Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

catoismymotor (< 20)

Why some might compare Obama to Hitler.

Recs

27

October 04, 2009 – Comments (48) | RELATED TICKERS: MOO , CALM , FEEDQ

The Democrat party has grown more and more socialist over the decades. Obama is a socialist and is the figurehead of the party since he has been elected to sit in our big chair. The Nazi Party was also socialist. And Hitler, a socialist and Nazi, was the figurehead of the party since he was put in Germany's big chair . The following is a direct quote from from Nazi literature. It sounds much like what you might hear a DNC conference.

 

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good." – From the political program of the Nazi Party, adopted in Munich, February 24, 1920

 

For the record I do not believe that Obama is Hitler incarnate. I do not care for his politics but do not think of him as being anything close to evil. Should I ever be invited to attend a dinner at the Executive Mansion (yeah, like that will happen) I would do so graciously out of respect for the office of the president. I believe as a parent with children in school we would have much to talk about. 

 

For those of you that wish to bash me for not thinking he is the son of evil the line forms to my left. For those of you that wish to bash me for thinking that socialism is a bad idea for this country the line form to my right. 

 

Cato the Insomniac

48 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 04, 2009 at 2:32 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

+ 1 Rec from myself because I am a shameless self promoter. ;v)

Report this comment
#2) On October 04, 2009 at 2:48 AM, ozzfan1317 (82.26) wrote:

I don't agree that democrats are trying to promote socialism however there are parts of policies on both sides I dislike. I have a high opinion of Obama as a person and leader. Nice blog +1 Rec

Report this comment
#3) On October 04, 2009 at 3:24 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." 

Barack Obama Sr. -from this paper:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

Maybe the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.  

Report this comment
#4) On October 04, 2009 at 8:11 AM, xferjenx (36.10) wrote:

The Nazi's are all socialist, but all socialists are not Nazi's.  The Democratic Party is mostly socialist and at the very least - anti-capitalist.  But the Democratic party is also a pacifist party - something Hitler and the Nazi's were not.  Obama is a hardcore socialist and a puss and both qualities make me want to puke.

Report this comment
#5) On October 04, 2009 at 8:22 AM, JohnBFontaine (< 20) wrote:

Those on the right always neglect to mention that Hitler believed that socialism was a right-wing ideology:

"1. 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, eve to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it.

Munich speech, April 12th, 1921

Also, when the Nazi's mention 'the people' they mean 'Aryans'. Since the Nazi's insane plot was to literally conquer the world, the German/Aryans had to function as a unit, as opposed to individuals.

Report this comment
#6) On October 04, 2009 at 8:31 AM, G8BigBoom (68.44) wrote:

Has anyone here even read Mein Kampf?

Report this comment
#7) On October 04, 2009 at 8:48 AM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

"The earth continues to go round, whether it’s the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man.  The stronger asserts his will, it’s the law of nature.  The world doesn’t change; its laws are eternal.” -Hitler

"And while the law [of competition] may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it ensures the survival of the fittest in every department." -Andrew Carnegie

 

 Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."  -Barack Obama (according to NOTvuffet)

 Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth, the man who would make his fortune no matter where he started. -Ayn Rand (explaining the harmlessness of a 100% inheritance tax, whether she knew it or not)

 

The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child.  Both are inventions of the Jew -Hitler

If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject. -Ayn Rand

"If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." -Jesus 

 

"You can drive off either side of the same road" -Devoish

Report this comment
#8) On October 04, 2009 at 9:14 AM, JohnBFontaine (< 20) wrote:

" The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity " was from the discredited book: Hitler's Table Talk

Report this comment
#9) On October 04, 2009 at 9:14 AM, JohnBFontaine (< 20) wrote:

" The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity " was from the discredited book: Hitler's Table Talk

Report this comment
#10) On October 04, 2009 at 9:32 AM, corycareful (40.37) wrote:

Although there is a social aspect to Nazi fascism, it is a superficial and ignorant point to call them socialists, especially considering that Obama is from the left. Of the early groups, it was communists and socialists that Hitler and his Brownshirts were intent on destroying (literally destroying through murder and vandalism), even before the Nuremberg laws were passed, which begun the long and terrible road to the Holocaust. In fact, Nazis were opposed to all centrist and leftist movements, including little 'r' republicanism (the halmark of U.S. politics), because it was a radically rightist (read conservative) movement that makes the religious right look like good leftists. Hitler wanted to return to a pure German utopia, whatever that may have looked like to him.

The socialistic aspect of Nationalsozialistische, referred not to "socialism" as in government intervention, but in the socializing nationalism, Germanizing the country. That the government would aim to ensure that only who and what were german would be used, and taught - hence the need for public schoolin. 

On the note of public, government sponsored schooling movement was beginning world-wide - most fervently in the very capitalist U.S. - at the time.For both it was seen as a tool. In the U.S advocates of government sponsored education argued that this helped train workers to follow commands, be passive, follow authority (I'm not making this up) - in other words good workers. Hitler's was very much the same justification, only that they would make good Germans. 

Further, the U.S. has ALWAYS been socialist. Anything this side of Laisseze Faire capitalism is socialist. National Parks, child labor laws, federal subsidies, the highway act, a national army, navy, and airforce, panama canal, disaster relief, environmental protection, missile defense, No Child Left Behind (which is the biggest attempt to force the regulation of educational standards in decades, perhaps ever in this country) are all socialist.

So the idea that Obama as a new president is radically overturning a good capitalist country is either (or both) wildly disingenuous, or grossly ignorant of history, of politics, and economics. Either way it leads people to be fearful and irrational, like little children looking every which way for monsters lurking under their beds and in closets - they know they're there. Their fear is real, but there's no monsters. Obama is no Nazi.

 

Report this comment
#11) On October 04, 2009 at 9:34 AM, vriguy (81.27) wrote:

Devoish: Notvuffet quoted Barack Obama Sr. Your attempt to imply that the quate was from the President is sneaky and underhanded.  There is plenty wrong with the Dems policies that you could criticize honestly.

Report this comment
#12) On October 04, 2009 at 9:40 AM, starbucks4ever (98.95) wrote:

They share the goals and the rhetoric, but not the methods.

Report this comment
#13) On October 04, 2009 at 9:50 AM, G8BigBoom (68.44) wrote:

Thats a no.

Report this comment
#14) On October 04, 2009 at 9:53 AM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

Devoish: Notvuffet quoted Barack Obama Sr. Your attempt to imply that the quate was from the President is sneaky and underhanded.

It may have also been a mistake. As per the title of the post, my thoughts were of the President, not his father, and I missed the change of subject in NOTvuffets post. If I could correct my reply and credit Barack Obama Sr, I would. Thanks for catching my error.

Johnbfontaine,

"Hitlers Table talk" was credited as the source of the quote.

 

Report this comment
#15) On October 04, 2009 at 10:03 AM, mawnck (< 20) wrote:

Some small minds will never get over the "commie/not commie" duality way of thinking. These people are in for a very bad time.

Let's go over some of the things in the OP's Nazi quote.

Medical care for the aged.

Support of small businesses.

Education for all.

Prohibiting child labor.

Physical education.

So, um, because all these things are in a Nazi political program, then we have to do the opposite?

And your conclusion is that the Democrats, who are right now performing a spectacular display of selling out their constituents, have become MORE Socialist? Seriously?

Now you know why some might compare Obama's opponents to nitwits.

Report this comment
#16) On October 04, 2009 at 10:03 AM, G8BigBoom (68.44) wrote:

Hitler did not like what he was seeing happen to his country. Much the same as what is happening today. Parents taking no responsibility to raise kids to appreciate knowledge and show others proper respect. He hated all the bastard children from all the prostitutes. Seeing how the government really only placed barriers in front of its people instead of removing them. Yes his hatred for the Jews was completely wrong and unfounded. It would be comparable to blacks and whites today. Whites have all the jobs and opportunity and the black man has none. I am white and do not believe this to be true. But really what most annoyed him was how worthless government really was. How the successful politician to be successful must avoid all the important issues otherwise he/she would be cut down. Why do you think almost everyone voted against the gay Craig in less than a week or two? He even has a little part in the book that is much comparable to Obama today. Either way the book is a spectacular study on politics and how easy the mass is to control. You will notice after reading it many politicians of today have read in depth.  

  Report this comment
#17) On October 04, 2009 at 10:18 AM, whereaminow (45.39) wrote:

The theory of aggregate production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory.[i - John Maynard Keynes, German edition of Genreal Theory 1936

Keynesianism loves the total state.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#18) On October 04, 2009 at 10:24 AM, OneLegged (< 20) wrote:

Why is it that noone ever complains about the socialism that is public schools or the U.S. sytem of roads and highways etc etc etc etc? 

Report this comment
#19) On October 04, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Mekooh (< 20) wrote:

I don't agree that the US has ALWAYS been socialist -- but it sure has been since FDR's reign.

I agree that the current administration is not Nazi, but there are similarities in philosophy of today's left-wing in the US and the Russian Communists, German Socialists and Italian Fascists during the first part of the 20th century.  A book called Liberal Fascism draws these lines very clearly. I find it interesting that American Progressives pre-World War 2  thought that the Fascists in Italy got it correct -- including those in FDR's administration.

Report this comment
#20) On October 04, 2009 at 11:20 AM, bigcat1969 (93.06) wrote:

Power always desires more power.  There is no government power in the dead center.  Power must drift to the right or to the left to gain more power.  In the end there is a closed loop where left and right meet and that is at a place of total government control.  Short of war there is little money to be made in a state dominated by government, so eventually a society will revert (often violently) to the less government side of the loop.  That is starving subjects will always eventually revolt in some form and the total government system will break.  If Hitler had won, Germany would not today control the world anymore than Russia does.  His state would have started crumbling very quickly as he hated his allies, the Japanese, and he couldn't have held Russia if he had captured it.

The current administration has continued a swing toward Socialism, but as others have noted this has been occurring in fits and starts for almost a century.  If you step back beyond your party, you will see than Bush the first, Clinton, Bush the second and Obama are all very much cut from the same cloth in certain respects.  All are pushing us toward a more government controlled state that is somewhat answerable to a global authority, while still keeping the business of business rolling along to support that dream.  In the end this government controlled, business backed economy cannot work.

Clinton signed the bill that repealed the Glass-Steagall act, while Bush the second desired No Child Left Behind.  Those moves make no sense if you insist on look at the parties as strictly left and right and opposed to each other.

Report this comment
#21) On October 04, 2009 at 12:19 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

# 18 - I complain about the government school system often. But most of time it is not on TMF. I am of the opinion that most of us see the the system is broken. And the highway system is in a poor state of repair. Many of us called out WTF! when the first stimulus did not include pick and shovel projects that would set about mending things. For too long too many administrations have ignored the problems, as with schools.

Report this comment
#22) On October 04, 2009 at 12:28 PM, leohaas (33.49) wrote:

So this great country is moving to the left. Isn't that a natural thing after it moving to the right for 8 years? This is a pendulum swinging back and forth. No doubt it will swing back to the right some day. The question is when and how far.

The Hitler comparisons are utterly inappropriate and offensive. Deep in their hart, the people uttering them know that. OK, some of them don't but they are just ignorant about history. The reason they make these kinda comparisons is because they truely hate Obama and everything he stands for. And they will do whatever they can to obstruct him while in power and discredit him to get him out of power.

This is nothing new or unique to the right-wing zealots. The Hitler comparisons come from the same deformed brains that argue Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is a fraud. And on the left, plenty of deformed brains argue that 9/11 was instigated by the Bush administration. What really scares me is that so many people believe this kinda sh!t...

Report this comment
#23) On October 04, 2009 at 1:08 PM, ReadEmAnWeep (38.03) wrote:

-1 rec for all the close minded ****s that grace us with their presence on TMF. FYI, I'm talking about "both sides".

Report this comment
#24) On October 04, 2009 at 1:09 PM, ozzfan1317 (82.26) wrote:

Btw I have read Mein Kampf and its is a fascinating account also I agree that it is an unfair and innapprpiate comparison.

I also agree that the conspirac theorists on both sides should seriously consider seeking psychological help. 

Report this comment
#25) On October 04, 2009 at 1:50 PM, russiangambit (29.31) wrote:

When people talk about socialism like it is some sort of  evil thing that has a purpose to destroy eveything, I just roll my eyes.

Hitler's regime, no matter what it was called, was totalitarian, not socialist. The same as Stalin's was totalitarian, not communist.

Look at the actions, not words.

In my opinion, pure capitalism is much closer to the evil than socialism. Socialism looks to mitigate the consequences of capitalism that are while acceptable in wild nature, are not acceptable in theman society. Like dying from hunger because you don't have a job.

Report this comment
#26) On October 04, 2009 at 2:08 PM, janis1023 (< 20) wrote:

#24, I totally agree with you.  The Cobra change initiated by Obama has enabled my family to keep Health Insurance that we could not possibly afford otherwise.  I have diabetes, Hemochromatosis, severe allergies, angioedema and vasculitis.  I hope he can get eliminate the preexisting condition rule, or get universal coverage available by the time Cobra runs out or I am screwed. 

At 57, never before have I personally benefited from ANY government changes.

 American Airilines just cancelled health insurance assistance to non-union retirees over 65.  Basically they are telling a group too old to get a job and new insuance to drop dead.  The Union retirees are safe.

How can the Republicans continue to demonize help that people seriously need? 

It is beyond my imagination.

 Janis1023

 

Report this comment
#27) On October 04, 2009 at 2:11 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

leohaas, I agree the Obama=Hitler comparisons are foolish, just as the Bush=Hitler ones were.

I have no reason to doubt that President Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country.  I simply disagree with him on almost everything.  Well, I cheered when he called Kanye West a jackass, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS56IHK75d0

I also disagreed with Bush on many things, for example his failure to veto irresponsible spending bills (which by the way came from both a congress controlled by Republicans and Democrats during his 2 terms).

Report this comment
#28) On October 04, 2009 at 2:40 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Janis1023, I agree something that something needs to be done about the pre-existing condition situation, I was denied coverage for a relatively minor one once even when I told them I didn't expect them to cover any costs associated with it.  I am sorry you have been afflicted with these conditions.

We must have some lawyers out there, isn't there some way the federal government could allow insurance companies to compete in all 50 states?  Could they use the interstate commerce clause?  Competition should minimize costs.

Report this comment
#29) On October 04, 2009 at 3:05 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

I now realize I should have said that Hitler in the beginning was a totalitarian masquerading as a socialist in order to gain public favor. 

I appreciate everyone giving feedback and debating in response to my blog. I don't think I have had this many comments before.

Report this comment
#30) On October 04, 2009 at 3:28 PM, AvianFlu (33.73) wrote:

The intent of socialism is noble. It purports to protect the individual from all the misfortunes that can befall a person in life. Unfortunately, it's application runs counter to human nature...and always will. It is an utter failure. Education, medical care, help for the homeless etc should all be left to charities, individuals, and the private sector. This system worked well in the past and can work well again in the future. They are much more efficient and less prone to massive fraud. Plus, this is more in tune with individual freedom and choice.

Report this comment
#31) On October 04, 2009 at 4:38 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

AvianFlu, while I disagree with you that all those things should be left entirely to the private sector, I do think the private sector does a much better job than government because it has has a profit/loss feedback mechanism. 

Sorry that I can't find it now, but in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations", he makes a case that by persuing our own interests, we benefit the community as a whole.  Of course, we could look at Maslow's hierachy of needs, and see how acts of altruism are to pursue ones own interests.  Or even Nietzsche.

Report this comment
#32) On October 04, 2009 at 4:55 PM, AvianFlu (33.73) wrote:

NOT:

You are correct. Adam Smith was the among the first to point out that individuals pursuing their own selfish goals inadvertently provide a great benefit to society as a whole, even though this was not there intention. This is his "invisible hand" concept. Smith makes for difficult reading, but his case, as stated through Milton Friedman is much easier to understand. To argue intelligently either for or against this idea it is smart to view some pertinent interviews with Milton Friedman on YouTube. There is a half hour interview from the 1960's that is just a gem. Wish I had the link for you.

Report this comment
#33) On October 04, 2009 at 6:01 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Thank you AvianFlu for that suggestion, I think I found a link to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE

Adam Smith is a bit hard to read because of the arcane language in it.

Report this comment
#34) On October 04, 2009 at 6:27 PM, RainierMan (75.28) wrote:

Wow. Rigorous. Insightful. Creative.

Not.

Like we don't have enough tin foil hat bloggers on this increasingly silly site. 

If you want to draw comparisons between Obama and whomever or whatever, fine. Pulling a quote out of the your...uhm...book, and concluding this proves your point is juvenile. You copy a quote. Wow. Amazing. What a genius. 

We live in the age where any yahoo can connect to the internet and...wah-lah...."I am a researcher"!

"Look, Ma, I'm a blogger"!

"Hey, everyone, look at me! I have a stupid unsupported idea too!!"

And then you give yourself a "rec". And point it out for everyone. Way too much time your hands. 

Good job, Cato. You have added to the growing gazillion terabytes of essentially useless nonesense.

 

 

Report this comment
#35) On October 04, 2009 at 7:13 PM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

Adam Smith was the among the first to point out that individuals pursuing their own selfish goals inadvertently provide a great benefit to society as a whole, even though this was not there intention.

There's an idea that doesn't always pan out if ever there was one. And certainly it is not a hope I would base economic policy on.

Report this comment
#36) On October 04, 2009 at 7:25 PM, whereaminow (45.39) wrote:

devoish,

Damn straight.  Those evil capitalist pigs and the money interests are only in it for themselves right?  And the helpless, beautiful, guilt free, completely innocent poor only care about the good of the masses right?  And Michelle Obama has 26 maids because she wants to provide for full employment right?  And the Kremlin had the right idea.  And Plato too!

Down with the Capitalists! 

Or something like that.  Can I join your little crew of nutjubs now?

David in Qatar  

Report this comment
#37) On October 04, 2009 at 8:25 PM, devoish (97.62) wrote:

No David,

Not right. Very well exaggerated, but not right. Of course all your arguments sound better when you exaggerate for the other guy.

Please stop doing that.

Report this comment
#38) On October 04, 2009 at 9:34 PM, SkepticalOx (99.46) wrote:

-1 Rec (the Fool should get a thumbs up/thumbs down rating system for blogs)...

No wonder people think libertarians are living in lala-land. Its posts and comments like these that continue to keep these idealistic nutjobs at the fringe.

Report this comment
#39) On October 04, 2009 at 11:46 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

SkepticalOx,

 

I think it is interesting how much attention you pay to the "idealistic nutjobs at the fringe." If we are so easy to dismiss as "nutjobs" why not just waltz past libertarian driven blogs. Surely we are so small and harmless that we don't warrant your attention and commentary. 

 

Cato 

 

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson (1801), a idealistic nutjob at the fringe.

 

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#40) On October 05, 2009 at 4:16 PM, AvianFlu (33.73) wrote:

Note:

Thomas Jefferson was a democrat, if I'm not mistaken. This just points out how much the democrat party has changed over time.

In fact, the entire political spectrum has moved greatly to the left. Today's republicans are like yesterday's democrats. Today's democrats are like yesterday's communists. There is nobody who represents the philosphy of yesterday's republicans except maybe libertarians, and they are only a tiny sliver of the population.

Report this comment
#41) On October 05, 2009 at 4:57 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

AvianFlu,

I believe that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no way interferes with any other men's rights. – Abraham Lincoln

This quote expresses much the same idea, but from the mouth of a Republican, a mere sixty years later. It is odd how the parties have changed and continue to do so.

Have a good evening,

Cato

Report this comment
#42) On October 10, 2009 at 12:06 AM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.73) wrote:

Dude, it is never cool to compare someone to Hitler.

I'm not even Jewish and I was offended.

That being said this seems like a good forum for one of my favorite quotes.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"

Winston Churchill. 

Report this comment
#43) On October 10, 2009 at 12:21 AM, JibJabs (90.35) wrote:

This is absurd. Grow up and gain some perspective. Read your history.

Report this comment
#44) On October 10, 2009 at 12:28 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

I get a great amount of pleasure seeing how people dont read or misread what I posted. I did this the other day and man did it ever make me look like a a$$. I clearly stated that I thought compairing Obama to Hitler was WRONG!!! I was merely pointing out how some, those I disagree with, might make this inaccurate comparison. So for comments 42, 34, and 23, you three need to re-read my blog and cut back on the coffee. It makes your fingers fly faster than you are thinking. If you re-read my blog and still believe what you wrote is correct I will happily point you to a new line meant just for you.

I appreciate all the feedback, even from those with caffeinated fingers.

Report this comment
#45) On October 10, 2009 at 12:29 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

# 43 - Consider yourself in the new line.

Report this comment
#46) On October 10, 2009 at 12:39 AM, JibJabs (90.35) wrote:

Okay- here's the problem that I have with your post. "Hitler" is a loaded word. Yes, some of his rhetoric was strikingly similar to the causes of the Democrats in America. They are also strikingly similar to a great many politicians in the West throughout the nineteenth century. Hitler was strikingly representative of an era. He was also a strict vegetarian and cared deeply for animal rights. Why don't we compare the similarities between Hitler and PETA? That might yield some more intriguing parallels.

I did not misunderstand you. I simply think it is absurd and needlessly provocative to begin comparing the Obama with Hitler, even at a superficial level that you disagree with. It accomplishes nothing.

Report this comment
#47) On October 10, 2009 at 12:58 AM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.73) wrote:

I got the point of your blog.

Just thought the headline was inflamitory. when you put the words Obama and hitler together that just seems like sensationlsm.

You may be right that I don't give enough time before posting.

But I would never drink coffee I'm a Budman

Report this comment
#48) On October 10, 2009 at 1:17 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

# 46 - I am glad to read that you "simply think it is absurd and needlessly provocative to begin comparing the Obama with Hitler..." I agree! I was talking about what others are thinking and a possible reason for it. I was trying to help others understand the point of view of a few loud wingnuts. If we do not talk about such things they get worse. That is why we have the freedom of speech. If you think this dialogue "accomplishes nothing" then so it.

"He was also a strict vegetarian and cared deeply for animal rights. Why don't we compare the similarities between Hitler and PETA? That might yield some more intriguing parallels"

 

Yep, it would. Here are my offerings:

Hitler would have approved of Peta, the creepy animal rights fanatics

 PETA vs. the NAACP

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement