Iowa Tea Party group's sign links Obama with Hitler. Some tea partiers are condemning it. (how much, ideology)

[ozzie679]

Originally Posted by monkeywrenching

but hitler didnt like the jews, and I dont see obama supporting Israel.

Didn't Israel get their welfare check this month? I think Obama supports Israel just fine

Give it up on the Hitler thing. Look at the poll numbers

[zuendel]

btw, on the question of gun control, I have to side with workingclasshero over bighoss14. The Gun Control Act of 1938 is quite clear on this.

The Nazis implemented strict control on gun possession (and even re-loading of guns with new ammunition). The goal was to starve possible opponents/insurgencies/targeted parts of the population of a means of self defence. It might be noteworthy that these targets mostly were jews, communists, and other 'inferior' people.

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by skoro

Explain how any of those has fundamentally changed America and affected you negatively.

How's this....

He spent (printed or borrowed) more money than all other Presidents before him combined.

He has apologized for America in every country that he's visited and doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. How many people want to live "The Russian Dream", or "The Iranian Dream" or "The Indonesian Dream"?

This affects America's standing in the world negatively and weakens us as a Nation.

[Old Gringo]

Anyone comparing Obama to Hitler is exposing themselves as:

1. Ignorant of Obama

2. Ignorant of Hitler

3. Ignorant of history

4. Ignorant of events over the past 4-5 years in America

Face it, it's just a very ignorant thing to do.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

Anyone comparing Obama to Hitler is exposing themselves as:

1. Ignorant of Obama

2. Ignorant of Hitler

3. Ignorant of history

4. Ignorant of events over the past 4-5 years in America

Face it, it's just a very ignorant thing to do.

Ahhh.................... there we have it. The refuge of the liberal is to label everyone who does not embrace the insanity of liberalism as "ignorant", "stupid", or a "racist".

Again, I believe that reflexive response is on page 47 of the liberal playbook (written by Lenin and Bill Ayers).

"When confronted with uncomfortable facts and information which point out the hypocrisy and lunacy of your core liberal beliefs, do not be confused by the facts. Despite the facts, your are right! Your response should be to shout "idiot" or "racist" and walk away from the debate. Such responses will show your firm command of the facts and your superior debating skills".


Gringo-

I have over a thousand books on WW2 and have read the history of the Third Reich as well as that of Stalin quite extensively. Given your cursory knowledge of these characters and the fact that you embrace a modern version of them, it is not inconcievable that these parallels are not apparent to you. Read a little more about Hitler and Stalinism and perhaps your eyes will be opened. However, I am not holding my breath, as it is easier to do nothinig, walk away, and shout "idiot" or "racist", just as the liberal handbook commands.

[zuendel]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

I have over a thousand books on WW2 and have read the history of the Third Reich as well as that of Stalin quite extensively. Given your cursory knowledge of these characters and the fact that you embrace a modern version of them, it is not inconcievable that these parallels are not apparent to you. Read a little more about Hitler and Stalinism and perhaps your eyes will be opened. However, I am not holding my breath, as it is easier to do nothinig, walk away, and shout "idiot" or "racist", just as the liberal handbook commands.

Sir, assuming these and previous claims of thorough knowledge of this era are true, you show an alarming tendency of intellectual dishonesty.

In earlier posts, you have claimed that Hitler was a socialist, used a radical environmentalism, advocated class warfare and villified the rich as central part of his program among other things.

As I think I have shown quite clearly, this is simply not true.

You either

a) know about the falsehood of these facts but decide to ignore it to attack the current president of the US.

or b) really think that what you claim is true, in which case I suggest you re-read some of your books, as you seem to have misunderstood basic points.

I sincerely hope that b) is the correct option here, otherwise you would seem to be guilty of distorting historical facts for a partisan smear-campaign without any grounding in reality.

I do not wish to engage in partisan bickering here, this discussion should be about the veracity of an alleged comparison of Hitler and Obama. So far, this allegation doesn't seem to hold any water. Please stick to historical facts.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by zuendel

let's see:

wrong, that's not in the 25 points

MAYBE I worded wrong

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

25. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.


has a very close resemblence to 'nationalizing'

Originally Posted by zuendel

wrong, that's not in the 25 points

well while it not in the 25 points, it does go back to the 1920 law and was reissued with the 1938 law

Originally Posted by zuendel

Originally Posted by workingclasshero
blame the jews (or the modern version 'the zionists')

partially true/wrong; there's no actual blaming in the 25 points, but one could argue that the jews are explicitely being excluded from benefits/targets of proposed actions against, and therefore this point might be valid.

4. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.

Originally Posted by zuendel

wrong, that's not in the 25 points

7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

Originally Posted by zuendel

wrong, that's not in the 25 points

correct not in the 25 points...but still in the laws

When the Nazis came to power in 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year. Although Hitler and his government encourged Aryan women to produce a lot of children, he left the matter of abortion and all its facets in the hands of a decidely pro- abortion medical establishment. Even in the midst of Nazi propaganda aimed at increasing the Aryan population, scores of Aryan women still chose to abort their unborn children. The medical publication Deutsches Aerzleblatt reported the abortions in Germany each year reached a half-million.

Further, a Nazi decree of October 19, 1941 established abortion on demand as the official policy of Poland. Hitler, however, expressed dissatisfaction with this policy. Abortion, he believed, should NOT be limited to Poland. He therefore ordered that abortion be expanded to all populations under the control of the "Ministry of the Occupied Territories of the East."

On July 22, 1942, the Fuhrer exhibited a highly positive attitude towards abortion as an indispensable method of dealing with the non-German populations in countries under Nazi control. "In view of the large families of the native populations," he asserted, "it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible." Hitler also personally announced that he "would personally shoot" any "such idiot" who "tried to put into practice such an order (forbidding abortion) in the occupied Eastern territories.

Originally Posted by zuendel

wrong, that's not in the 25 points

again, while not in the 25 points, was still within the realm of hitler and the nasi's

The state performer in antismoking propaganda was Adolf Hitler. As one magazine put it: "brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?"

In Nazi Germany, for instance, abstinence from tobacco was a "national socialist duty" (Hitler gave a gold watch to associates who quit the habit, though this didn't stop them lighting up in the Berlin bunker once they heard the Fuhrer had committed suicide). Armed with such senior sanction -- loyally, Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler banned SS men from smoking, though not shooting, on duty, and Propaganda Minister Joseph Gobbels was obliged to hide his ciggie whenever he was filmed -- anti-tobacco activists succeeded in banning smoking from government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces. Tobacco taxes were raised, unsupervised cigarette vending machines were banned, and there were calls for a ban on smoking while driving.

Thanks to the Ministry of Science and Education, and the Reich Health Office, posters were produced depicting smoking as the typically despicable habit of Jews, jazz musicians, Gypsies, Indians, homosexuals, blacks, communists, capitalists, cripples, intellectuals and harlots. Zealous lobbyists descended into the schools, terrifying children with tales of impotence and racial impurity.

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League

On 20 June 1940 Hitler ordered tobacco rations to be distributed to the military "in a manner that would dissuade" soldiers from smoking.(24) Cigarette rations were limited to six per man per day, with alternative rations available for non-smokers(for example, chocolate or extra food). Extra cigarettes were sometimes available for purchase, but these were generally limited to 50 per man per month and were often unavailable-as during times of rapid advance or retreat. Tobacco rations were denied to women accompanying the Wehrmacht. An ordinance on 3 November 1941 raised tobacco taxes to a higher level than they had ever been (80-95% of the retail price).Tobacco taxes would not rise that high again for more than a quarter of a century after Hitler's defeat.(26)





the original point is that if you look at the 'talking points' of TODAY"S liberals. and look at the nasi's...you can see a big simularity


I would never compare the dictatorship or inhuman or evilness of hitler to obama or the liberals...but to compare a national socialist agenda to the liberals is at least in the ballpark

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by zuendel

Sir, assuming these and previous claims of thorough knowledge of this era are true, you show an alarming tendency of intellectual dishonesty.

In earlier posts, you have claimed that Hitler was a socialist, used a radical environmentalism, advocated class warfare and villified the rich as central part of his program among other things.

As I think I have shown quite clearly, this is simply not true.

You either

a) know about the falsehood of these facts but decide to ignore it to attack the current president of the US.

or b) really think that what you claim is true, in which case I suggest you re-read some of your books, as you seem to have misunderstood basic points.

I sincerely hope that b) is the correct option here, otherwise you would seem to be guilty of distorting historical facts for a partisan smear-campaign without any grounding in reality.

I do not wish to engage in partisan bickering here, this discussion should be about the veracity of an alleged comparison of Hitler and Obama. So far, this allegation doesn't seem to hold any water. Please stick to historical facts.

Sir-

I have shown on repeated instances that your "contentions" are false, yet you choose to ignore that information. Simply becuase you ignore the information and cover your ears does not refute or diminish the facts.

It is you, as you are blinded by your allegience to Obama, who cannot process the information of the past and present. Like the throngs of adoring citizens of Nazi Germany, blinded by thier love for the Fuhrer, people turned a blind eye to what was going on around them. I guess you, in the tradition of that practice, choose to ignore the practices of Obama.

I notice that you are from Switzerland, which may explain some of your views, as these have been developed over a period of time and is reflection of the pervasive attitudes of many Swiss citizens. Did it ever occurr to you why the US, and not Switzerland, has been the engine for economic growth and global liberty for the last 100 years?

[Jaymie]

Should have used Mussolini

[zuendel]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Sir-

I have shown on repeated instances that your "contentions" are false, yet you choose to ignore that information. Simply becuase you ignore the information and cover your ears does not refute or diminish the facts.

Your proof consisted of links to

a) a blogger who wrote an opinion piece without providing sound links (and who also showed his wit by writing "if Hillary is reading this right now, I'm sure her penis er...a... her nipples are hard [...]"). A valid and serious source indeed.

b) a minor candidate in the Republican primary for the US Senate election in 2010, which in one sentence claims that "Hitler's message was a message of class warfare directed against the wealthy jews", without providing links or sources. Again, a valid and serious source indeed.

c) an article from Nov. 1939 that even discusses the unreliability of its own data. But it is at least a half-decent try at scientific procedure, even if newer studies might have proven more fruitful.

Of these three, I'll concede the third as valid source (even if it might be flawed/outdated). The other two are complete rubbish.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

It is you, as you are blinded by your allegience to Obama, who cannot process the information of the past and present

You mistakenly attribute me with an allegiance to Obama. I'm not a citizen of the USA, and therefore not pledged to any of its leaders.

Furthermore, while sympathetic to Mr. Obama, I do not see his presidency as a succesful one at this point, and there are many topics on which I disagree with his policies.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

I notice that you are from Switzerland, which may explain some of your views, as these have been developed over a period of time and is reflection of the pervasive attitudes of many Swiss citizens

I don't quite follow, but I suspect this is meant as a condescending comment. Feel free to judge Switzerland or myself any way you like, but be aware that this behaviour is very demeaning.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Did it ever occurr to you why the US, and not Switzerland, has been the engine for economic growth and global liberty for the last 100 years?

Ruthlessness? Size of army? Willingness to defend economic and ideological interests by force all around the world? Something completely different? You tell me...

Oh, and don't bother with the 'Gnomes of Zürich', the 'Nazi gold in swiss banks' and all the other amoral things Switzerland is known for, I'm aware of these and in no way endorse them. But neither will I be held accountable for it.

So far your posts have shown no intellectual honesty, which I consider disappointing, since you claim to have a high IQ and to be well-educated.

I had hoped it would be possible, for once, to have something like a serious discussion of facts and validity thereof. Obviously, I was gravely mistaken.

Have a nice day, zuendel