A group of Northern Iowa TEA partiers created a billboard with pictures of Obama, Hitler, and Lenin side by side. They say their goal was to showcase how Obama is a democratic socialist... a socialist like Hitler and Lenin. Other TEA partiers have distanced themselves; however, their disavowals were less than offensive in themselves. TEA Partiers, for the most part, are like a dumbed down Robert Byrd: they carry around a notion of the US Constitution; however, unlike Byrd, they don't understand it except as it applies to land owning white people. Yes, I know as a young man Byrd was a member of a racist organization, of which he said, "...deepest regret of my life." Apparently, to Flirties, change is not possible, the die is cast and remains... what nonsense.
I don't think this was just a youthful mistake by Byrd. Not only was Byrd a member of the KKK, during the 40's he organized a 150 member group of the KKK. In the mid 60's Byrd also opposed the civil rights for black americans. Byrd actually filibustered for 14 hours against the civil rights act of 1964.
One has to wonder did Bryd have a change of heart abainst blacks or was it just a political move on his behalf. Only Byrd knows that answer.
Where were the threads when your liberal brethren were comparing Bush to Hitler?
Put aside all the atrocities committed under Hitler, and look at it from a pure political standpoint, Obama is much closer to those ideals than Bush. Yet since you hated Bush it was okay to compare him to Hitler.
It must get confusing at times with all the double standards.
thecavemaster Wrote:I don't compare Bush to Hitler. George Bush II had policies I didn't agree with across the board...however, he wasn't evil or stupid and all that jazz. I didn't and don't agree with a lot of his social/economic/foreign policy. "Obama is much closer to the ideals of Hitler than Bush." As the SNL skit would say, "Really?"
O.K. How about comparing Obama to Germany in the 1920"s
Old School Wrote:I don't think this was just a youthful mistake by Byrd. Not only was Byrd a member of the KKK, during the 40's he organized a 150 member group of the KKK. In the mid 60's Byrd also opposed the civil rights for black americans. Byrd actually filibustered for 14 hours against the civil rights act of 1964.
One has to wonder did Bryd have a change of heart abainst blacks or was it just a political move on his behalf. Only Byrd knows that answer.
Ya know, I met a World War II vet at the hospital pharmacy in Ft. Campbell a few weeks ago...and I sat and talked with him for 3 hours, way after I had gotten my medicine. He just wanted to have someone to talk to and I love hearing those old war stories, especially when there's hardly any WWII vets left. I will probably never get that oppurtunity again.
Anyway, we talked about everything from when he was a Airborne paratrooper in the 101st to when he got shot in Sicily (sp?). To beat it all, he was even a Scout back then, the same job I have today. Somehow, I can't really remember how, but the subject of race came up. And I asked him what he thought about blacks not being able to serve, for the most part, with white combat units. He told me that back then most of the Soldiers thought that blacks were an inferior race. He told me that back then alot of people thought it was a scientific fact...he said he never thought that, he looked at blacks like they were people, unlike most everyone else.
The point I'm trying to make is that I really don't put as much fault on people back in the 40's and 50's that were racist as I do racists from the last 30 or so years. It was different times, and alot of people didn't hate them just because of their skin color. They thought they were kind of like a different species (sp?) and alot of people were just scared of change, period.
I know I didn't word that post really good, but please, nobody get the wrong impression. Most of you know me pretty good, and I'm the farthest thing from any kind of racist or bigot or anything like that. I'm also not taking up for any racists, whether it be a person from 1942, 1980 or 2010.
Can you guys get what I'm saying?
vundy33 Wrote:Ya know, I met a World War II vet at the hospital pharmacy in Ft. Campbell a few weeks ago...and I sat and talked with him for 3 hours, way after I had gotten my medicine. He just wanted to have someone to talk to and I love hearing those old war stories, especially when there's hardly any WWII vets left. I will probably never get that oppurtunity again.
Anyway, we talked about everything from when he was a Airborne paratrooper in the 101st to when he got shot in Sicily (sp?). To beat it all, he was even a Scout back then, the same job I have today. Somehow, I can't really remember how, but the subject of race came up. And I asked him what he thought about blacks not being able to serve, for the most part, with white combat units. He told me that back then most of the Soldiers thought that blacks were an inferior race. He told me that back then alot of people thought it was a scientific fact...he said he never thought that, he looked at blacks like they were people, unlike most everyone else.
The point I'm trying to make is that I really don't put as much fault on people back in the 40's and 50's that were racist as I do racists from the last 30 or so years. It was different times, and alot of people didn't hate them just because of their skin color. They thought they were kind of like a different species (sp?) and alot of people were just scared of change, period.
I know I didn't word that post really good, but please, nobody get the wrong impression. Most of you know me pretty good, and I'm the farthest thing from any kind of racist or bigot or anything like that. I'm also not taking up for any racists, whether it be a person from 1942, 1980 or 2010.
Can you guys get what I'm saying?
I get what you're saying. However I don't think Byrd's connection with the KKK was either brief or innocent. I think his stance on the civil rights act in 1964, tells it all. Now that is not to say he didn't have a change of heart later in his life, only Byrd himself knows the truth. If Byrd says he changed his ways then who am I to argue, but I wouldn't put anything past any politician, regardless of party affliation.
thecavemaster Wrote:The seeds of 1920's Germany were sown in the harsh post-war Allied policies toward Germany. The comparison fails for so many reasons it's not worth exploring. Really?
So once again you refuse to comment.
notamoocher Wrote:So once again you refuse to comment.
If he does, you may want to play the lottery this weekend. :biggrin:
thecavemaster Wrote:The seeds of 1920's Germany were sown in the harsh post-war Allied policies toward Germany. The comparison fails for so many reasons it's not worth exploring. Really?
Hitler and the Nazis just used the terms of the Treaty of Versailles as a scapegoat, along with German Jews. American investors got stuck with much of the bill for German WW I reparations when Germany repudiated loans from American investors that had been used to pay the reparations. In total, only about 1/8th of the reparations were ever paid.
The question is, who will be stuck with the mountain of debt that 0bama is accumulating. He has added more than $1 trillion to the national debt already this year and the cowardly Democratic Congress has no plans to even propose a 2010 budget. Instead, they have "deemed" the nonexistent budget passed.
The Hitler analogy fails on another point, which you failed to mention. German manufacturing giants like Volkswagen survived under Hitler' brutal regime and thrived after the war. I seriously doubt that GM and Chrysler will be so lucky if 0bama is a two-term president.
thecavemaster Wrote:Hitler sought to win allegiance not simply to his party, but to himself. This is a key difference. Politicians in America might seek allegiance from voters for purposes of reelection...but not to win them to themselves for the purposes of building an empire or conquering Europe or the world. This is, perhaps, the vital difference that makes this whole analogy laughable. GM and Chrysler, if they build attractive, reliable cars, will make it.
So, you think that 0bama is working to win allegiance to the Democratic Party? If so, then he is failing miserably. 0bama will leave office when voters wise up and toss him out or when he cannot legally run for reelection. The only other thing that might cause him to step down after one disastrous term is that some states may require all presidential candidates to prove that they are eligible to hold the office in 2012. 0bama may not be willing to comply with such a common sense requirement.
thecavemaster Wrote:If I thought you truly as dense as your posts suggest, I would back off. However, you are a typical Hack. Barack Obama believes health insurance reform was necessary, believes financial services reform was necessary, believes a financial bailout was temporarily necessary given the current conditions. From that, you all "tweet, tweet, tweet" the Flirty mantra of "socialist, socialist, socialist." Does he want Democrats to remain in the majority? Of course. Does he want a second term? Of course. Well, well, well, Hoot, glad to have the "birth certificate" rabbit out of hiding... maybe I did overestimate you. Pity.
You really are blinded by 0bama's phony brilliance, CM. If you want to label me a "birther," you go right ahead. The only cards you have to play are insults and ridicule, so I am sure that anybody who mentions state initiatives that may require ALL candidates to establish their eligibility to serve as president will be labeled a birther by those who have never have any substantive arguments in support of 0bama. Do you object to the notion that candidates should demonstrate that they are eligible to hold the offices that they seek?
I personally believe that 0bama was born in Hawaii but I also believe that he has not spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills for to avoid public disclosure of the original document for nothing. There is something about 0bama's birth certificate that would be embarrassing or politically damaging to him or he would have saved himself a boatload of money.
However, I want to see 0bama to finish serving his single term. I want 0bama to have a fair chance to prove to the younger generation in this country that socialism is never the answer to any problem. I don't want to give him any excuses for failing miserably.
thecavemaster Wrote:While it is nice of you attempt to post for me, thanks but no thanks. I do not consider Obama brilliant. However, your position on "birther conspiracy" speaks for Beckself, I mean itself. Obama will run for President in 2012, probably survive some sort of assassination attempt, win in an intensely bitter election, with the country divided and hostile.
One does not need to be a conspiracy nut to believe that there is probably a good reason why a person would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid public disclosure of his birth certificate, while having his handlers insist that the BC has already been made public. The Little League would cease to exist if the little guys were as protective of their birth records as 0bama. Do you have a theory that might explain 0bama's strange behavior? Is he just repaying an army of trial lawyers for their support?
I have always suspected that one reason for the failure to produce a birth certificate for obama is because his parents produced him, to quote a southern lawyer friend of mine, without the benefit of clergy.