How we know Hitler was right wing.

[Quantum Windbag]

Can't happen?

How did Truman get away with locking up the Japanese in WWII?

How did Bush get away with setting up Guantanamo and then refusing to set people free when ordered to do so by the courts?

Should I go on?

Was it not FDR that placed Americans in camps?

Aye, it was, and three-fifths of them were US citizens, and it was an absurd overreach of power.
But it incites me to ask myself this: "who on this board is finding it impossible to admit that he is wrong?"

That was quick. Live by the snark....

Can't be me, i just admitted I was wrong in the last two posts I made.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Aye, it was, and three-fifths of them were US citizens, and it was an absurd overreach of power.
But it incites me to ask myself this: "who on this board is finding it impossible to admit that he is wrong?"

That was quick. Live by the snark....

That would be you and your sidekick Saigon.

Uh-huh.
So remind me again -- which of us posted that "Truman locked up the Japanese"?

Which of us admitted he fucked that up?

Do you not understand the difference between making a mistake and not admitting you made one? Saigon is the guy who said every historian and every history book, yet who still has not admitted he was wrong.

 

[beagle9]

The thread is entirely ridiculous, how anyone can paint Hitler, left or right is beyond me. He took many different stands and molded it into a disgusting government. But he used political agendas from conservatives and progressives and perverted it all.

Now we are on to claiming how Obama is like Hitler, which is entirely stupid.

Only partisans that have an agenda would think Hitler was right or left, that Obama or Bush was like Hitler.

The stupidity of some of you is just nuts.

Why is it entirely stupid ? If he begins doing the things in his politics that Hitler began doing (perverting everything left and right in usery there of), and doing this to muddy the waters so we can't keep up or pin-point what he is up to at all times, then is it not wise to look at the attributes and actions of a leader in order to possibly understand where his politics might be leading him and us in the process ? What happened to Obama's claim as to become one of the most transparent governments we would know under his leadership ? Was Hitler transparent ?

Because Obama, as much as I dislike the guy, is not close to a Hitler. It isn't just him that keeps playing the left vs. right card, it has been going on for years.

Every politician makes promises they never keep or intend to keep, transparency was one of those and I stated it from the get go.

Hitler wasn't transparent, neither is Obama and neither was Bush.

Trying to compare the last two Presidents to Hitler is just plain stupid.

Well then trying to compare anyone to anyone is just plain stupid by your standards, and I think that is just plain stupid as well, so touché....This is why history has a way of repeating itself, because of people like you who protect someone with special treatment, but someone like Bush was wide open fair game for the left, even calling him Hitler expecting no retort in return, but man when one of their own is constructively criticized, everyone who is a stanch supporter wants to rewrite history in order to suit their end game if they have to.. In what way do you think the comparisons are being made here? I mean it is nothing personal to be found in the comparing, but rather just comparing policy and policy making or laws attempting to be passed, in which could lead to many things, even what Hitler may have enjoyed in his controlling of that nation in many ways, and you think we should just turn a blind eye to that sort of thing eh ?

 

[westwall]

Can't happen?

How did Truman get away with locking up the Japanese in WWII?

How did Bush get away with setting up Guantanamo and then refusing to set people free when ordered to do so by the courts?

Should I go on?

Was it not FDR that placed Americans in camps?

Aye, it was, and three-fifths of them were US citizens, and it was an absurd overreach of power.
But it incites me to ask myself this: "who on this board is finding it impossible to admit that he is wrong?"

That was quick. Live by the snark....

Not me. What he did was every bit as bad as what Hitler and Stalin did....just not to the same scale. Thankfully. However, his is the model that will be used when the government decides to do it again...and i fear that that time is coming soon, much sooner than I ever thought it would.

 

[Papageorgio]

Can't happen?

How did Truman get away with locking up the Japanese in WWII?

How did Bush get away with setting up Guantanamo and then refusing to set people free when ordered to do so by the courts?

Should I go on?

Was it not FDR that placed Americans in camps?

Aye, it was, and three-fifths of them were US citizens, and it was an absurd overreach of power.
But it incites me to ask myself this: "who on this board is finding it impossible to admit that he is wrong?"

That was quick. Live by the snark....

Wrong about what? Hitler was neither right or left, he was an authoritarian and a mental case which transcended political affiliation.

 

[Papageorgio]

Why is it entirely stupid ? If he begins doing the things in his politics that Hitler began doing (perverting everything left and right in usery there of), and doing this to muddy the waters so we can't keep up or pin-point what he is up to at all times, then is it not wise to look at the attributes and actions of a leader in order to possibly understand where his politics might be leading him and us in the process ? What happened to Obama's claim as to become one of the most transparent governments we would know under his leadership ? Was Hitler transparent ?

Because Obama, as much as I dislike the guy, is not close to a Hitler. It isn't just him that keeps playing the left vs. right card, it has been going on for years.

Every politician makes promises they never keep or intend to keep, transparency was one of those and I stated it from the get go.

Hitler wasn't transparent, neither is Obama and neither was Bush.

Trying to compare the last two Presidents to Hitler is just plain stupid.

Well then trying to compare anyone to anyone is just plain stupid by your standards, and I think that is just plain stupid as well, so touché....This is why history has a way of repeating itself, because of people like you who protect someone with special treatment, but someone like Bush was wide open fair game for the left, even calling him Hitler expecting no retort in return, but man when one of their own is constructively criticized, everyone who is a stanch supporter wants to rewrite history in order to suit their end game if they have to.. In what way do you think the comparisons are being made here? I mean it is nothing personal to be found in the comparing, but rather just comparing policy and policy making or laws attempting to be passed, in which could lead to many things, even what Hitler may have enjoyed in his controlling of that nation in many ways, and you think we should just turn a blind eye to that sort of thing eh ?

Obama has not had the over reach in power that Hitler had, not even close. neither did Bush, they both were so much better than Hitler. Also, Obama will be history in less than four years. So, if he is in power four years from now, we have something to discuss, however, it won't happen.

 

[Pogo]

That would be you and your sidekick Saigon.

Uh-huh.
So remind me again -- which of us posted that "Truman locked up the Japanese"?

That's a side issue, isn't it?

It is, but you just tried to pin it on me and Saigon. Now that I correct you, it's suddenly "a side issue". Typical.

Tell us who said this:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."​

Oboy! A quiz! Hope it's an open-internet quiz, because I got this -- I know you want the full context...



The term Nazism is an abbreviation of National Socialism, and the Nazis sometimes described their views as socialist (42), although they strongly rejected Marxism, communism, internationalist socialism, Social democracy and Socialist anarchism, calling them "Jewish ideologies". The Nazi German government outlawed and persecuted both the Social Democratic and Communist parties.

Historian Henry A. Turner argues that Adolf Hitler was a convinced anti-socialist, and that the Nazis were merely nationalists using the adjective socialist out of convenience. (43) Conan Fischer, also a historian, argues that the Nazis were sincere in their use of the adjective socialist, but that they believed it to be inseperable from the adjective national, and meant it as a socialism of the master race, rather than the socialism of the "underprivileged and oppressed seeking justice and equal rights"(44)

In 1922, Hitler defined a socialist as "whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own-- [such that] nothing in the world surpasses in his eyes this German people and land." (45). In 1927, Hitler said:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."​

In 1929, however, Hitler called socialism "an unfortunate word altogether" and said that "if people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism". According to Turner, Hitler was expressing regret for having integrated the word "socialism" into his party's name. (46) The more left-wing faction of the Nazi Party, which advocated socialistic programs like nationalization, was eliminated in 1934 during the Night of Long Knives.
-- Socialism/Google Books

-- so there you go, there actually were Nazi socialists, until they were put down in 1934. Bfgrn has been telling you that here for days. The Nazis used the term "national socialism" to mean a hyperpatriotic nationalism, not a national socialism. I've been telling you that for days. Hitler actually persecuted and eliminated those that we today call socialists. We've all been telling you that for days.

More...
It was to only try and wean some of the working class support over to him that he made references like he did to socialism. And that never really worked, the Nazis always had the least support from the working class.

In that particular section of the book Toland is discussing Hitler's use of propaganda and his oratory style. He starts out by stating that the Berlin Nazi party (or Gau) was in disarray at this time and Goebbels was sent to straighten out the situation. He found that "The thousand party members under his jurisdiction were opposed on the streets by overwhelming numbers of Communists and Social Democrats."

The course of action they decided on was to do everything they could to pick fights and to basically 'Red Bait' the Leftists in order to enflame violence, and to use propaganda to confuse the masses to try and weaken the real Left. "Goebbles decided it was now time to broaden the base of membership and to do that he had to attract the attention of the jaded public, "Berlin needs its sensations as a fish needs water", he (Goebbels) wrote" (ibid p223) So the best way they decided to inflame the situation was for violent action "SA troops deliberately sought out physical combat with the Reds," (Ibid p224) and for Hitler to give a speech on May Day. And not only that, but to give speeches in meeting halls that were taken over from the Communists. ""Making noise" he (Hitler) once said, "is an effective means of opposition"" (Ibid p224)

And that is the true light that the quote must be taken as, making noise to provoke. False propaganda meant to inflame. Fights were started and the Newspapers proclaimed that there was this little known party, as it was not very large in Berlin at the time, fighting the Communists and Socialists. "The publicity was meant to be derogatory but in the next few days 2600 applications for membership were received," (Ibid p224) So this all served their purpose.

... Notice a couple of things here, first that he only uses one line calling himself a socialist and this is meant to inflame the Socialists and the rest of the Left, just get publicity and to confuse those that may not know the reality behind their party. The latter of which Hitler makes clear in his detailed policy of Lebensraum which has nothing to do with socialism. So not only does he merely state without any justification that he is a socialist, he makes it clear that his policy is not a socialist one but a racial and colonial one. -- "We are socialists" debunked



Now here's one for you-- who said:
""The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." --?

 

[Pogo]

Was it not FDR that placed Americans in camps?

Aye, it was, and three-fifths of them were US citizens, and it was an absurd overreach of power.
But it incites me to ask myself this: "who on this board is finding it impossible to admit that he is wrong?"

That was quick. Live by the snark....

Wrong about what? Hitler was neither right or left, he was an authoritarian and a mental case which transcended political affiliation.

That's a snark-back to Windbag. He used the "wrong" line and then proceeded to have Harry Truman rounding up Japanese, so I threw it back at him. It was off topic.

 

[beagle9]

Because Obama, as much as I dislike the guy, is not close to a Hitler. It isn't just him that keeps playing the left vs. right card, it has been going on for years.

Every politician makes promises they never keep or intend to keep, transparency was one of those and I stated it from the get go.

Hitler wasn't transparent, neither is Obama and neither was Bush.

Trying to compare the last two Presidents to Hitler is just plain stupid.

Well then trying to compare anyone to anyone is just plain stupid by your standards, and I think that is just plain stupid as well, so touché....This is why history has a way of repeating itself, because of people like you who protect someone with special treatment, but someone like Bush was wide open fair game for the left, even calling him Hitler expecting no retort in return, but man when one of their own is constructively criticized, everyone who is a stanch supporter wants to rewrite history in order to suit their end game if they have to.. In what way do you think the comparisons are being made here? I mean it is nothing personal to be found in the comparing, but rather just comparing policy and policy making or laws attempting to be passed, in which could lead to many things, even what Hitler may have enjoyed in his controlling of that nation in many ways, and you think we should just turn a blind eye to that sort of thing eh ?

Obama has not had the over reach in power that Hitler had, not even close. neither did Bush, they both were so much better than Hitler. Also, Obama will be history in less than four years. So, if he is in power four years from now, we have something to discuss, however, it won't happen.

Are you suggesting that Obama isn't capable of trying to reach certain heights of power, and these are heights that move upwards far beyond what many in this nation would have wanted to see or experience ? He may not be able to reach to far as you say, but he did say once, that "this day America will be fundamentally changed", so what do you think he meant by that speak ? His wife said it "was the first time she was proud of her country" when he was elected, and what did that mean ? Are these two on a mission that many in America didn't bargain for when elected, or are they just proud to be where they are at today in America, and are very humble and honest when speaking in these ways in which they have now since spoken in ? We shall continue to monitor and see I guess, so hey don't be surprised now when you see some wild and interesting moves happening or maybe not, in which you have never seen before or have seen before, in fact you have already seen some stuff you have never seen before probably now, and so the jury is still out as to whether or not the people will stand for it or might try and rebuke it in the end, or maybe even accept it all in the end who knows, but that is another campaign on down the road a ways, so it's a wait and see game until then right ?

 

[Pogo]

Well then trying to compare anyone to anyone is just plain stupid by your standards, and I think that is just plain stupid as well, so touché....This is why history has a way of repeating itself, because of people like you who protect someone with special treatment, but someone like Bush was wide open fair game for the left, even calling him Hitler expecting no retort in return, but man when one of their own is constructively criticized, everyone who is a stanch supporter wants to rewrite history in order to suit their end game if they have to.. In what way do you think the comparisons are being made here? I mean it is nothing personal to be found in the comparing, but rather just comparing policy and policy making or laws attempting to be passed, in which could lead to many things, even what Hitler may have enjoyed in his controlling of that nation in many ways, and you think we should just turn a blind eye to that sort of thing eh ?

Obama has not had the over reach in power that Hitler had, not even close. neither did Bush, they both were so much better than Hitler. Also, Obama will be history in less than four years. So, if he is in power four years from now, we have something to discuss, however, it won't happen.

Are you suggesting that Obama isn't capable of trying to reach certain heights of power, and these are heights that move upwards far beyond what many in this nation would have wanted to see or experience ? He may not be able to reach to far as you say, but he did say once, that "this day America will be fundamentally changed", so what do you think he meant by that speak ? His wife said it "was the first time she was proud of her country" when he was elected, and what did that mean ? Are these two on a mission that many in America didn't bargain for when elected, or are they just proud to be where they are at today in America, and are very humble and honest when speaking in these ways in which they have now since spoken in ? We shall continue to monitor and see I guess, so hey don't be surprised now when you see some wild and interesting moves happening or maybe not, in which you have never seen before or have seen before, in fact you have already seen some stuff you have never seen before probably now, and so the jury is still out as to whether or not the people will stand for it or might try and rebuke it in the end, or maybe even accept it all in the end who knows, but that is another campaign on down the road a ways, so it's a wait and see game until then right ?

Dude, you're obsessed.

Once again the topic is Hitler, not O'bama -- even if that's the reverse of the usual course, that's what it is. You're trying an interesting but irrelevant fallacy here: Godwin's Law in reverse.

Hitler was an aberration, an outstanding historical exception. You don't make comparisons between a contemporary sound bite quote and a guy who destroyed Europe and committed genocide. You don't make comparisons to Hitler unless you have at the very least a near-Hitler. We don't. Get over it already.

 

[beagle9]

Uh-huh.
So remind me again -- which of us posted that "Truman locked up the Japanese"?

That's a side issue, isn't it?

It is, but you just tried to pin it on me and Saigon. Now that I correct you, it's suddenly "a side issue". Typical.

Tell us who said this:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."​

Oboy! A quiz! Hope it's an open-internet quiz, because I got this -- I know you want the full context...



The term Nazism is an abbreviation of National Socialism, and the Nazis sometimes described their views as socialist (42), although they strongly rejected Marxism, communism, internationalist socialism, Social democracy and Socialist anarchism, calling them "Jewish ideologies". The Nazi German government outlawed and persecuted both the Social Democratic and Communist parties.

Historian Henry A. Turner argues that Adolf Hitler was a convinced anti-socialist, and that the Nazis were merely nationalists using the adjective socialist out of convenience. (43) Conan Fischer, also a historian, argues that the Nazis were sincere in their use of the adjective socialist, but that they believed it to be inseperable from the adjective national, and meant it as a socialism of the master race, rather than the socialism of the "underprivileged and oppressed seeking justice and equal rights"(44)

In 1922, Hitler defined a socialist as "whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own-- [such that] nothing in the world surpasses in his eyes this German people and land." (45). In 1927, Hitler said:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."​

In 1929, however, Hitler called socialism "an unfortunate word altogether" and said that "if people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism". According to Turner, Hitler was expressing regret for having integrated the word "socialism" into his party's name. (46) The more left-wing faction of the Nazi Party, which advocated socialistic programs like nationalization, was eliminated in 1934 during the Night of Long Knives.
-- Socialism/Google Books

-- so there you go, there actually were Nazi socialists, until they were put down in 1934. Bfgrn has been telling you that here for days. The Nazis used the term "national socialism" to mean a hyperpatriotic nationalism, not a national socialism. I've been telling you that for days. Hitler actually persecuted and eliminated those that we today call socialists. We've all been telling you that for days.

More...
It was to only try and wean some of the working class support over to him that he made references like he did to socialism. And that never really worked, the Nazis always had the least support from the working class.

In that particular section of the book Toland is discussing Hitler's use of propaganda and his oratory style. He starts out by stating that the Berlin Nazi party (or Gau) was in disarray at this time and Goebbels was sent to straighten out the situation. He found that "The thousand party members under his jurisdiction were opposed on the streets by overwhelming numbers of Communists and Social Democrats."

The course of action they decided on was to do everything they could to pick fights and to basically 'Red Bait' the Leftists in order to enflame violence, and to use propaganda to confuse the masses to try and weaken the real Left. "Goebbles decided it was now time to broaden the base of membership and to do that he had to attract the attention of the jaded public, "Berlin needs its sensations as a fish needs water", he (Goebbels) wrote" (ibid p223) So the best way they decided to inflame the situation was for violent action "SA troops deliberately sought out physical combat with the Reds," (Ibid p224) and for Hitler to give a speech on May Day. And not only that, but to give speeches in meeting halls that were taken over from the Communists. ""Making noise" he (Hitler) once said, "is an effective means of opposition"" (Ibid p224)

And that is the true light that the quote must be taken as, making noise to provoke. False propaganda meant to inflame. Fights were started and the Newspapers proclaimed that there was this little known party, as it was not very large in Berlin at the time, fighting the Communists and Socialists. "The publicity was meant to be derogatory but in the next few days 2600 applications for membership were received," (Ibid p224) So this all served their purpose.

... Notice a couple of things here, first that he only uses one line calling himself a socialist and this is meant to inflame the Socialists and the rest of the Left, just get publicity and to confuse those that may not know the reality behind their party. The latter of which Hitler makes clear in his detailed policy of Lebensraum which has nothing to do with socialism. So not only does he merely state without any justification that he is a socialist, he makes it clear that his policy is not a socialist one but a racial and colonial one. -- "We are socialists" debunked



Now here's one for you-- who said:
""The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." --?

Ok, but what about the Nazi parties 25 references made towards policy changes that to be made in which someone posted here ? Does these include the propaganda as well within those policies or were they spot on in what the Nazi's were all about ?

 

[Papageorgio]

Can't happen?

How did Truman get away with locking up the Japanese in WWII?

How did Bush get away with setting up Guantanamo and then refusing to set people free when ordered to do so by the courts?

Should I go on?

Was it not FDR that placed Americans in camps?

I fucked that up. Fortunately,I am old enough that "Senior Moment" is a valid excuse.

I knew you knew, I wasn't good with FDR and his camps. It was a dark moment in this country.

 

[Papageorgio]

Well then trying to compare anyone to anyone is just plain stupid by your standards, and I think that is just plain stupid as well, so touché....This is why history has a way of repeating itself, because of people like you who protect someone with special treatment, but someone like Bush was wide open fair game for the left, even calling him Hitler expecting no retort in return, but man when one of their own is constructively criticized, everyone who is a stanch supporter wants to rewrite history in order to suit their end game if they have to.. In what way do you think the comparisons are being made here? I mean it is nothing personal to be found in the comparing, but rather just comparing policy and policy making or laws attempting to be passed, in which could lead to many things, even what Hitler may have enjoyed in his controlling of that nation in many ways, and you think we should just turn a blind eye to that sort of thing eh ?

Obama has not had the over reach in power that Hitler had, not even close. neither did Bush, they both were so much better than Hitler. Also, Obama will be history in less than four years. So, if he is in power four years from now, we have something to discuss, however, it won't happen.

Are you suggesting that Obama isn't capable of trying to reach certain heights of power, and these are heights that move upwards far beyond what many in this nation would have wanted to see or experience ? He may not be able to reach to far as you say, but he did say once, that "this day America will be fundamentally changed", so what do you think he meant by that speak ? His wife said it "was the first time she was proud of her country" when he was elected, and what did that mean ? Are these two on a mission that many in America didn't bargain for when elected, or are they just proud to be where they are at today in America, and are very humble and honest when speaking in these ways in which they have now since spoken in ? We shall continue to monitor and see I guess, so hey don't be surprised now when you see some wild and interesting moves happening or maybe not, in which you have never seen before or have seen before, in fact you have already seen some stuff you have never seen before probably now, and so the jury is still out as to whether or not the people will stand for it or might try and rebuke it in the end, or maybe even accept it all in the end who knows, but that is another campaign on down the road a ways, so it's a wait and see game until then right ?

Sorry, the Constitution, the people, won't allow that here at this time. He is not a great leader, he is a campaigner and wants his legacy protected. He will be gone in less than four years.

 

[Vast LWC]

Who gives a crap, both leftist/Marxist governments and the Nazis are murdering bastards, the only difference being the Nazis where amatuers when it came to murdering their own citizens when compared to their Marxist brethren. I mean what Hitler did seems like an Ice Cream Social when compared to what Stalin and Mao did.

Yes, because Sweden is continuously committing genocide...

And of course, that logic would mean that any right-wing government is exactly the same as Iran, or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Let us not forget that right-wing theocracies, like the Spanish monarchy of the 15th century, have also been engaged in just as many hideous acts as left-wing totalitarian regimes.

Neither defines the current left or right in current American politics.

And the Nazis were neither left or right wing, they were autocrats who combined the worst of both.

 

[beagle9]

Was it not FDR that placed Americans in camps?

I fucked that up. Fortunately,I am old enough that "Senior Moment" is a valid excuse.

I knew you knew, I wasn't good with FDR and his camps. It was a dark moment in this country.

You call it a dark moment, but the American Japanese understood it to be a necessary one in light of what had just happened, otherwise they knew that it would be hard for the Americans at that time, to not think that there could be those hiding among their population, in which could be spies, saboteur's or worse. I think the accommodations must have been A-OK, or they would be running around today wanting restitution from our government, and wanting vengeance on the white devils who did that to them, but it isn't like that is it, so why use this as some from of example like this, when it doesn't even fit the bill ? Oh I know, because it's just another way to break down and beat up on America isn't it ?

 

[Vast LWC]

Are you suggesting that Obama isn't capable of trying to reach certain heights of power, and these are heights that move upwards far beyond what many in this nation would have wanted to see or experience ? He may not be able to reach to far as you say, but he did say once, that "this day America will be fundamentally changed", so what do you think he meant by that speak ?

That a nation in which black people are often held back elected a black president? That alone would in fact represent "fundamental change".

His wife said it "was the first time she was proud of her country" when he was elected, and what did that mean ?

See above.

Are these two on a mission that many in America didn't bargain for when elected,

No.

or are they just proud to be where they are at today in America, and are very humble and honest when speaking in these ways in which they have now since spoken in ? We shall continue to monitor and see I guess, so hey don't be surprised now when you see some wild and interesting moves happening or maybe not, in which you have never seen before or have seen before, in fact you have already seen some stuff you have never seen before probably now

No, you haven't

and so the jury is still out as to whether or not the people will stand for it or might try and rebuke it in the end, or maybe even accept it all in the end who knows, but that is another campaign on down the road a ways, so it's a wait and see game until then right ?

If you say so.

 

[Vast LWC]

You call it a dark moment, but the American Japanese understood it to be a necessary one in light of what had just happened, otherwise they knew that it would be hard for the Americans at that time, to not think that there could be those hiding among their population, in which could be spies, saboteur's or worse. I think the accommodations must have been A-OK, or they would be running around today wanting restitution from our government, and wanting vengeance on the white devils who did that to them, but it isn't like that is it, so why use this as some from of example like this, when it doesn't even fit the bill ? Oh I know, because it's just another way to break down and beat up on America isn't it ?

They did demand restitution.

And, over forty year after the event, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 was signed by President Ronald Reagan. With it, the U.S. government formally acknowledged its mistake, apologized, and provided token financial restitution of $20,000 to each of the affected families.

 

[beagle9]

Are you suggesting that Obama isn't capable of trying to reach certain heights of power, and these are heights that move upwards far beyond what many in this nation would have wanted to see or experience ? He may not be able to reach to far as you say, but he did say once, that "this day America will be fundamentally changed", so what do you think he meant by that speak ?

That a nation in which black people are often held back elected a black president? That alone would in fact represent "fundamental change".

His wife said it "was the first time she was proud of her country" when he was elected, and what did that mean ?

See above.



No.

or are they just proud to be where they are at today in America, and are very humble and honest when speaking in these ways in which they have now since spoken in ? We shall continue to monitor and see I guess, so hey don't be surprised now when you see some wild and interesting moves happening or maybe not, in which you have never seen before or have seen before, in fact you have already seen some stuff you have never seen before probably now

No, you haven't

and so the jury is still out as to whether or not the people will stand for it or might try and rebuke it in the end, or maybe even accept it all in the end who knows, but that is another campaign on down the road a ways, so it's a wait and see game until then right ?

If you say so.

Didn't he say what he said after being elected, and not before? Therefore it meant that he is on a mission to fundamentally change America, and this after he was elected am I right ? His wife's words were right after he was elected also, this meaning the same as the above if you want to say it like that.

Just to be clear and all here, did I miss something in the way that you answered me ?

 

[Vast LWC]

Didn't he say what he said after being elected, and not before? Therefore it meant that he is on a mission to fundamentally change America, and this after he was elected am I right ? His wife's words were right after he was elected also, this meaning the same as the above if you want to say it like that.

Just to be clear and all here, did I miss something in the way that you answered me ?

The actual quote was:

we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America

Which was said 5 days before the 2008 election.

It has been misquoted and taken out of context several times since, but that was in fact the quote.

 

[beagle9]

You call it a dark moment, but the American Japanese understood it to be a necessary one in light of what had just happened, otherwise they knew that it would be hard for the Americans at that time, to not think that there could be those hiding among their population, in which could be spies, saboteur's or worse. I think the accommodations must have been A-OK, or they would be running around today wanting restitution from our government, and wanting vengeance on the white devils who did that to them, but it isn't like that is it, so why use this as some from of example like this, when it doesn't even fit the bill ? Oh I know, because it's just another way to break down and beat up on America isn't it ?

They did demand restitution.

And, over forty year after the event, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 was signed by President Ronald Reagan. With it, the U.S. government formally acknowledged its mistake, apologized, and provided token financial restitution of $20,000 to each of the affected families.

Wow, was it a mistake ? Even in light of the war, where it was done back then for security purposes, our government did this 40 years later ? I don't see it as a mistake myself, but a justifiable security issue during a terrible defeat at Perl Harbor by the Japanese forces, who yes were also supposed to be visiting us in Washington the day they hit us.

I still wonder was it by their (the Japanese Americans), request of restitution (doesn't sound like their style) or was it something that the government re-visited on it's own, where as it had decided to do this as a gesture of kindness, and this upon doing this for them, even though they had not requested it maybe, but you say they did ? Anyways I see it as not a mistake during the time period, but more of a security issue that had over road what the normal way of thinking would be in such a situation, but I am glad that it went down the way that it did with the restitution in kindness there of, because if the government sought to do such a thing on it's own, then it is doing what a good government is supposed to be doing, instead of what we have been seeing in a lot of things the government does or doesn't do these days, in which could be going a lot better, if even being done at all.