This is the current RNC talking point. We are going to hear it ad nausium from here to eternity.

Comment by bilbobaggins — November 29, 2007 @ 12:57 pm

This brings us back to my original post. Republican comparisons of Dems to Hitler are the result of the last few years of Dem’s cries of “Nazis” and “fascism.” They are just pointing out that you also share some of Hitler’s views. Sounds quite a bit like the argument over who shared what views with osama in his last tape. If you are going to compare others to a hated figure, you should expect the same in return. It’s hypocritical to refuse to acknowledge your own similarities to said figure. ;)

Sorry, stupid, but this was republican Teddy Roosevelt’s idea and it was completely consistent with most of the Founding Fathers, who did not want to see a European-style “landed aristocracy” set up in our country.

“limiting ownership of newspapers”

Unregulated capitalism always results in monopoly. Maybe you haven’t noticed – repubs are the ones pushing unregulated capitalism.

Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 29, 2007 @ 12:37
Why bring Roosevelt into this, bud? In the here and now, it’s libs who want to keep people from leaving the wealth they’ve earned to their children. I don’t know your views on it, but some of your fellow libs are quite vocal about taking most, and in some cases all, of the money people have earned.

Since some Republicans want unregulated capitalism, we have to have govt regulation of the media? Since we don’t have unregulated capitalism, it doesn’t really matter. Now back to the point you avoided. Hitler regulated ownership of newspapers. Libs are pushing for regulation of who can own media outlets. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you share some of Hitler’s views? ;)

Comment by Juan C. — November 29, 2007 @ 12:02 pm

You’ve missed it, because I’ve posted here several times that I don’t think we should have gone into Iraq. I understand why Bush wanted to do something. We had been attacked by muslim extremists. Saddam supported other terrorist groups, had shown he was willing to invade his neighbors without provocation, used WMD’s on his own citizens (again, it doesn’t matter where the WMD’s came from, the people were just as dead), and continually thumbed his nose at the U.N. regarding verification that he had no WMD’s. But I still don’t think we should have gone there. Not that I don’t think we shouldn’t have done something, just that we shouldn’t have sent our people to die there. It’s not worth one American life.

“mass redistribution of wealth”

Maybe you personally do not advocate taking all inherited wealth, but a few of your fellow libs here are for it. Just how much do you consider an acceptable amount for parents to be able to leave to their children? What if their children have disabilities? Can they leave them more than healthy children? Or do you take 50 or 75% of their wealth no matter what. So you work hard, save your money, make wise investment choices to provide for your family and you don’t have the right to leave what you’ve earned to your family. Nevermind that you were taxed on the money when you earned it. We’ll tax it as highly and as many times as necessary to make sure your children don’t benefit from your success. Sorry, but that constitutes mass redistribution of wealth without even going into taxes and welfare programs.
——
“using class differences to divide people”
Even when income increases for the majority, libs are mad that those with higher incomes make gains. The constant refrain of “they’re trying to keep (insert any group) down” is never far away.
——

“strong central govt”
By strong central govt, I didn’t mean increases during time of emergency and/or war. It’s the peacetime taking of power that’s the problem and the favorite of libs.
——
“limiting ownership of newspapers”
– “By “limiting ownership” I assume you mean “creating some room in the marketplace for voices other than the big business conglomerates sympathetic to the Republican viewpoint.” That’s hardly Hitleresque.”

No, actually, by “limiting ownership” I meant “limiting ownership,” which is the lib view. I’m not aware of any laws preventing racial minorities, women, liberals or any other group from owning any form of media. Libs are trying to force govt to place controls on media instead of allowing the people to decide what media succeeds and what doesn’t.
——
What about other Hitler views? Do you see liberals agreeing with his positions on nationalism, racism, homosexuality, abortion, checks and balances in government, personal freedoms, democracy, intellectualism, etc.?

Comment by missmolly — November 29, 2007 @ 11:53 am

I have no problem acknowledging that conservatives share Hitler’s view that homosexuality is wrong. I don’t, however, share his view that they should be persecuted. Abortion? He was against abortion for Aryans and for abortion for all others. So I guess you and I each agree with him partially. ;) Racism? I’m not racist, how about you? I’m all for checks and balances and freedom (not to be taxed excessivley and free to own any business you are able to afford). You have me on nationalism. I happen to think the U.S. is the greatest nation. Don’t read that as meaning we are inherently better than anyone, just that our country is the greatest and worth protecting. Intellectualism? I agree with the need for an educated populace and that life is much more enjoyable for those who have a well rounded education. Unfortunately, for many people, intellectualism now is used to describe those who will adopt any flakey idea just because it is taught by a professor. ;)

As you’re pointing out, I love the way the “official” history of the US (or most any country) has this very noble veneer while the actual facts are usually a lot more mundane.

I wonder if you and I may be saying things very close together, looking at different sides of the coin and/or possibly getting into a Chicken Egg Argument.

I’d agree fully that Hitler took advantage of the hard times and the psychological state of the people (and the disconnect between the pride in the long history of Germany and the then current state of affairs).

I’m just focusing more on the fact that the post-WWI sanctions and the natural effect of being a defeated country set up the situations which allowed Hitler to rise. Before someone asks, I’m not even saying that the situation was wrong – Germany was at the heart of a terrible episode in world history; as a defeated war country, it wasn’t uncalled for the victors of the war to exercise both control over the country and also administer a form of punishment for misdeeds. But these very natural effects also helped set the stage for Hitler. And also, of course there were many other factors including the hold of the old aristocracy over the government and their apparent obliviousness to the poor state of affairs.

And along the line of the comment by Bilbo Baggins, it is rather interesting to compare and contrast the similarities and differences between both the national situations of Hitler and Bush and the tactics used by both.

But that sure ain’t gonna make me take you seriously. In fact, it just makes me laugh even harder.

Just sayin’. And you have a nice day, sweets.

Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 29, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

Actually, it should have been “a MENSAN should know”. Mensa is the organization to which Mensans belong. Like “Rotary” and “Rotarians”.

But I’m just being overly picky… ;-)

Very illuminating. Sorry, dumbass, but the Boston Tea Party was about just one thing and it’s not what most people think. In fact, it’s the opposite of what most people think.

Again, simple-minded and not very “Mensa.” Everyone who knows the score knows that Ivy-league Universities are very hard to get into, but once in, it’s not that hard to “graduate.” Now, graduating with distinction is tough, but Bush didn’t get close to that. Remember, even with a Grandpa who was a Senator and a Father who was a congressman, he couldn’t get admitted to U. of Texas Law School, which was his first choice and the only reason he was admitted to Harvard Bus. School was because of a generous contribution to them from members of his family. Incidentally, I like to point out that Bush was the 17th legacy at Yale from his family, a string of legacies stretching back to the 1840’s. This is American-style landed aristocracy. If you like that then you like something universally reviled by 90% of the nation’s Founding Fathers.

What do you mean by “almost always”? If you really understood what the term means, you would know that we have never seen a true communist regime. Those that have tried to be communist regimes have ALWAYS resulted in oppression because of what Marx called “cult of personality.” Not “almost always.” The only freely elected communist in history, Salvador Allende of Chile, may have succeeded in a communist regime without oppression, but we will never know because he was murdered in a U.S. backed military coup. In addition, you’ve shown above that you notice no distinction between democratic socialism and socialism and that you see no distinction between Hitler’s lipservice to the label and the reality of his fascism in the form of power sharing between government and large corporate power.

So, if you really are a Mensa member, you are a very strange one and you really need to crack open a history book NOT edited by objectivists.

Comment by bilbobaggins — November 29, 2007 @ 12:53 pm

It probably hasn’t been made an issue yet because nobody believes Huckabee will get the nomination. If he does, I fully expect him to be given the “Willie Horton” treatment. A paid commercial will certainly get the ball rolling, then bloggers will pick it up and run with it, and then the MSM will chime in.

It’s kind of a pity, because I think there are more important things to consider in a presidential candidate. But I can see a few disgruntled Dems jumping at the chance to get revenge on Lee Atwater’s treatment of Dukakis.

NOT.

You won the cigar, sir.

And you, your Beloved Leader and the rest of today’s Republican Party members ARE indeed fascists – in every sense of the word.

On the other hand, again, as many posters here have correctly pointed out, your assertion that progressivism/liberalism = Nazism is just plain bullshit – also known as Republican Talking Point #1.