Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OK Vern, Let's dissect the Nazi Platform:
7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
Aren't the zombified persecuting Our Mexican Alien Friends; Aren't the Know Nothings demanding that aliens be excluded from Obama's Hellcare. Didn't President Hoover expatriate Hispanics of Mexican Descent even if they were US Citizens?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
.
Had to go all the way back to Hoover?
Lets just nip this in the bud here.
Just because certain parts of Hitler's, the Nazi,'s Stalin's, the Communist's (fill in the blank with your favorite hated regime in history) platform happens to be pretty analogous to certain parts of a modern American political party's platform does not mean that the modern American political party is comparable to all that those regimes stood for. If the Nazi's declared that water is indeed wet, does that then make it evil that H2O tends to actually be a bit moist? If the Nazi's wanted a strong military, does wanting a strong military make one a Nazi? If the communists did not want religion in the government, does that make wanting a non-religious government communistic?
It's intellectually dishonest. And those that purvey this view are either a) knowingly intellectually dishonest themselves b) trolls or c) just plain stupid.
Multiple choice. Take yer pick.
I see, so the fact that the US has a huge welfare/warfare state apparatus is a mere coinkidink ?
.
Right after the word "so" was where you took a flying leap.Were.Also, the "Confederates" were straight up democrats. Republicans were the abolitionists.
Operative word there.
so republicans are in favor of putting blacks in chains? MMMMMMk.
Were.Also, the "Confederates" were straight up democrats. Republicans were the abolitionists.
Operative word there.
so republicans are in favor of putting blacks in chains? MMMMMMk.
For a new perspective, perhaps you should consider not starting your next presumption with so.Right after the word "so" was where you took a flying leap.so republicans are in favor of putting blacks in chains? MMMMMMk.
so you were defending the democrats, not attacking the republicans in that statement?
I'm going to take a wild guess at "Not Lincoln's" for $200.Were.
Operative word there.
so republicans are in favor of putting blacks in chains? MMMMMMk.
Well, modern day Republicans are openly talking about secession. Which political side of 1860 would that put them on?
For a new perspective, perhaps you should consider not starting your next presumption with so.Right after the word "so" was where you took a flying leap.
so you were defending the democrats, not attacking the republicans in that statement?
Do you imagine I am their leader or something?For a new perspective, perhaps you should consider not starting your next presumption with so.so you were defending the democrats, not attacking the republicans in that statement?
perhaps you should tell your liberal friends on here to stop calling the republican party the "confederate party".
Self-description is not a sufficient validation, unless you consider the Soviet-controlled German "Democratic" Republic or the "People's Republic" of China to be legitimately such. Even the populist elements of the Nazi party weren't legitimately socialist, and they were all destroyed on the Night of the Long Knives anyhow.
perhaps you should tell your liberal friends on here to stop calling the republican party the "confederate party".
I'm going to take a wild guess at "Not Lincoln's" for $200.so republicans are in favor of putting blacks in chains? MMMMMMk.
Well, modern day Republicans are openly talking about secession. Which political side of 1860 would that put them on?
For a new perspective, perhaps you should consider not starting your next presumption with so.so you were defending the democrats, not attacking the republicans in that statement?
perhaps you should tell your liberal friends on here to stop calling the republican party the "confederate party".
why don't we just stick to comparing hitler to hitler.In fact, he went after them before he started exterminating Jews. So, who hates communism, socialism, and homosexuals more, democrats, or republicans. Here is an excerpt from a book, you know, a good, historical account, rather than a right-wing idiot paid to mislead you, so you can get all irritated about something that isn't even true, and look like a dummy.
Begin excerpt:
Perhaps to emphasize this anti-capitalist focus, and to align itself with similar groups in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the party changed its name in February 1920 to the National Socialist German Workers Party; hostile commentators soon abbreviated this to the word Nazi, just as the enemies of the Social Democrats had abbreviated the name of that party earlier on to Sozi. Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of or an outgrowth from, Socialism. True, as some have pointed out, its rhetoric was frequently egalitarian, it stressed the need to put common needs above the needs of the individual, and it often declared itself opposed to big business and international finance capital. Famously, too, anti-Semitism was once declared to be the socialism of fools. But from the very beginning Hitler declared himself implacably opposed to Social Democracy and, initially to a much smaller extent, Communism: after all, the November traitors who had signed the Armistice and later the Treaty of Versailles were not Communists at all, but the Social Democrats and their allies.
The National Socialists wanted to unite the two political camps of the left and right into which, they argued, the Jews had manipulated the German nation. The basis for this was to be the idea of race. This was light years removed from the class-based ideology of socialism. Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism, borrowing much of its rhetoric in the process, from its self-image as a movement rather than a party, to its much-vaunted contempt for bourgeois convention and conservative timidity. The idea of party, suggested allegiance to parliamentary democracy, working steadily within a settled democratic polity. In speeches and propagandas however, Hitler and his followers preferred on the whole to talk of National Socialist movement, just as the Social Democrats had talked of workers movement or, come to that, the feminists of the womens movement and the apostles of prewar teenage rebellion of youth movement. The term not only suggested dynamism and unceasing forward motion, it also more than hinted at an ultimate goal, an absolute object to work towards that was grander and more final than the endless compromises of conventional politics. By presenting itself as a movement, National Socialism, like the labor movement, advertised is opposition to conventional politics and is intention to subvert and ultimately overthrow the system within which it was initially forced to work.
By replacing class with race, and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the dictatorship of the leader, Nazism reversed the usual terms of socialist ideology. The synthesis of right and left was neatly symbolized in the Partys official flag, personally chosen by Hitler in the mid-1920s: the field was bright red, the color of socialism, with the swastika, the emblem of racist nationalism, outlined in black in the middle of a white circle at the centre of the flag, so that the whole ensemble made a combination of black, white, and red, the colors of the official flag of the Bismarckian rejection of the Weimar Republic and all it stood for; but by changing the design and adding the swastika, a symbol already used by a variety of far-right racist movements and Free Corps units in the postwar period, the Nazis also announced that what they wanted to replace it with was a new, Pan-German racial state, not the old Wilhelmine status quo.
The Coming of the Third Reich, by Richard J. Evans pp. 173-74
I might just add, there was a entirely different party, called the Socialist Party, in Germany. Nazis were "National Socialists." They were nationalist, country first above all things, you must believe my ideas, or watch what you say, we'll torture you, kind of people. They were Fascists, not Socialists, and Fascism is that endpoint of the spectrum when Republicans keep on moving to the right, as they did during the Bush years.
I would say I'm surprised that people can be so uninformed, but with FOX, Limbaugh, and the host of other misinformation sites out there, I understand it perfectly. They are willing to fine a quick flash of Janet Jackson's nipple, but they allow corporate media to flood the airwaves with lies, and misinformation, without penalty. No wonder?
Do you imagine I am their leader or something?For a new perspective, perhaps you should consider not starting your next presumption with so.
perhaps you should tell your liberal friends on here to stop calling the republican party the "confederate party".
Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews?
Wow, sounds like a Republican. Don't they hate all those things?
I bet that's why all the KKK and the Aryans belong to the Republican Party, or as some now refer to it, the "Confederate Party".
I think I've heard everything the Confederate Party is against, besides forced religion and tax breaks for the rich, what are they for?
and you sound like an idiot. but you always sound like an idiot, so you're shooting par.
Yea, okay, so I'm an idiot. But still, KKK and Aryans consider themselves more Republican than Democrat. Republicans want school prayer, tax breaks for the rich. Republicans hate Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals and are not very fond of the Jews. Republicans are anti education (they want to teach "mysticism" is equal to "science").
And for those that say Hitler wanted a "final" solution and neither Democrats or Republicans are like that, I believe it's only because of the law. If Republicans thought they could enforce a "final solution" against the gays, does anyone believe that wouldn't? If they had the opportunity? You only have to read what they believe on this site alone.
All you have to do is a search on "Gay final solution Republican" and you get lots of people like Scott Renfroe:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsQZiKyJgmw]YouTube - Scott Renfroe Compares Being Gay to Murder[/ame]
I just wish I understood why Republicans are so dishonest.
The Dems or Repubs are nothing like Nazi's or Hitler and all we do when try to compare them is creating fear.
BTW, Peta wants all humans off the face of the planet as do most environmentalist groups.
