It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nazi vs. Republican......TIE GAME!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I guess I would like some to correct me if I am wrong here but besides what other people are saying about similarities between the Nazis and Republicans I have one main issue that is very troubling to me...

When the Nazis decided to take over other countries for more control, it was also to push their government onto others. Hitler felt that his theories and ways of life were ideal, and that everyone else should live by them. He did this very successfully, however not for a very long time. We all see this as a very immoral and wrong practice and idea. Everyone now sees Hitler as an evil man because of this. However, I am not naive enough not to realize the Holocaust as well. This in itself made him evil, and he definitely wasn’t in his right mind to do this, however pushing his government ideals on others doesn’t sound so evil.....at least according to what our government is teaching us by example. Maybe in out history books it should say that he was right with pushing his rule onto other countries, and that it would have been good if he succeeded, and just said the only bad thing he did was killing so many people.

The comparison here is a simple one. How is it that what our (definitely not leader) president is doing is "moral, and correct"? He seems to have brainwashed republicans into the idea that us pushing OUR government onto Iraq was the correct thing to do, when it was wrong for Hitler to push his onto his surrounding countries. I really don’t see any difference here. Bush thought that our government was better than Iraq's. I will also state another thing that I am not "poorly educated" in. I realize that Hussein was a very cruel leader and killed many of his own citizens....but how does that give us the right to think that we should push our government onto them???

I have many more thoughts on this but wanted to get it out here first to see what others think first. Look forward to hearing your thoughts on this people.




posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
And when the Nazis were trying to get a foothold in the German democracy in the 20s, Germany saw them as a fringe group. In order to become more electable, they quit talking about what their platform was, what they believed in, what they would do for Germany and instead put out an all out offensive against everything the current party in power was doing. Controllable or not, the Nazis blamed the folks in power. They also were the first political group ever to campaign all the time instead of just during election years, spreading anger towards the current party in power.

That sounds like the Democratic Party right now. You know, you can take any awful group that was very effective in other rights and apply some principle they had to a currently effective group. The Democrats and the Nazis have similar campaign strategies. Does that mean the Democrats want to kill all Jews? Nooo...It means that that is an effective campaign strategy. If a group that 97% of the population of Germany though was full of crackpots can gain 33% of the government via elections in just 4 years of negative campaigning, imagine what a less-fringe group like the Democrats can do.

America has been in the spreading democracy business for a lot longer than Bush. Your contention seems to be that by America...I'm sorry, Bush wanting to give Iraqis the liberty to choose their own government, as we have done with Afghanistan, Japan, and Germany effectively, means Bush wants a holocaust? Like I said earlier, you can talk about similarities with psychotic governments, then apply the psychotic aspects to group you don't like.

You're saying Republicans are responsible for this whole idea, just as Hitler blamed the Jews for everything that was wrong with Germany. We can only assume you want to start concentration camps and start killing all Republicans too weak to be useful, and put the others to work as slave labor.

See how easy that is?



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
And when the Nazis were trying to get a foothold in the German democracy in the 20s, Germany saw them as a fringe group. In order to become more electable, they quit talking about what their platform was, what they believed in, what they would do for Germany and instead put out an all out offensive against everything the current party in power was doing. Controllable or not, the Nazis blamed the folks in power. They also were the first political group ever to campaign all the time instead of just during election years, spreading anger towards the current party in power.

That sounds like the Democratic Party right now. You know, you can take any awful group that was very effective in other rights and apply some principle they had to a currently effective group. The Democrats and the Nazis have similar campaign strategies. Does that mean the Democrats want to kill all Jews? Nooo...It means that that is an effective campaign strategy. If a group that 97% of the population of Germany though was full of crackpots can gain 33% of the government via elections in just 4 years of negative campaigning, imagine what a less-fringe group like the Democrats can do.

America has been in the spreading democracy business for a lot longer than Bush. Your contention seems to be that by America...I'm sorry, Bush wanting to give Iraqis the liberty to choose their own government, as we have done with Afghanistan, Japan, and Germany effectively, means Bush wants a holocaust? Like I said earlier, you can talk about similarities with psychotic governments, then apply the psychotic aspects to group you don't like.

You're saying Republicans are responsible for this whole idea, just as Hitler blamed the Jews for everything that was wrong with Germany. We can only assume you want to start concentration camps and start killing all Republicans too weak to be useful, and put the others to work as slave labor.

See how easy that is?


Absolutely NOT what I'm saying. Im asking how there is a difference? How do we make it sound bad that the Nazis did it when we are doing the same thing now? You didnt even answer my question but yet seemed to be able to slam me for a couple minutes of reading. Nice work.
Cheers



posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Allrighty, I'll dissect your post for ya, then, if the analogy doesn't work. And by the way, I don't believe you want concentration camps or anything, I was using that as an example of how things can be twisted and two seemingly different things can be tied together because a group in the past practiced both. Now, let the dissection begin.


Originally posted by covertoperative
When the Nazis decided to take over other countries for more control, it was also to push their government onto others.

Right here we made an assumption and a comparison. Adolph Hitler believed it was Germany's place to control all of Europe. It was the Arian race's birthright. As such, yes, he was going to impose his government on them, but every conquering army has done that. If they didn't, they wouldn't be a conquering army. Hitler wanted control, to own Europe. He didn't try to establish similar fascist governments to Germany's, he imposed Nazi rule on them.


Hitler felt that his theories and ways of life were ideal, and that everyone else should live by them. He did this very successfully, however not for a very long time.
By forcing it on them, and forcing Europe to be under his control. It wasn't the government style he wanted to expand, it was Germany.


We all see this as a very immoral and wrong practice and idea. Everyone now sees Hitler as an evil man because of this.
Right there is an assumption. First, you assert that the reason Hitler was so evil, as, according to you, everyone knows, is because he wanted to impose his ideal government on the world. This is factually incorrect for many reasons. First, Hitler's goal was not the world at the time of WWII, it was Europe. He had a vision of 5 superpowers throughout the world, though he suspected the US would collapse because we gave too much power to other races. He did not think England would even enter the war when he invaded Poland. Personally, my biggest problem with Hitler was his systematic execution of so many people based on religion, race and politics. There have been many empires in world history, yet I don't hear people saying Charlemagne was evil, Napoleon was evil, etc. Hitler was responsible for the systematic execution of anyone not fit for slave labor. That's evil.


However, I am not naive enough not to realize the Holocaust as well.
And right here, you try to link imposing a government style to the systematic execution of many, many groups of people. You explained that Hitler was evil for wanting to spread what you called a form of government, though the reality of it was he wanted to expand Germany's borders, then say, as an afterthought, that the Holocaust was involved in this too, as though to imply that with the imposition of a government comes a Holocaust.


This in itself made him evil, and he definitely wasn’t in his right mind to do this, however pushing his government ideals on others doesn’t sound so evil.....at least according to what our government is teaching us by example.


And the link is solidified. Our government is claiming spreading democracy isn't as evil as systematically executing so many people.....but we know better.


Maybe in out history books it should say that he was right with pushing his rule onto other countries, and that it would have been good if he succeeded, and just said the only bad thing he did was killing so many people.


And the assumption is finalized. It is implied right there that America supports the Holocaust, because we are imposing democracies on other countries. We are forcing the people to choose what kind of government they want, instead of giving that decision to a single individual or small group. So the implication is that trying to give power to the individual means we need to change all of our history books to say the Holocaust was a-ok or else we'd be hypocrites.


The comparison here is a simple one. How is it that what our (definitely not leader) president is doing is "moral, and correct"?

Now, you make the claim that spreading democracy is George Bush's idea, when, in fact, it began with FDR after WWII. Since you've explained that spreading democracy is just as bad if not worse than attempted genocide, it must mean George Bush is worse than Hitler.


He seems to have brainwashed republicans into the idea that us pushing OUR government onto Iraq was the correct thing to do, when it was wrong for Hitler to push his onto his surrounding countries.


Now we have several assumptions. First off, people absolutely couldn't agree that spreading democracy is a good thing. Therefore, all people who agree with spreading democracy must have been brainwashed. Since you asserted above that Bush is the one who had such a heinous idea, it must mean Bush brainwashed them into believing liberating Iraq from Saddam was a good idea, when, in fact, it was worse than the Holocaust.


I really don’t see any difference here. Bush thought that our government was better than Iraq's. I will also state another thing that I am not "poorly educated" in. I realize that Hussein was a very cruel leader and killed many of his own citizens....


And here you try to sound rational. You understand Hussein was a bad guy...But Bush is a lot worse. Bush, like Hitler (incorrectly asserted by you), wanted to impose what he saw as the ideal form of government, and Hitler started the Holocaust. Therefore, because you misinterpreted history, or manipulated the facts in order to make your point, Bush must be worse than Hitler.


but how does that give us the right to think that we should push our government onto them???


And here is a legitimate question. What gave us the right. There are many, many extensive conversations throughout the boards on this very subject.

So that is why I responded as I did. You can skew facts or make assumptions tying one behavior with another to make someone look horrible very easily. I did not do that to insult you, I did it to prove my point. I can compare you to Hitler without even knowing you just as you can accuse Bush of endorsing the Holocaust by invading Iraq.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Controllable or not, the Nazis blamed the folks in power. They also were the first political group ever to campaign all the time instead of just during election years, spreading anger towards the current party in power.

That sounds like the Democratic Party right now.

-Fantasy by Jake


That's a great name for the line of horsecrap ya peddlin', Jake....dovetails lovely with that exercise infomercial king by the same name!


How can you even remotely claim any intelligent erudition on things political by spinning the facts 180 degrees in that statement like you did!?
It was the Republican political smear and propaganda machine that kicked into high gear in the early 90's (BLINDED BY THE RIGHT: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative by David Brock is the GOSPEL on that period and should be required reading prior to posting ANYTHING in PTS!
), zeroed in on the BIG DOG, failed, stayed on point, "got him" on a sexual misconduct, stayed on expanded point by applying the formula to ALL races, and built an industry around doing nothing but whipping up the GOP faithful.
The 15 years that this has been going on coincides with many GOP posters @ ATS's child to young adult years......as in you grow up on potatoes dug from SCORCHED EARTH, what do you know for a good salad!?

Jake's statement also is made in direct amnesia to the FACTS of record breaking numbers of campaign fund raisers by this president, having SHATTERED the previous highs before the midterm elections of his FIRST term.....I'll repeat.....MIDTERMS OF HIS FIRST TERM, compared to what people did in SINGLE and/or DOUBLE FULL TERMS.

Nope Jake, the Republicans OWN the FASCIST heritage. The NAzis were physcotic criminals, and even though the Bush family funded their war machine, brought them over to start our Secret Police and advance our rocket research, they are again just mutations of the fascist model that today's Republican party has brought to reality in America.......not that they haven't tried before and came damn close, they're adaptive, and did it within the framework this time.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Dang, sorry, Bout...I forget sometimes that the Democrats are perfect in every way and the Republicans are evil in every way. I guess I get that way because I'm a party hack that sees problems with both parties. Not like yourself, who is wise to the world, seeing issues from all sides, and giving balanced, well thought out reply addressing the strengths and weaknesses of all sides.

Sorry I'm being such a party hack. The Democrats haven't done any negative campaigning, but instead have addressed the issues at hand, suggesting what they would rather do instead of being the party of "no". Maybe one day my eyes will open enough to see both sides of the issues as you do, Bout.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
But the thread was on the fascist ( wrongly termed Nazi by the author ) syncro to today's GOP.
Start the thread on the Democrats alignment to the Mao, Stalin regimes actions if you see one and I'll add to it.
But don't bristle at being called on the fabrication of the Dems holding the Fascist pedigree - it should be obvious enough by this time that I'm anti-party politics - the focus on the Republicans is because it's what's in our faces and what's screwing us royally. Maybe you'll realize that someday & stop being a SIC?



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Actually, the thread was not about the fascist tendencies of Republicans. The thread was on Naziesque policies of America starting with FDR. The author was comparing spreading democracy with the Nazi's attempted takeover of Europe. The author went further, insinuating America is perpetrating a holocaust by trying to put government control into the hands of the people. Nazi vs. Republican was an adept title, but covert was ignoring a lot of history in making these claims.

EDIT: By the way, I was demonstrating that the awful crimes of the Nazis can be applied to anyone by taking one element and tying it hand in hand with another. My example with the Democrats was to show how ludicrous such comparisons could be, just as was true with covert. I don't see any validity to comparing the Democrats to Nazis, just as I don't see it with the Republicans. It’s simply using an emotionally charged title to try to get people to agree with your opinion. That’s what we call manipulative propaganda


[edit on 10-31-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake The author was comparing spreading democracy with the Nazi's attempted takeover of Europe. The author went further, insinuating America is perpetrating a holocaust by trying to put government control into the hands of the people.


CO wrote:




Absolutely NOT what I'm saying. Im asking how there is a difference? How do we make it sound bad that the Nazis did it when we are doing the same thing now?


Jake, we are neither "spreading democracy" nor doing anything remotely resembling "putting government control in the hands of the people".
There is not now nor ever any primary intent to bring Democracy to Afganistan or Iraq. One was a punitive retaliation, the other was a usurping of a country.
Co is correct : Nazi Germany was about controlling the countries for their own benefit - that we're doing it through proxy, as we've done since before we were both even born, should not be of surprise to you.
Might want to read above and analyze the flowering language, the noble framing you put into the description of our actions.....might ween you off the Kool Aid.......might have the pitcher with a face coming through the wall too, to top off your glass!



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Jake, we are neither "spreading democracy" nor doing anything remotely resembling "putting government control in the hands of the people".
There is not now nor ever any primary intent to bring Democracy to Afganistan or Iraq.


That's right, those vote things never really happened, but just appeared in the media in a Wag The Dog sense. No elections took place in either Afghanistan nore Iraq, no constitutions were drafted, it is all about American military rule.

Granted, the evidence doesn't support this claim, but hey, when you don't like the political party in power, just cry cover-up. The evidence may not be there, but we all know Republicans are evil and would never try to give power to the masses. After all, 1 CEO decided the election in America, no?



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
So, what exactly was gained by going through the motions of a vote, besides a tremendous surge of good grace for domestic politics, e.g. the Bush Administration?
Forget ATS - look at stalwart sources like the Financial Times & Harper's articles on the rigged nature of the vote. That's if you even need to look further than the fact of Iraqis not wanting Occupation and a real vote would display that.
Jake, about Viet Nam.....the voter turn out, those elections? History repeat? Occupied outcome?

I have no horse in the race like you do, so maybe I'm clearer on the suspension of logic thingy?

You can't see the whole political reactionary nature to this administrations doings in Afganistan & Iraq?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join