and naive, innocent me from 40 years ago didn’t get the bawdy drill-sergeant humor. Engineers always called it a “gun”, and can you call a smooth-bore weapon firing rifled slugs or sabot ammo a “rifle”?
I’ll be here all week, and make sure to tip your waiter.
Engineers might call it a ‘gun’ because it may have referred to a ‘great gun’, i.e. artillery.
Rifled small arms have been common for a bit more than a century. Tank guns are smooth bore because the rounds are fin-stabilized sabots. I would be surprised if they can make them cheap and reliable enough to use as common small arms ammo. I smell a push to get the US Army to spend a lot of money to replace all their small arms again.
Seems like an excuse to force an expensive and unnecessary logistical nightmare on our military. I can’t imagine what the cost of this type of ammo would be to produce.
I’m reminded of the story about the AK vs NATO. IIRC the rifles that fire the NATO .556 round cannot chamber the slightly larger AK-47 rounds, whereas the reverse was not true. Allowing the old Warsaw Pact forces to use captured ammo in the field, whereas the reverse was not true for NATO forces facing ammo shortages in the field. Or so I remember hearing. Don’t know how much of that was urban legend vs fact.
I don’t see the utility of it. Especially when you can get particularly nasty rip rounds in the commercial market already.
I suppose if you’re trying to penetrate body armor.
M1 tank sabot rounds use DU for the rod.
The stock 7.62mm AK-47 is too large to shoot 5.56mm rounds, but the Warsaw Pact 82 mm mortar was capable of firing 81mm NATO rounds.
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the correction.
What do you call a “gun” that shoots these particularly nasty shapes out the barrel?
Been there, done that. Don’t recommend.
There is this entertaining guy on YouTube who calls himself “Lord Hardthrasher” who is into revisionist WW-II history. He makes some interesting points, recently tracing the development of the Me 163 Komet rocket fighter, going on about the egos and feuds behind its development and deployment, how dangerous it was to the pilot and ground-crew alike, how it consumed resources the WW-II Germans didn’t have, and the casualties it inflicted on Allied aircrews not being worth the cost to the Germans.
That is all well and good, but if you were an Allied bomber crew seeing one of those swoop into your formation and letting loose with a rocket salvo, you might have a different idea as to the harmlessness of the Me 163.
He is more entertaining, however, when he sticks to WW-II military-geek tech stuff, but when he gets all political and tribal, he becomes a bore as in a similarly recent video where he lays into anti-Socialist Americans for calling the NSDAP “Socialist” because according to this Brit, Socialism is a good thing and the NSDAP was right-wing, a point he reinforces by doing a comically bad American accent of an anti-Socialist from US flyover country.
There is this other British guy whose YouTube channel is called Tik who is much more sober and serious and talks with an accent of the early Beatles. Right-wing, left-wing, Socialist or anti-Socialist, the NSDAP government sure did a lot of central economic planning, and like central economic planning everywhere and every time in history, it has disastrous consequences.
There is this trope that the Nazis were cruel, yes, but they were efficient, promoted by that Star Trek episode with the wayward Federation dude John Gill who turned a planet into Nazis to save them from social collapse. Kirk asks him, “why” to which he replies “was the most efficient system”, and this British guy is saying, no, it was far from an efficient system, even if you wanted to trade cruelty for efficiency by some measure.
Lord Haw Haw is entitled to his opinion…
But there is still Eric Blair’s opinion. Laid bare during O’Brien’s soliloquy to Winston Smith either during his ensnarement or torture in Room 101 in the book 1984. I don’t quite remember which, but the line is about the true nature of INGSOC where he says: “The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to what we are. Especially the Communists.”