Comments by "" (@TheDavidlloydjones) on "The Story Behind Some Of History's Greatest Military Blunders | Politics By Other Means | Timeline" video.

@justiceforall6412 Well, he had, after all, murdered at minimum hundreds of thousands. There cannot be very many families in Spain and Morocco who don't have stories handed down of relatives killed.
5
@TheSunderingSea No, you needn't, though it might be useful if you could come up with some evidence for your "massacre." Your "purging bloodbath" exists only in your own imagination since of course, the Fascists won. The Reds, both Communists/Trotskyites and Anarchists, certainly killed some Roman Catholics.. This neither challenges not changes anything in my original post, does it? 🤦‍♂️"Need I remind you" 🤣😂
3
@davidx6912 Do you mean "Fascisti" maybe? And since the whole point of Mike's comment is that some get strung up by their ankles while others die honoured and in comfort, it's difficult to see what you mean by both the "sic" and the "semper," isn't it? Mike's original comment shows off an odd notion of parallelism. Perhaps the word he's looking for is the ever recondite "difference," but that would bring our attention to that peculiar word "odd." There's nothing odd about it: Franco won his war. Mussolini didn't.
3
...and be certain to run around in circles feeling sorry for yourself, right, Dennis?
2
@DavidSmith-ss1cg No, David. There is no such saying, and there's a good reason why there isn't: there are dozens of ways of saying the same thing more wittily, cuttingly, succinctly. You'll find some of them in this comment section.
2
@justiceforall6412 Thank you. My point exactly.
1
"Parallel"?? Um, ya wanna maybe ask your Momma about "orthogonal" and "opposite"? The mot juste, look it up, here might have been "contrast."
1
@mikesummers-smith4091 I've read Plutarch, thank you. What point are you trying to make?
1
@AbbeyRoadkill1 He ruled as a fascist but left the country industrialized and democratic. In Mexico, by contrast, democracy -- or anarchism, or revolution, or some damn thing -- won. It then evolved over the same period into barely post-medieval fascism. "Hated for eternity"? Uh, not quite.
1
@easley421 Trump loses again. And again. And again...
1
@luisernestomoralescruz5385 Got a fact handy there, Lou?
1
@stephenmcewanFREEDOM Their. It's.
1
@donaldmiller8629 Thank you, Corporal Bonespurs Miller.
1
@stevebrindle1724 No, Steve. Start by thinking about health insurance. Then maybe voting rights? Then start reading your history, OK?
1
@donaldmiller8629 Donald, You''re distorting history, starting with a wee bit of truth and then stopping with that little bit. The KKK supported the Dixiecrat or Southern Democratic parties from its founding after the Civil War through the beginning of the New Deal. FDR was its enemy, and it withered slowly from the 1930s onward. It has been weak, but supported the Republican Party, in the South through Nixon's Southern Strategy, and in the North, in Indiana and other states where it had a robust existence. As you said, "You may want to be careful about encouraging people to read their history. Especially from about 1855 onward." And particularly from 1962 onward. Best wishes. Wash yer hands, eat your green veggies, and good luck. Especially with your history. Here are some starting points for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/26/what-we-get-wrong-about-southern-strategy/ https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater
1
@donaldmiller8629 Guess you didn't have time if your busy schedule to read the articles I suggested. Pity. No, the Southern Strategy had nothing to do with seceding from the US: it was the strategy of detaching the racist Dixiecrats from the Democratic Party and attaching them to the Republicans. Now go and do your homework and you'll be ready to enter the discussion.
1