Rise of Nazi Germany/Modern-Day America

[tylerdolphin]

I look about as Aryan as humanly possible, so I am 100% OK with this. My clean genes deserve a leg up in society.


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

[Locke]

LOL....i dont think he's blaming Obamas policies solely.

But how do you reconcile the fact that Obama has repealed the prohibition against assasination of foreign leaders all by himself. Nobody talks about that, but isnt that what hes done....and claimed the power to order the assasination of US citizens, based soleley on his judgement that they should die?

You're leaving off an important part of what's going on to make your point seem stronger than it is. These are American citizens who are conspiring with a terror group. What should he do? Kill every terrorist but the American, and bring him in safely for questioning? Here is the fact of the matter: not one of us know what is really going on over there. We think we do, based on biased news reports and what we put together with the limited information we're given, but we don't. But it seems a bit presumptuous to take the moral high road on something that we know next to nothing about. If you had every bit of intel that the CIA and President does, that would be a different story. But you don't, nor do I, which is why I try not to comment on it too much...

[GoFins!]

I was simply implying that much of the legislation that has passed since 9/11 will very likely lead to tyranny at some point in the future. Context.

"We" don't care. We disagree with your premise and therefor must project your implications to the most extreme outcome so we can dismiss your entire post. This saves "us" a lot of time and prevents us from reading anything that might contradict our current ideologies.

[MoFinz]

You're leaving off an important part of what's going on to make your point seem stronger than it is. These are American citizens who are conspiring with a terror group. What should he do? Kill every terrorist but the American, and bring him in safely for questioning? Here is the fact of the matter: not one of us know what is really going on over there. We think we do, based on biased news reports and what we put together with the limited information we're given, but we don't. But it seems a bit presumptuous to take the moral high road on something that we know next to nothing about. If you had every bit of intel that the CIA and President does, that would be a different story. But you don't, nor do I, which is why I try not to comment on it too much...

So, Obama is not trying to procure the power to assasinate whomever he chooses based on no factual data?

And when did we abandon EO 11905 (Ford) EO 12036 (Carter) and EO 12333 (Reagan) in regards to assassinations?

[GoFins!]

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.

Besides, comparisons to Hitler are so four years ago!

[Breed]

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:

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.

Do you know what i believe? I believe its possible to raise objections about the policies of a democratically elected official without evoking Hitler, Nazi Germany, Stalin, and the Gestapo. Id think that statement would be a no brainer, but apparently its not.

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


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[COLOR="Silver"]

When Jews start getting rounded up and murdered, i'll be more willing to buy the Hitler comparison.

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 once 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'll ask the same questions I asked before. Take them at face value.

Assertions aside, from the links I have posted, what do you believe to be inaccurate?

Is this a valid statement?:

Even assuming that there is no connection between Factcheck.org and Obama, their answer to the "Obama's private army" question doesn't touch on what the law can do, only on what the law was intended to do. The intention of any given law only holds so much weight. The important thing is how the law can be interpreted by whoever is in power. I'd like to see multiple law experts go on record saying that this particular section of the Healthcare Bill can't be used to create a militia.

Do you believe the intent behind any given law is more important than the way in which it can be interpreted? How much weight do you put into how a law can be interpreted versus its original intent?

If I were a mod posting something from infowars would merit an infraction, if not a ban.

Every single link I posted either had something to do with the law, or the surveillance state we currently live in. Conspiracy theories were never mentioned.

So Obama's policies are going to lead to the next Hitler, here in the U.S.? Good times...

You're right. I think we have fun times ahead.

[Breed]

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.

Besides, comparisons to Hitler are so four years ago!

It's amazing to me how someone can bring up the similarities to Hitler's rise to power, only for people to take what is said completely out of context by saying **** like, "LULZ . . . they are nothing alike." Well no ****ing ****. I never compared their political philosophies.

[Spesh]

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 once 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'll ask the same questions I asked before. Take them at face value.



Is this a valid statement?:

Do you believe the intent behind any given law is more important than the way in which it can be interpreted? How much weight do you put into how a law can be interpreted versus its original intent?


Every single link I posted either had something to do with the law, or the surveillance state we currently live in. Conspiracy theories were never mentioned.


You're right. I think we have fun times ahead.

So, one minute you claim no association, then the next minute you claim parallels between Nazi Germany and Obama. I really dont need to say much, your posts are coming in joke form. By the way, i try and answer your queston so you take my answer and redefine which part of your post i was addressing. 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.

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.

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:06 PM ----------

It's amazing to me how someone can bring up the similarities to Hitler's rise to power, only for people to take what is said completely out of context by saying **** like, "LULZ . . . they are nothing alike." Well no ****ing ****. I never compared their political philosophies.

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

[Dolphins9954]

IMO the government wants to rule us. The erosion of liberties and the pattern of it is clear as day, especially after 9-11. Do I think Obama is the next Hilter??? No. Do I think the path this country is on could lead to something like that?? Possible unless we as Americans take a stand. The government doesn't fear us. The time has come to correct that mistake.

[Dolphins9954]

You're leaving off an important part of what's going on to make your point seem stronger than it is. These are American citizens who are conspiring with a terror group. What should he do? Kill every terrorist but the American, and bring him in safely for questioning? Here is the fact of the matter: not one of us know what is really going on over there. We think we do, based on biased news reports and what we put together with the limited information we're given, but we don't. But it seems a bit presumptuous to take the moral high road on something that we know next to nothing about. If you had every bit of intel that the CIA and President does, that would be a different story. But you don't, nor do I, which is why I try not to comment on it too much...

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.