Rise of Nazi Germany/Modern-Day America

[Locke]

Killing an American in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. No declaration of war, no oversight, no evidence produced, no rule of law. What about his 16 year old child we bombed 2 weeks later?? How do you justify that?? He should have had a better father right???

No offense Locke but your post sounds no different than the Neo-Cons on this board not so long ago.

The moral high ground is the rule of law. Obama along with Bush threw out those morals. All you're doing is defending it.

I'm not saying it's OK. I'm saying we don't know everything. I make it a point not to comment on things that I'm not fully informed on. Unless you are part of the the national security briefings, you don't know everything either. That's my point. If I sounded like our former Neocons, I'd be comparing Bush to Hitler. Don't remember ever seeing those threads though. Just so happens we have an Obama/Hitler thread though...

[Dolphins9954]

I'm not saying it's OK. I'm saying we don't know everything. I make it a point not to comment on things that I'm not fully informed on. Unless you are part of the the national security briefings, you don't know everything either. That's my point. If I sounded like our former Neocons, I'd be comparing Bush to Hitler. Don't remember ever seeing those threads though. Just so happens we have an Obama/Hitler thread though...

Things we don't know I understand. It's still not good enough excuse for a president to ignore and defy the rule of law. For me watching the neo-cons and Bush say "trust us" with things like this is no different than Obama and company doing it. It's a power they don't have. A power restrained by the constitution and the Bill of Rights. Looking the other way or not speaking up about it will only lead to very bad things. They should be held accountable.

[GoFins!]

Killing an American in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. No declaration of war, no oversight, no evidence produced, no rule of law.

I would consider the circumstance of "no evidence produced" an abuse of power.

"A country that had nothing to do with 9-11" is somewhat irrelevant to me. Not all terrorism/terrorists were in involved in 9/11. Also, terrorists know no borders. The "country" (government? people?) might not have had involvement but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be conspirators within the country. If the country is USA friendly and not terrorist friendly then give them the chance to deal with the suspect. If the country is terrorist friendly then eff 'em.

The moral high ground is the rule of law. Obama along with Bush threw out those morals.

I'm not sure I disagree but using laws to deal with terrorists is as foolish using laws to get guns away from criminals.

[Dogbone34]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Breed]

No one is particularly happy with Obama, but what was the other choice, Romney? He couldnt tell the truth if he was in court. Know who else lies in court? Child molesters.

Yeah. That isn't at all an oversimplified comparison
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes, the reason you used Hitler as an example was for educational purposes only. Nothing concerning the negative connotations of that individual. No sir.

Bloody revolutions are the most common way dictators come to power; but every so often a dictator takes control from within. If a dictator ever takes control of the U.S., it will likely be from within.

1. Of the 20th century dictators, who took over without the aid of a (bloody) revolution?
2. Of the 20th century dictators, how many took over from within?
3. Of the 20th century dictators, how many took over a Republic?
4. How many 20th century dictators fit the criteria of the first 3 questions?
5. Of those 20th century dictators that matched the criteria of question #4, who is notable?

I can't stress this enough, moral and political philosophies doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to how particular leaders come to power. If we're looking for an apples to apples comparison, consider the historical context and find the answer to question #4. From there, find the things they had in common, namely legislation. Oh. And can you answer question #5?

So, one minute you claim no association, then the next minute you claim parallels between Nazi Germany and Obama.

I don't know how I can make myself anymore clear. There is a significant difference between comparing political and even moral philosophies to the laws that make it possible to apply such philosophies. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

By the way, i try and answer your queston so you take my answer and redefine which part of your post i was addressing.

No. You never really answered my questions. The closest you ever came to answering was this: "When Jews start getting rounded up and murdered, i'll be more willing to buy the Hitler comparison."
Never mind the fact that I never even implied Obama had the same moral and political views as Hitler. The implication that you wouldn't be able to observe a serious problem until there was a World War that involved genocide really says it all.

Give me straight answers to my original questions.

but just goes to further my own point: this threads sole purpose is to character assassinate using logical fallacies and absurd comparisons.

1. Point out where I implied Obama shares the same moral and political values as Hitler.
2. Obama doesn't need anyone to assassinate his character to make him look bad. He does a good enough job of that on his own.
3. Why are my comparisons absurd? I could list all the things 20th century dictators did to come into power, find all the common traits and laws that were passed, and you'd still take issue. Because apparently, historical precedence doesn't mean a damn thing.

GoFins brought up some excellent points.

It seems like a lot of people believe that Hitler came to power out of obscurity one day and then began rounding up Jews the next? Why aren't we allowed to talk about, or compare anyone to Hitler before he started a world war and engaged in genocide?

I'm not trying to compare any leaders to Hitler, just noting that closing all discussions because current leaders haven't yet engaged in genocide is intellectually limited.

As for my logical fallacies:

You were asking rhetoric filled "questions" with the only answer fulfilling your agenda. Its no different then someone confronting you and asking "when did you stop raping women?" and if you got upset the questioner pulls back and says "hey man, i was just asking a question". It requires absolutely no proof whatsoever.
Its a logical fallacy and one that is easily defeated by anyone with even a small amount of common sense. Oh, and "context" was addressed in the link i quoted:

Dictators like Hitler and Stalin could've only dreamed of having the laws, federal agencies, and technology that the U.S. currently has in place to "protect" its citizens. Does this mean that President Obama will gain absolute power? Who knows. But does it really matter if we have one leader that abuses his powers or a revolving door of leaders doing the same thing? If it's over the same time frame, what does it matter?

"Does this mean that President Obama will gain absolute power?" If this question stood by itself, you may be able to make an argument about it being a loaded question. 'You're comparing how Hitler came to power with that of Obama . . . thus Obama will gain absolute power.' But I followed that question up with an indecisive "Who knows.", leaving the conclusion up to the reader. A conclusion that isn't limited in the number of possibilities. Either click on the links I posted and offer a differing opinion (possibly by posting links of your own), or agree with portions of what I said.

The last questions are tied together and read: "But does it really matter if we have one leader that abuses his power or a revolving door of leaders doing the same thing? If it's over the same time frame, does it really matter?"
I'll ask a sociological/psychological question: 'Do people commit crime because of individual flaws, or are they a product of their surroundings?' Answer: it's a combination of both, but a person's social surroundings play a bigger role in who that person is. Likewise, I would make the argument that with the infrastructure (a combination of laws, surveillance, and the partnership with certain corporations) of power in the U.S.,it is almost impossible to resist the temptation to abuse one's power. It then becomes a matter of how much abuse of power is acceptable. At what point do we start blaming the individual over the system (that made the abuse of power possible)?

I brought up George W. Bush in the original post. He stood on the corpses of 9/11 victims to push The Patriot Act forward. Is Obama to blame for extending the Patriot Act? He may deserve some of the blame, but I believe most of the blame should be attributed to Bush. Why does Bush deserve most of the blame for a law that got extended after his 2nd term? Because I believe that most people in power don't generally want to give up power; and because of that, I don't believe the Patriot Act is going away any time soon. With that said, Obama deserves heavy criticism for a number of other laws. Those additional laws just happen to make it easier to abuse one's (be it Obama, or someone else) power.

I don't know if you noticed this or not, but I also mentioned George W. Bush in regards to the Patriot Act. If there was an intended conclusion that could be drawn from my closing statement, it wasn't that Obama was Hitler. Rather, that the legislation since '9/11 (a good deal of it coming since '08), if left unchecked, will lead to tyranny. The implication was that there would likely be little difference between Obama seizing power to become dictator and "a revolving door of leaders doing the same thing." The revolving door of leaders" was a clear reference to the Presidential elections that occur every 4 years.

There never was any association fallacy on my part. Any correlation you felt I was drawing up was only due to your interpretation. I never stated, or even implied that Obama was like Hitler; only that some of the laws passed since 9/11 resemble portions of the Reichstag Fire Decree.

This thread was never meant to be a personal "comparison" between Hitler and Obama. Politically, one was far right, the other is far left (Hitler was obviously further right than Obama is left). This thread was in response to those (not necessarily on this board) who thought there were very few parallels between the rise of Nazi Germany and the Obama's administration. Obviously there can be parallels without the two men being one and the same. But at the same time,isn't the point of history to learn from our mistakes? What was an evil law/decree back then (see the Reichstag Fire Decree) is no less evil now. Historical precedence has to count for something.

Just to be clear, i don't see Obama becoming "dictator" of this country. However, I do think his administration will hurt us significantly in the long run.

. . . I really dont need to say much, your posts are coming in joke form.. . . Dont worry about it, it made your response even more hilarious so i dont mind, but just goes to further my own point: this threads sole purpose is to character assassinate using logical fallacies and absurd comparisons.

I'm not the one taking **** completely out of context.

[Breed]

My argument was never that Obama was Hitler, or even that Obama would seize absolute power like Hitler. Only to suggest, among several other things, that it was much more likely than some would be led to believe. Do i believe it a probability? Of course not. I've already stated that I think the odds of Obama becoming the dictator to this country were low (low odds>0%). While the power that Obama wields is scary, there are steps that would need to be taken in order for a singular leader to seize power of our country. The next logical steps would probably include net neutrality and the freedom of press. Both of which have been brought up in congress hearings. Does President Obama present an imminent danger? Who can say. It depends on, among other things, how many more laws can be made to bypass the Constitution while he's still in power. And of course, on what those laws entail. It only makes sense that if one aspires to be dictator of a country, without a bloody revolution, one would need to make it legal.

I was hoping that some would see the implication in A-C leading to D & E.

D. Hitler dissolved the Reichstag. "Hitler's plan was to establish a majority of elected Nazis in the Reichstag which would become a rubber stamp, passing whatever laws he desired while making it all perfectly legal." [
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

E. After the Reichstag fire (orchestrated by Hitler), The Reichstag Fire Decree became law. "[T]he regulations suspended important provisions of the German constitution, especially those safeguarding individual rights and due process of law. The decree permitted the restriction of the right to assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, among other rights, and it removed all restraints on police investigations. With the decree in place, the regime was free to arrest and incarcerate political opponents without specific charge, dissolve political organizations, and suppress publications. It also gave the central government the authority to overrule state and local laws and overthrow state and local governments. This law became a permanent feature of the Nazi police state."

I shouldn't have to explain this, but just to be clear, even if all these laws are eventually met, it won't necessarily mean the person(s) in power will have the same goals as Hitler. The means in which power is achieved has nothing to do with the way in which power is enforced. But I guess that's a concept some on this board have trouble comprehending.

By the way, I'd love to hear an argument made that the laws enforced since 9/11 pose no long-term threats to our country.

I've posted this before (it's from a review of a Glenn Beck movie), but it bears repeating:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So I take it that you believe the laws mentioned can't be used towards evil.

[Spesh]

Yeah im not digging through your breaking up of my post to convolutedly justify your insane comparison. Much like the loaded question fallacy, you dont need to compare the ethics of Obama and Hitler, the negative connotation is there by default. Again, that was addressed in my "loaded question" link. Granted, its clear you didnt click it, so here you go:

The term "loaded question" is sometimes used to refer to
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
that is phrased as a question. This type of question does not necessarily contain a fallacious presupposition, but rather this usage refers to the question having an unspoken and often emotive implication. For example, "Are you a murderer?" would be such a loaded question, as "murder" has a very negative connotation.

Anyways:

Is this a valid statement?:

And yes, my statement was valid. Again, your attempting a logical fallacy:

Couldnt make it more direct. Some people clearly get lost in thought and get a bit confused by direct answers. Kim Jong Il was one of those people.

And sure, your not the one taking things out of context. So long as the context is a democratically elected official is akin to the rise of Hitler.

[Bumpus]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[MoFinz]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TheWalrus]

So I take it that you believe the laws mentioned can't be used towards evil.

I believe a paper clip can be used towards evil. Doesn't mean I'm going to waste my time listening to a bunch of woo woo crap about the dangers of paper clips.