Nazism in the US predated WW2. The origins of what would be called Nazism (fascism and racial purity) existed at the founding of America. What is the small font UM?

Your claim that Operation Paperclip was the source of American Nazism is patently false.

But they are no longer “statistically meaningless

Your premise is that German scientists from Operation Paperclip are the reason we have fascism today. Given that there was already an American Nazi party before Operation Paperclip and the number of German scientists brought from Germany was insignificant, that premise is false.

are saying the fascist government cannot be fixed from the inside

That’s a completely separate argument that has nothing to do with your claim that Operation Paperclip is why the US is fascist today.

I’m saying America had Nazis before Operation Paperclip and Paperclip had no effect on American Nazis.

All American scientists aren’t Maga. All German scientists weren’t die hard Nazis. And even if they were it was so small as to be statistically meaningless.

It does. What is absurd is your use of Operation Paperclip as the example of American evil and the source of modern American nazism.

1600 scientists out of 139 Million Americans is what made America fascist? Come on. America had 10,000 members of the American Nazi party before WW2. Not to mention that not all of those scientists were die hard Nazis just like all American scientists aren’t MAGA.

America has done really bad things. Bringing up Paperclip is weird. A bunch of nazi scientists were moved out of Germany. And?

Von Braun used slave labor. He should have stood trial. That’s brainwashing?

Palapatine was never in the Sarlaac?

I had that sweatshirt, desk, bookshelf, PC case, and ceiling light. I didn’t have the gun or I’d be freaking out.

You quoted me! Nothing in your quote shows what you claim.

??? What exactly did I change? I’m always going back and fixing typos and adding clarification because people always nitpick if you don’t write a paragraph explaining the definition of every word.

I certainly didn’t change the meaning.

I agreed with your claim that Chinese could take over but reiterated my original claim that the OP’s idea that no one anywhere would make ram was wrong.

If I remember correctly what I added was a statement that agreed with your claim about the Chinese so my reply wouldn’t appear to be combative. But even without that addition, there was no way to read my statement into whatever you imagined.

If my statements are in conflict then explain a situation where all companies, Chinese or otherwise, refuse to make consumer ram after the AI bubble pops?

PC Component vendors will NOT stop selling parts and customers will NOT stop building PCs because that is leaving money on the table.

??? I am baffled by your rebuttal because that was exactly my claim.

It was the OP who claimed that a stock price drop would cause companies to stop making all ram of any type.

That’s a definite possibility. But the op proposed that PC component vendors stock price would drop and therefore no one would build PC parts.

Chinese companies could fill the void if Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron are slow to switch back. But there is no situation where companies simply stop taking money. However I believe that after the bubble pops, ram prices will not go back to the same price they were last year. Everyone will have to pay more and Chinese companies will be happy to take that extra money too.

If shares drop enough, another company with cash on hand buys them.

Shares aren’t revenue. The bubble pops, investors lose money, companies go back to selling PC components.

I had no idea he was a Carradine. I knew his face from Revenge of the Nerds but that was it.

He looked at total deaths.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200719070432if_/https://www.ippnw.org/pdf/medact-iraq-2002.pdf

“Iraqi casualty figures are not known, but number at least 30,000. Some estimates are as high as 100,000.” https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/gulf-war

I finally rediscovered the source of my idea that Obama was better than Bush: This research paper made the circles 10 /+ years ago:

https://www.academia.edu/6515361/Presidents_Body_Counts_The_Twelve_Worst_and_Four_Best_American_Presidents_Based_on_How_Many_Lived_or_Died_Because_of_Their_Actions

conclusion is that they’re roughly the same.

If you ignore it was 8 years vs 4.

And we’re still have the “During the nationwide uprisings against the Ba’athist Iraqi government that directly followed the end of the Gulf War in March and April, an estimated 25,000 to 100,000 Iraqis were killed, overwhelmingly civilians.[253]”

That’s direct death, not the lack of food/medicine mentioned kn the next paragraph: “A Harvard University study released in June 1991 predicted that there would be tens of thousands of additional Iraqi civilian deaths by the end of”

So ignoring the indirect death there’s still 25k direct death added to the bombing deaths.

The total death toll for each is well over 100k.

One is higher than the other.

So there is no difference between Guilani and Mamdani because both have deaths from police action under their leadership? 1 or 100 is the same?

Come on, now you’re not even talking about the right war.

You are right, I referenced the wrong source. I’m remembering the links from 15years ago when I had this argument with conservatives on Reddit who were pushing the idea that Obama was the worst president ever.

25,000 to 100,000 Iraqis were killed, overwhelmingly civilians

In other words, the 100k figure includes indirect deaths.

You cannot take a Harvard study about predicted deaths from lack of medical care and then say that reported civilian deaths from war were from indirect.

If you are going with direct civilian killings from Obama then you use the column labeled “Civilians killed as a result of U.S.-led military actions” from the earlier link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001-2021)

For example: “The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) attributed 596 Afghan civilian deaths as having been caused by international-led military forces in 2009, representing about a quarter of the 2,412 Afghan civilian deaths it recorded as having been caused by the war in 2009.”

I was including indirect for Obama.

100k figure includes indirect deaths, from things like losing power or access to medicine.

You keep imagining excuses to make Obama as bad as Bush:

100k isn’t indirect. It is direct violent death.

“Population-based studies produce estimates of the number of Iraq War casualties ranging from 151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006”

“The Iraq Body Count project documents 186,901–210,296 violent civilian deaths in their table.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

I have looked at every single source you have provided.

You said I used military when the link said civilian. You said, “But Bush is estimated.” when the Obama link also said estimated.

Where did you cite, for instance, direct civilian casualties in the Gulf War?

We only have estimates for both.

I’m not positively asserting that Obama caused more deaths than Bush Sr, I just found that claim questionable and was curious where you got it from.

Which I provided yet you continue to fight.

Based on the sources you’ve provided, the total death toll of Afghanistan was probably about twice that of the Gulf War, and roughly half of Afghanistan happened under Obama.

That isn’t true based on reported estimates.

Estimated 29k under Obama is not roughly equal to estimated 100k under Bush Sr.