Hitler poster provokes Edmonds incident

reply to post by sos37


The Gestapo were the secret police force run by Himmler, i don't see how they can be equated to this Civil Defense Force.

I honestly think that people are looking too much into this.

I am not saying such a thing could never happen, because it certainly could, but i just don't think at this moment in time it's anything like Nazi Germany.

Also the Gestapo didn't start like that at all. The Gestapo came about due to the merging of the various police states. It was answerable to no civil authority and used torture and intimidation.




[edit on 17/9/09 by Kram09]

[edit on 17/9/09 by Kram09]

reply to post by ZombieOctopus

Sir, (or Madam), I assure you I have studied the time frame between WWI and WWII quite well. It is true that Hitler is dead. But that does not mean that someone like Obama, who wants to "transform America," cannot, through powers of persuaion, executive orders, and outright force, turn this country into one huge concentration camp.
At that time, it will be too late to fall back on the constitution. Defend it now, make your elected officals defend it, or give yourself over to a life of slavery.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

 

Sir, (or Madam), I assure you I have studied the time frame between WWI and WWII quite well. It is true that Hitler is dead. But that does not mean that someone like Obama, who wants to "transform America," cannot, through powers of persuaion, executive orders, and outright force, turn this country into one huge concentration camp.
At that time, it will be too late to fall back on the constitution. Defend it now, make your elected officals defend it, or give yourself over to a life of slavery.

Creating a false dichotomy is a tactic used solely to illicit an emotional response from an audience, something American politicians do with great finesse.

Freedom or slavery
Fight or die
Good and evil
Capitalism or communism

Those holding up photos of Obama as Hitler are a perfect example of this in American society. They have ideological differences with the president, but rather than plainly stating them and offering an acceptable middle ground, he's the embodiment of evil, Hitler. There is, in effect, no middle ground, no fuzzy-logic, in America.

You say you've studied the WWI/WWII era, but I must admit it sounds as though you've certainly skimmed over the details if you honestly believe Obama's actions today are an equivalent to the pretext of 1930s era fascism.

[edit on 9/17/2009 by ZombieOctopus]

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

Those holding up photos of Obama as Hitler are a perfect example of this in American society. They have ideological differences with the president, but rather than plainly stating them and offering an acceptable middle ground, he's the embodiment of evil, Hitler. There is, in effect, no middle ground, no fuzzy-logic, in America.

Please recall that any level of opposition to obama and his policies has been characterized as racism, or right-wing terrorism by obama's supporters and even members of Congress, or ignored by those still strongly under the influence of the kool-aid. Sometimes stronger symbolism is required to try and get other people's attention ...

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

You say you've studied the WWI/WWII era, but I must admit it sounds as though you've certainly skimmed over the details if you honestly believe Obama's actions today are an equivalent to the pretext of 1930s era fascism.

[edit on 9/17/2009 by ZombieOctopus]

Really, which part of that time in history are you claiming is different from today?

The part where the German people were tired of war and their economy was in the tank to the point that they ended up embracing a charismatic leader who was basically an unknown, but promised them change?

Or the part where that leader gradually usurped government power that was constitutionally granted to other state entities?

Or the part where that leader's supporters began resorting to violence during elections and during protests to intimidate people that did not support him?

Need more?

[edit on 9/17/2009 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus

Creating a false dichotomy is a tactic used solely to illicit an emotional response from an audience, something American politicians do with great finesse.

Freedom or slavery
Fight or die
Good and evil
Capitalism or communism

[edit on 9/17/2009 by ZombieOctopus]

Most would think that what you have offered are rather poor examples of "false dichotomy", with the exception of the last one - Capitalism or communism - since there are other economic systems to choose from. But certainly, there is not much middle ground between freedom and slavery. And there are many quite real situations where fight or die are the only two choices. Good and evil, maybe a little fuzzier ...

reply to post by centurion1211


Those are poor examples in your opinion and in my opinion, but just to play Devil's advovate here, I've noticed over the years that the most base difference between conservatives and liberals is that we (conservatives) tend to view the world in black and white while liberals see many shades of gray. I'm not saying one way of seeing life is better than the other, we simply seem to run with what works for us as individuals. It's the reason people like us tend to not sit around trying to see, for example, a terrorist's point of view or try to figure out what we did to cause them to attack us... you and I both believe that there are some people in the world who simply can't be trusted and want us dead, the reasons and underlying circumstances don't matter.

In many ways, I think it's also why the survivalist mentallity seems to be stronger in true conservatives. We see base needs... protection, food, shelter, defense of self and family. The more liberally minded seem to get hung up on the details and in between issues rather than just setting the end goal and getting there as quickly and efficiently as possible.

The same hold true to this very argument. We're seeing the end of the path we appear to be traveling on. I don't think that either of us would suggest that we're going to see Obama suddenly decide to invade the world with millitary power nor do I think either of us would suggest that he's going to start concentration camps for ethnic groups. However, the end result... loss of freedoms, totallitarian control, failure to honor the sanctity of life, etc seem to be very similar between the proposals Obama pushes for and what Hitler did in the beginning. If nothing else, the two are kindred spirits where their popularity among the masses is concerned. Both men are/were card carrying members of the Cult of Personality. Both men manipulated the masses through being incredible public speakers. It just so happens that this country has a bit more of a historical love affair with defiance of authority and with freedom than the Germany Hitler took over had. HOWEVER, if you were to somehow throw the United States into the type of disarray that post WWI Germany was experiencing, be it through a devastating war, disease, or economic collapse, I think that barrier would fall away and we'd have an almost matching scenario unfolding.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

The same hold true to this very argument. We're seeing the end of the path we appear to be traveling on. I don't think that either of us would suggest that we're going to see Obama suddenly decide to invade the world with millitary power nor do I think either of us would suggest that he's going to start concentration camps for ethnic groups. However, the end result... loss of freedoms, totallitarian control, failure to honor the sanctity of life, etc seem to be very similar between the proposals Obama pushes for and what Hitler did in the beginning. If nothing else, the two are kindred spirits where their popularity among the masses is concerned. Both men are/were card carrying members of the Cult of Personality. Both men manipulated the masses through being incredible public speakers. It just so happens that this country has a bit more of a historical love affair with defiance of authority and with freedom than the Germany Hitler took over had. HOWEVER, if you were to somehow throw the United States into the type of disarray that post WWI Germany was experiencing, be it through a devastating war, disease, or economic collapse, I think that barrier would fall away and we'd have an almost matching scenario unfolding.

Excellent points.

And as for your last one about what would happen if the U.S. were somehow thrown into chaos, who is to know if some event, or events that could cause that aren't right around the corner? And why some choose to remain vigilant, while others choose to just bask in what they perceive to be "the good times" and ignore any warning signs taking place around them.


[edit on 9/17/2009 by centurion1211]

reply to post by niteboy82


Wow, where in the world did that reply come from? I'd love to know why you apparently think that a reaction of (essentially) "Prescott Bush was a shareholder in some companies which were associated with financial backers of the Nazi party, therefore any comparisons between the policies of Barack Obama and Adolph Hitler are baseless." is in anyway an intelligent comment or justifiable in this thread. At some point, and I really had hoped we were near that point already, the Obama supporters are going to have to start measuring the man on his own accomplishments and on his own merits rather than continually falling back on the ad-hominem attacks on G.W. Bush.

George Bush never pushed for fascist socialist policies. George Bush wasn't (as many of his detractors LOVE to point out) charismatic enough to be considered a Cult of Personality. George Bush didn't push collectivism. George Bush certainly wasn't an anti-semite. George Bush was not a secularist. Now, can you same the same about Obama, because I can't.
-Tell me that Obama's attitude of "My way or the highway" in regards to socialized health care, cap and trade, bailouts, and most other issues doesn't reek of fascist socialism. (Meaning here FORCED socialism)
-Tell me that Obama's primary strength isn't his charismatic mannerism and tell me that he isn't a perfect example of a Cult of Personality... a man who excells purely at delivering what the people want to hear in order to get them to accept his actions, which are on the opposite end of the "what the people want" spectrum.
-Tell me that Obama isn't a collectivist, trying to strip individuals of their individuality while stating that we have to proceed on all things with a hive mind. Also attempting to discredit anyone not in the collective, not via facts but by simple name calling and fear mongering.
-Obama has shown that he is no great friend of Israel, even at times teetering on the brink of flat out being opposed to Israel.
-Obama's religious attachment to Christianity seems more forced than earnest. He's publically stated his belief in the secularity of the United States.

So tell me, what the hell does GWB's grandfather have to do with this thread about Obama?

reply to post by niteboy82


You know what, I have egg on my face. This thread had, last time I checked it, mostly derailed from it's original intent and had shifted to a purely "are the comparisons of Obama to Hitler appropriate" thread and in that context, I found your post to be a straw man at best. After re-reading my very own opening post, I now see why you posted what you did and yes, your post was directly a reply to my OP. Sorry for my own confusion. So essentially you are saying that it was appropriate to accuse GW Bush based on the sins of his grandfather? That seems very... Old Testament of you.

George Bush was not a secularist.

And that's a good thing, or bad thing, how?

Again, I wasn't defining good or bad here. (although I happen to believe that our president shouldn't place secularism ahead of faith, that's merely my personal belief.) I was comparing Hitler and Obama vs comparing Hitler and Bush.

The bailouts started during the Bush administration (it's so hard to forget, I know ) so I'm curious to why socialism started with Obama.

While I was entirely opposed to TARP, I would argue that there is no question between TARP and the actual bailouts/"stimulus" money Obama has doled out as far as which one is more socialist in nature. TARP was to be fully repaid to the tax payer, with interest. Much of Obama's handouts have no such promise (or even chance) of return for the nation.

If you're not with us, you're against us. You're with us, or the terrorists. No gray area, no less an absolutist ideology.

I'll agree that there were some elements of this in the Bush administration, but it was nowhere near as prevalent nor as invasive as it has been with this adminsitration. Nor was it as dangerous. I don't recall ever hearing about any Bush detractors having their entire lives ruined for criticizing the man. However, just look at recent history in America and note how devastating even an unfounded claim of racism is to an American today. Now, look at the propaganda machine for Obama... He may not be publically pushing this, but his people certainly have been pushing that Obama criticism and Obama critics are deeply rooted in racism and hatred. My God, many of the highest ranking Democrats have claimed that the tea-party protestors were "carrying Swastikas," were likely Klan members, etc. That's DANGEROUS ground to tread upon because it ruins lives. At worst the Bush detractors were called "unamerican idiots" by those of us who supported the President... BIG difference. Nobody's life has ever been destroyed by being called an idiot.

The last two points on Israel and Christianity, as I said, were comparisons and contrasts between Hitler/Obama/Bush, nothing more. (Personally, as I indicated above, I feel that the president should be a Christian as that is the historical backbone of America... I also feel that Israel has been a strong US ally and, as such, should be supported above our historical and current enemies such as Iran, Palestine, etc. But the comment wasn't intended to be a pro or a con to Obama's stance, merely yet another example of how his stance compares with that of Hitler.)

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
So why is it suddenly no longer OK to use your freedom of speech to disparage this tyranical regime, but it was acceptible to do so for the previous tyrant?

It is acceptable. You don't see anyone getting arrested for having the poster, do you? Thing is, sometimes, when you exercise your free speech, people are going to get upset. And some are going to take action. You may feel the same way if you saw someone burning the flag or disrespecting something you hold dear or making light of a serious matter...

Originally posted by Kram09
He didn't say they should all be armed.

He didn't say any of them should be armed OR wear uniforms. I don't know where people get this stuff! They just like to go nuts. I think there's not enough to get upset about so they start making things up!

And I respect people, not opinions. I'm not going to respect an opinion that I disagree with.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

He didn't say any of them should be armed OR wear uniforms. I don't know where people get this stuff! They just like to go nuts.

I think there's not enough to get upset about so they start making things up!

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

BH,

I have multiple posts with multiple stars in this thread on this very issue.

You are either deliberately ignoring the obvious, or splitting hairs not to equate the following with an armed force beholden to obama ...

From Obama's July 2, 2008, speech in Colorado Springs, Colorado:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Originally posted by centurion1211
BH,

I have multiple posts with multiple stars in this thread on this very issue.

So, stars signify, what? That you're right? No. I'm sorry. They signify nothing but agreement. And we all know there are plenty of people on this board that will star an anti-Obama post even if they haven't read it.

And they don't prove that Obama wants a uniformed, armed force. If you call taking his actual words instead of reading between the lines "splitting hairs", then yes, I am splitting hairs. But I prefer to listen to what a person SAYS, not what they might mean, as interpreted by many people. That can vary by the listener.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

And they don't prove that Obama wants a uniformed, armed force. If you call taking his actual words instead of reading between the lines "splitting hairs", then yes, I am splitting hairs. But I prefer to listen to what a person SAYS, not what they might mean, as interpreted by many people. That can vary by the listener.

Stars mean nothing except how many people agree with a post. My point was that many did seem to agree.

Regarding the issue at hand:

No, the actual "proof" will be when or if we see them marching down the streets of America. Of course, it would be far too late at that point to do anything about it. I and many others prefer to illustrate the potential danger BEFORE it gets to that point. That's how you stop these things BEFORE they even get started.

Question for you and others using "the ostrich principal" here. Would you be OK with it if obama did create his own para-military force? Just because it was obama?

Oh, and it sounds rather elitist to say that only your interpretation of obama's exact words matters.

Cases in point. There have been many issues now that the obama administration has had to backtrack on just because people brought them to the public's attention. The most recent being the NEA conference call trying to get artists to create art to support obama with the "threat" of getting or not getting grants out there as "incentive".

Probably you and some others here would prefer to look the other way at the potential for abuse in this issue, but thankfully many others are willing to serve as watchdogs for just this kind of thing.

[edit on 9/23/2009 by centurion1211]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


From Rahm Emanuel:

“It’s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal [mandatory] civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.”

Basic training and civil defense... Uhm, are you suggesting that this means something other than being armed? Is our new president so pacifistic and spineless that he would see us utilizing French ticklers and fly swatters as "civil defense" tools? Of course not! We have Obama himself calling for this civilian defense group to take some of the load off of our military and Rahm Emanuel, essentially his right hand man, clearly stating that this service will include boot camp.

Combine that with Obama's pet Organizing for America project and their little pledge of allegiance to OBAMA (not America) and Obama's policies (not America's prosperity and future) and yeah... we have a serious situation on our hands.