PDA

View Full Version : Who most resembles 'Nazis'?


SeniorChief
08-17-2009, 06:28 AM
This is so true/accurate of the path Obama is taking this country down. Seig Heil !

This is going to be, shall we say, "a controversial column."

Outfits like the George Soros-subsidized Media Matters will have a field day with it – excerpting passages out of context, deliberately distorting the words I am carefully choosing and, in typical knee-jerk fashion, mocking its premise.

Cable TV propagandists posing as "newsmen" will hurl invectives and dub me as a villain for expressing my honest and candid opinions – all of which are based on reality and truth.

Lately, both sides of the political spectrum have suggested their political opponents resemble Nazis or fascists. Are both sides equally wrong?

Let's talk about "national socialism" – because that, indeed, is exactly what Barack Obama and his friends in the Congress are actively promoting and enacting in America today.

The very word "Nazi" is indeed an acronym for national socialism – the political and economic system Hitler infamously imposed on Germany in the 1930s. It was then and remains today, despite the denials historical revisionists, a "left-wing" idea. All socialism is, by definition, a left-wing notion.

If the left-right political spectrum has any meaning, it is that those on the left tend to favor government intervention while those on the right favor non-government solutions to problems. That is the traditional and accepted definition – much as those on the left would like to blur that understanding.

National socialists, whether they seek to kill Jews or old people or the disabled or unborn babies, will always be national socialists – no matter what kind of lipstick they put on the pig.

Furthermore, people like our Founding Fathers, who sought to diffuse power because they understood its unchecked and unlimited centralization represented a grave threat to personal liberty represent the polar opposite of national socialists.

While it may be an overstatement to compare Obama with Hitler, it is even more far-fetched to characterize his political opponents as Nazis and fascists because they very clearly want to limit the size and scope of government – preferring that people be free to government themselves to the greatest extent possible.

Obama has power. His opponents, for the most part, do not. Furthermore, Obama seeks to use his power to impose policies that have, like it or not, a striking resemblance to those Hitler promoted in the 1930s.

Like what?

Abortion

Infanticide

Government deciding life-and-death issues in dispensing medical care for both older people and those with serious illnesses;

Unfair treatment of Jews, in Obama's case, with regard to Middle East conflict;

So-called public-private partnerships – blurring the line between government responsibilities and the private sector. This is one of the definitions of fascism;

Picking winners and losers among corporations and the dispensing of government favors and punishments to them;

Hiring and firing of supposedly private corporation executives;

Attacking free expression;

Secrecy

Using taxpayer funds for the hiring of political partisans to "organize" communities and sign up new voters;

Demonizing political opponents;

Encouraging citizens to "rat out" friends, family members and others who oppose his policies;

Keeping tabs on political opponents;

Filling top government posts with like-minded political extremists who would normally be regarded as internal security threats;

Ignoring the Constitution;

Blaming his predecessor and the fundamentals of the American political and economic system for all the problems besting the country;

I mean, I could go on and on. George W. Bush and other predecessors in the White House had their faults. Some of them did terrible things, showed incredibly bad judgment, made horrible mistakes. But I can think of no precedent for someone in the White House doing all of the above at once – all of which bear striking parallels to the leadership of infamous fascists such as Benito Mussolini and Hitler.

Worse, the leaders of his party and his acolytes in the media can see no danger posed by any of these policies. In fact, like good Germans, they blame the opposition in the most disgusting, vile ways – often unfairly accusing them of doing what they themselves do.

Why is it acceptable for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say American citizens attending congressional town halls are swastika-carrying thugs, but wrong for her political opponents to point out the similarities between her party's policies and those of Nazi Germany?

Why is it acceptable for Gary Trudeau of Doonesbury fame to compare those who want to see Barack Obama's birth certificate with Adolf Hitler, but wrong for his political opponents to point out the similarities between the way the president and Democratic Congress are attempting to squelch dissent and grab unchallenged, unchecked power and the way fascists of the past have?

Why is it acceptable to accuse Americans devoted to preserving their constitutional republic of resembling neo-Nazis, but wrong for those same Americans to point out the death-worshipping, eugenics-friendly notion of government health care rationing?

Am I calling Obama a little Hitler, a Nazi or a fascist?

I am saying American liberty faces very serious challenges from the country's own leadership – not from citizens who dissent against those policies. That's what happened in Weimar, Germany, too.

To ignore history would be to commit one of the same sins that was committed in the 1930s – and every time totalitarianism has reared its ugly head before or since.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=107095

kres24GT
08-17-2009, 07:39 AM
If you are voting for Republicans or Democrats you are voting for a fascist police state.

John Galt
08-17-2009, 09:37 AM
Whereas all forms of govt./society are nothing more than philosophies, I don't think we should be so quick to throw terms like "Socialist", and "Socialism" around. There are aspects of Socialism that work well.

Llikewise, Democracy, in theory, should be a great philosophy. Yet, it seems that it morphs into Capitalism, or Corporatocracy rather easily.

Somewhere out there, is a perfect blend of philosophies. The bullshit fear mongering that gets passed off as genuine concern for this country is a disgrace.


Case in point....It would be considered Socialist, if the govt. gave the TARP money directly to the people who had toxic mortgages. They could've paid off the bank....giving the bank liquidity. Then, they would owe the govt. a loan payment.

Instead, we gave the money to AIG, who wrote billions in bonuses, and then gave a bit of it to the troubled banks. AIG came up with a product that made millions for many investors. They cry, when the system collapsed, and they couldn't make good on this product?


We should've let AIG go down, and done what I mentioned above.


But THAT would be Socialism.





Get over it already.

SeniorChief
08-17-2009, 09:39 AM
Instead, we gave the money to AIG......



We?? :lmao2:

This "we" doesn't have anything to do with Obama's fuck-ups, friend.

It's all on him.

John Galt
08-17-2009, 09:47 AM
We?? :lmao2:

This "we" doesn't have anything to do with Obama's fuck-ups, friend.

It's all on him.
You wanna clarify this for me? Are you saying TARP was passed under Obama?

MintJulep
08-17-2009, 09:59 AM
Whereas all forms of govt./society are nothing more than philosophies, I don't think we should be so quick to throw terms like "Socialist", and "Socialism" around. There are aspects of Socialism that work well.

Llikewise, Democracy, in theory, should be a great philosophy. Yet, it seems that it morphs into Capitalism, or Corporatocracy rather easily.

Somewhere out there, is a perfect blend of philosophies. The bullshit fear mongering that gets passed off as genuine concern for this country is a disgrace.


Case in point....It would be considered Socialist, if the govt. gave the TARP money directly to the people who had toxic mortgages. They could've paid off the bank....giving the bank liquidity. Then, they would owe the govt. a loan payment.

Instead, we gave the money to AIG, who wrote billions in bonuses, and then gave a bit of it to the troubled banks. AIG came up with a product that made millions for many investors. They cry, when the system collapsed, and they couldn't make good on this product?


We should've let AIG go down, and done what I mentioned above.


But THAT would be Socialism.





Get over it already.
We should have let AIG and all of them go down. I doubt things would be any different than they are right now.

John Galt
08-17-2009, 10:27 AM
We should have let AIG and all of them go down. I doubt things would be any different than they are right now.
The banks....not so much. Although, most of the smaller, community banks didn't get involved in the sub prime mess. Truthfully, it was mostly the brokerage houses...and lord knows we can't let them fail!

I think things would've been very different right now. The banks would've already had money to lend, although they should've been required to severely alter the toxic terms of the loans.

There wouldn't be entire neighborhoods of vacant homes, that are full of squatters that have seized the opportunity.

Pure speculation, but I guess we'll never know.

We should have let AIG go down. Yes...my plan would mean that we have a new govt. agency that has to oversee all of the loans that were made to the consumers, but for the money that was handed out in AIG/Bank bonuses, we could've run that agency for years.



To the OP....yelling ridiculous catchphrases is counterproductive. There's a bit of good to be found in many different govts.. We are in dire straits right now. To dabble in a little Socialism, might be the answer. It doesn't mean that we need to go overboard.




For 8 years we heard that tax cuts create jobs.....I don't remember that happening. Catchphrases, and fear mongering does very little good in the real world.

It does keep the post count up, on message boards though.

SeniorChief
08-17-2009, 10:36 AM
To the OP....yelling ridiculous catchphrases is counterproductive.

I didn't author the piece - I merely agree with it.

Bill Cosby
08-17-2009, 11:04 AM
We should have let AIG and all of them go down. I doubt things would be any different than they are right now.

bush started the bailouts & Obama has rolled w/ it.........

I have very mixed feelings on it...But we don't really know what would have happened had bush just let them fail...

John Galt
08-17-2009, 11:24 AM
I didn't author the piece - I merely agree with it.
I didn't think you wrote it, and for all of its flaws, you are entitled to agree with it.

I just didn't understand your last post? I was discussing TARP money, and you informed me that it was "All on Obama". I don't understand your point.


TARP was Bushco's baby. I guess that makes Bush the socialist. Hitler was on a mission to spread communism. Bush was on a mission to spread democracy, while using similar tactics as Hiltler.

But...you are certainly free to draw your own conclusion, as is the numbskull that penned your OP.


Now, I'll wait for you to explain how TARP was "all on Obama".

John Galt
08-17-2009, 11:25 AM
bush started the bailouts & Obama has rolled w/ it.........

I have very mixed feelings on it...But we don't really know what would have happened had bush just let them fail...
He could've let AIG fail, while allowing the lenders to remain afloat.

Thai Kimchi
08-17-2009, 11:50 AM
We?? :lmao2:

This "we" doesn't have anything to do with Obama's fuck-ups, friend.

It's all on him.


Uh, Chief Foodstamp, Obama wasn't around when your simian hero gave AIG the cash.

You on the sauce again, big fella?

SeniorChief
08-17-2009, 11:55 AM
I just didn't understand your last post? I was discussing TARP money...


Probably why you're confused.
I was discussing AIG, then you defaulted to TARP, Bush, the usual left-winged default.
The topic here is Obama = Naziesque Socialism.

Now you're back on topic.

You're welcome.

Thai Kimchi
08-17-2009, 12:22 PM
Probably why you're confused.
I was discussing AIG, then you defaulted to TARP, Bush, the usual left-winged default.
The topic here is Obama = Naziesque Socialism.

Now you're back on topic.

You're welcome.

Hey, Chief. Take off those silly looking shades and read what's being posted.

Bush/Paulson slipped AIG the cash. What part of that don't you understand, big fella?

Hog Trash
08-17-2009, 01:05 PM
A few things the left believe's in;

[1] Big centralized government

[2] Socialism

[3] Gun control

[4] Media control

[5] Silencing dissenters

[6] Brainwashing the young

Basicly the same things the nazis believed in.

John Galt
08-17-2009, 01:06 PM
Hey, Chief. Take off those silly looking shades and read what's being posted.

Bush/Paulson slipped AIG the cash. What part of that don't you understand, big fella?
Every time I try to have an intelligent discussion with these boneheads, I get the same dumb responses.

This is a new board for me...I thought the resident right wingers just might be capable of meaningful discussion.

My bad.

Thai Kimchi
08-17-2009, 01:12 PM
Every time I try to have an intelligent discussion with these boneheads, I get the same dumb responses.

This is a new board for me...I thought the resident right wingers just might be capable of meaningful discussion.

My bad.


I'm new as well, John. From what I've gathered there are 3-4 dumb-as-rocks righties here, and the usual sprinkling of born-again Libertarians who coincidently never heard of GWB.

If you enjoy debunking Faux News propaganda.......easy targets here.

Bill Cosby
08-17-2009, 01:47 PM
We got a few rocks.. But hey they are our rocks.......LOL

& we luv them no matter how nuts they may be.........:lmao2: :lmao2:

I think for me & I think you & some others here as well, there is an interest in exploring & questioning ideas...... Even lord forbid some of our own...

That can be troubling & perhaps problematic for some...

disrupter
08-18-2009, 09:06 AM
Unconstitutional, right wing, corporate fascists = NAZIs.