Ridiculous Political Parallels

[D_Thoraxis_Biggulp]

What is it with people who want to alarm others about politicians and comparing them to Hitler? During the Bush Jr. Era, we had people comparing him to Hitler because both were warmongers. Now, I've started to see people here-and-there comparing Obama to Hitler simply on account of "Hitler gave great speeches, too."
Which brings me to another point...


Bush keeps pumping money into Iraq.
Oh, he's a warmonger! He's draining our economy!
Obama is a diplomonger (a word of my own devising) and wants out of Iraq.
He doesn't know what he's doing and is going to screw things up!

Bush stammers during his speeches.
He's an idiot!
Obama speaks clearly and eloquently during his pre-written speeches.
Hitler gave good speeches, too!

Bush was an average student.
He's an idiot! (again)
Obama is an educated politician.
He's a snob!


The ridiculous Hitler parallels aside, I just wish people could make up their minds. Fucktards find any excuse to be pissed off at whoever is or could be in office.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I think you'll find it is not the same people saying those things though (I'm open to correction). It is different people using the same tactics to discredit a politician without actually having to talk about the policies / actions - though why people feel the need to avoid talking about real stuff in relation to Bush is beyond me.

Character assiniation has always been part of politics but it has more recently become the staple diet of political debate. Which is rather a sad state of affairs.

 

[D_Thoraxis_Biggulp]

Oh I know it's not the same people. Except maybe teenage wannabe anarchists and those following the De La Rocha gospel (zack de la rocha, vocalist from rage against the machine).
The Hitler parallels are just stupidly overdone and extremely far-fetched.

 

[Trinity]

What is it with people who want to alarm others about politicians and comparing them to Hitler? During the Bush Jr. Era, we had people comparing him to Hitler because both were warmongers. Now, I've started to see people here-and-there comparing Obama to Hitler simply on account of "Hitler gave great speeches, too."
Which brings me to another point...

I believe the comparisons are brought up because some voters see little substance in the "message" of Obama which is based on hope and change rhetoric.

The "propaganda" employed by Hitler to persuade his followers to follow him was an air of Nationalism, pride, youth and power that Hitler primed in his Nation. The gift of oration was used by Hitler to dazzle, impress and charm but underneath the "message" was little substance and scary policies dressed up for the masses to fool them.

The speeches aren't the only reason the comparisons abound...
There is the location of his speech in Germany that raised some eyebrows. Is Obama Speech Site Contaminated by Nazi Past?

"The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France," the deputy leader of the Free Democrats, Rainer Brüderle, told Bild am Sonntag. He raised the question as to "whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world." -Speigel
​

And then there is Obama's questionable policy that comes out every so often and the actions of his campaign. Policy questions on Obama are still being debated on his support of FISA and then Obama stated the following in a speech on July 2nd:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives 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." - Barack Obama
​

This line is in the live speech on YouTube but not in the prepared remarks of the transcript.

From Hotair: Are the media airbrushing Obama’s speeches?

The stunning comments from Democrat Sen. Barack Obama that the United States needs a “civilian national security force” that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar United States Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have mysteriously disappeared from published transcripts of the speech.
In the comments, Obama confirmed the U.S. “cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.”
Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting a comment on the situation. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.
​

Obama's Civilian National Security Force
Comments from the article at American Thinker:

Obama's suggestion for a Civilian National Security Force is frightening. He makes it sound good but it's also going to entail children going to school and reporting what they overheard their parents discussing the night before, neighbors are going to be reporting on neighbors, friends are going to be reporting on friends, etc., etc. This is dangerous territory for the United States of America. In other words it will be another police force similar to Hitler's SS troops. If this is what America wants, then that will be the end of my country as we know it. Think twice before you pull that lever for Obama the mad man. -Anna

"We cannot continue to rely on our military..." That must inspire confidence among our troops, as must Obama's "I will's" where our national defence is concerned: "I WILL cut investments in unproven(?) missile defense systems," "I WILL not weaponize space," "I WILL slow development of future combat systems," "I WILL not develop new nuclear weapons," Obama will, in effect, unilaterally disarm, even though Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and others are ramping up their defences -and offences- as fast as they can. (Incidentally, doesn't Congress have a say in any of this? Last I checked we still have a legislative as well as an executive branch of government).
Will the civilian national security force truly be voluntary, while being just as well funded as the military? "All...will be asked to serve." Michelle Obama at UCLA declared that Barack is going to DEMAND that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation....Barack Obama will REQUIRE you to work... Barack will NEVER ALLOW you to go back to your lives a usual."
As for us serving the government (because that's what it boils down to), isn't it the government which is supposed to be serving us, within the limited constaints of the founding documents? - jmichael

My mother said when she was growing up in Germany, born in 1919, they called the members of this type of organization "brown shirts". I think we all know who they pledge their allegiance to in Germany.
She and her parents left to live in Scotland shortly before the "brown shirts" and their leader, Hitler, came to fruition. - Catherine


​

 

[B_Nick4444]

Several interesting comparisons are being made between one of the worst Presidents in US history (James Earl Carter), and Barack Obama

I recall one of my political science profs recounting how the American electorate exhausted, and disillusioned by the scandals of the Nixon administration saw in Carter the incarnation of "John Boy" from the Waltons tv series, and a complete 180 degree turn from the direction the country had been moving in; Change was the big buzzword.

inter alia, there was to be a big difference in the conduct of our foreign affairs, under a more humane, liberal banner

it resulted in the humiliation of his Presidency by the Iranian revolution, the capture of American hostages, and, of course, the ceding of the Panama Canal, now controlled by the Chinese, and pivotal in many scenarios where China invades the USA ...

and, of course, it resulted in the re-ascension of the Republican Party, and the election of Ronald Reagan

 

[Shelby]

In that case (Trinity's) I'd have to retort P.U.M.A. is serving the wishes of Charles Manson and seeking to incite racial warfare.

 

[D_Thoraxis_Biggulp]

The CNSF thing is in reference to his intent to expand Americorps to 250,000 slots, up from 75,000, in order to promote domestic civilian support for the troops. He's also planning to push for a strong increase in enrollments in Energy Corps and Peace Corps. Everyone will be asked to serve, but nobody can be forced to by current law. The "worst" he could do is bribe recent high school grads with college tuition payouts after X years of service. The only ones being directly put in any of them, by his plan, are the two million young and unemployed wandering the country. While there may be some that don't want to work for Energy Corps and feel it's being forced on them, handing the opportunity to them is a good way to lower unemployment while populating the civilian Corps organizations. The Youthbuild program will also be expanded as an additional opportunity. This will provide more employment opportunities for teens and young adults as well as housing for the lower income sector. Also, for students who complete 100 hours of civilian service at a high school or college level, they'll receive a $4,000 tax credit to help make higher education a bit more affordable.


If you actually look at the things that Obama says and writes, instead of just taking a glimpse, noticing he's verbose and eloquent, then deciding to get the rundown from commentary elsewhere, you'll notice the things he says make a lot of sense. These are plans the benefit both parties. And while they may seem like pipe dreams, expanding these organizations and pushing for enrollment is a step in the right direction. If he can get the support behind him, it can be done. It just won't be overnight.
As for anything Michelle Obama has said (whether she said those things or not, I don't know, but given Barack's transcript it sounds like she was going overboard with it), just remember... She is not Barack. Despite Hillary's strong media presence while Bill was in office, The First Lady doesn't speak for the President nor does she hold any amount of political power during the term. We know Michelle is loud and outspoken when she gets the chance to speak publicly, but it's best to let Barack speak for his policies and plans instead of her.

 

[D_Thoraxis_Biggulp]

Several interesting comparisons are being made between one of the worst Presidents in US history (James Earl Carter), and Barack Obama

I recall one of my political science profs recounting how the American electorate exhausted, and disillusioned by the scandals of the Nixon administration saw in Carter the incarnation of "John Boy" from the Waltons tv series, and a complete 180 degree turn from the direction the country had been moving in; Change was the big buzzword.

inter alia, there was to be a big difference in the conduct of our foreign affairs, under a more humane, liberal banner

it resulted in the humiliation of his Presidency by the Iranian revolution, the capture of American hostages, and, of course, the ceding of the Panama Canal, now controlled by the Chinese, and pivotal in many scenarios where China invades the USA ...

and, of course, it resulted in the re-ascension of the Republican Party, and the election of Ronald Reagan

All that's really saying is that the stage is set up now the same as it was back then. But it's still a stronger comparison than any I've seen to Hitler.

 

[marleyisalegend]

I believe the comparisons are brought up because some voters see little substance in the "message" of Obama which is based on hope and change rhetoric.

Oh fucking Christ you guys done woke her up. Trinity, how the flying fuck does giving speeches equate to a man who led the slaughter of millions? It fucking doesn't!! It's a sorry ass attempt at slandering Obama by using the 2nd grade, no kindergarden tactic of "look, he's just like somebody else who was really really bad." Michael Jackson was just like Hitler cuz he hurt people. Mother Theresa was just like Hitler cuz they both took shits.

Grow the hell up and try developing an individual thought that isn't based on a news article (from a biased blog) or using those kindergarden "you doodoo head" tactics.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

What is it with people who want to alarm others about politicians and comparing them to Hitler? During the Bush Jr. Era, we had people comparing him to Hitler because both were warmongers. Now, I've started to see people here-and-there comparing Obama to Hitler simply on account of "Hitler gave great speeches, too."
Which brings me to another point...


Bush keeps pumping money into Iraq.
Oh, he's a warmonger! He's draining our economy!
Obama is a diplomonger (a word of my own devising) and wants out of Iraq.
He doesn't know what he's doing and is going to screw things up!

Bush stammers during his speeches.
He's an idiot!
Obama speaks clearly and eloquently during his pre-written speeches.
Hitler gave good speeches, too!

Bush was an average student.
He's an idiot! (again)
Obama is an educated politician.
He's a snob!


The ridiculous Hitler parallels aside, I just wish people could make up their minds. Fucktards find any excuse to be pissed off at whoever is or could be in office.

The only problem with your examples is that the comparisons of Obama are specious... and the ones of Bush evidentiary.

Bush HAS been in office... He DOES show ample evidence of being an idiot of the first order. He HAS diverted hundreds of billions of BORROWED dollars into the pockets of the very corporate interets that got him in office. ( remember the supreme court case? Bush's side was taken care, for free, of by the attorneys for ENRON... one of which became AG... gonzalez? - any wonder why Bush refused to investigate energy market manipulations?)


Obama has NOT screwed up Iraq, yet... Bush HAS screwed it up in spades.



So the allegations made agasint Bush are based upon his actions...

the allegations against Obama are base entirely upon fear mongering and imagination.


That makes the two scenarios incommensurable. Allegations against Bush can be defended with evidence.
Those Against Obama are pure invention.

Obama may be just as lousy in office... we have no real way of knowing until it happens... No one could have dreamed that Bush would have ended up being the traitorous corporate shill he has been...



And the most import lesson we should learn from Hitler?

Hitler was ELECTED to office in a free and democratic system.
And, thru fear, talked the German legislature and people into granting him ever greater power and authority.

Sound familiar?

fascism is the politics of fear. No nation is immune to its lure.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance... not directed outward... but vigilance directed at ourselves.

We, the people, are the biggest threat to our own nation.
We voted for this administration.
We tolerated his disemboweling the constitution.
We allowed him to stay in office.
Each little concession seeming not so much to sacrifice on the altar of our fear...

How does a nation fall into thrall with fascism?

Step by step

 

[ZOS23xy]

Oh I know it's not the same people. Except maybe teenage wannabe anarchists and those following the De La Rocha gospel (zack de la rocha, vocalist from rage against the machine).
The Hitler parallels are just stupidly overdone and extremely far-fetched.

Yeah, Hitler was legally elected and even served in the German Army without vanishing, something Bush can't say he did.

Bush isn't like Hitler. Hitler wrote a book.

 

[quarkGLS]

And the most import lesson we should learn from Hitler?

Hitler was ELECTED to office in a free and democratic system.
And, thru fear, talked the German legislature and people into granting him ever greater power and authority.

Sound familiar?

fascism is the politics of fear. No nation is immune to its lure.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance... not directed outward... but vigilance directed at ourselves.

We, the people, are the biggest threat to our own nation.
We voted for this administration.
We tolerated his disemboweling the constitution.
We allowed him to stay in office.
Each little concession seeming not so much to sacrifice on the altar of our fear...

How does a nation fall into thrall with fascism?

Step by step

Well said.

 

[vince]

If you actually look at the things that Obama says and writes, instead of just taking a glimpse, noticing he's verbose and eloquent, then deciding to get the rundown from commentary elsewhere, you'll notice the things he says make a lot of sense.

Right there you hit the nail on the head. Not about Obama. About taking a glimpse and letting someone else's commentary inform you. We all too often let that happen in this society. We see a headline or hear a sound bite, and then turn to an editorial opinion, or an "expert" to tell us what it means.

People need to start thinking for themselves instead of letting the talking heads do it for us. We start with a certain proclivity to a "side", or point of view, it could be left wing, or fundamentalist or Clintonian or you-name-it, and then go looking for opinion on issues to re-inforce our tendences. Many people don't go further than that. They don't question the source or it's verasity or ask what's in it for the pundit. What are his motivations? Who's paying for the space his opinion takes up on the page?

People just blindly follow, because it's easier to hear what you want to hear than to ask questions. The comparions of Obama to Hitler above are prime examples of shallow, lazy people refusing to question (or even formulate) their own opinions.

 

[Trinity]

The CNSF thing is in reference to his intent to expand Americorps to 250,000 slots, up from 75,000, in order to promote domestic civilian support for the troops. He's also planning to push for a strong increase in enrollments in Energy Corps and Peace Corps. Everyone will be asked to serve, but nobody can be forced to by current law. The "worst" he could do is bribe recent high school grads with college tuition payouts after X years of service. The only ones being directly put in any of them, by his plan, are the two million young and unemployed wandering the country. While there may be some that don't want to work for Energy Corps and feel it's being forced on them, handing the opportunity to them is a good way to lower unemployment while populating the civilian Corps organizations. The Youthbuild program will also be expanded as an additional opportunity. This will provide more employment opportunities for teens and young adults as well as housing for the lower income sector. Also, for students who complete 100 hours of civilian service at a high school or college level, they'll receive a $4,000 tax credit to help make higher education a bit more affordable.


If you actually look at the things that Obama says and writes, instead of just taking a glimpse, noticing he's verbose and eloquent, then deciding to get the rundown from commentary elsewhere, you'll notice the things he says make a lot of sense. These are plans the benefit both parties. And while they may seem like pipe dreams, expanding these organizations and pushing for enrollment is a step in the right direction. If he can get the support behind him, it can be done. It just won't be overnight.
As for anything Michelle Obama has said (whether she said those things or not, I don't know, but given Barack's transcript it sounds like she was going overboard with it), just remember... She is not Barack. Despite Hillary's strong media presence while Bill was in office, The First Lady doesn't speak for the President nor does she hold any amount of political power during the term. We know Michelle is loud and outspoken when she gets the chance to speak publicly, but it's best to let Barack speak for his policies and plans instead of her.

I look very closely at the things Obama states and his campaign releases. This statement was in addition to his specific statements on Americorp, the Peace Corp and the other programs. A Civilian National Security Force is completely outside the realm of all of those organizations and none of those organizations would not meet the definition of a security force with a cost of 439 Billion dollors. The Obama campaign has failed to add clarification on what the Senator meant.

 

[mista geechee]

Let's not forget that he's elitist because he went to Harvard. Huh......Clinton went to Oxford?.....but.......aum.........Huh?....pretty much every politician has a law degree...?.....but.....

 

[Trinity]

Let's not forget that he's elitist because he went to Harvard. Huh......Clinton went to Oxford?.....but.......aum.........Huh?....pretty much every politician has a law degree...?.....but.....

Obama being an elitist has nothing to do with him attending Harvard. Obama started out at Occidental College.

Bill Clinton was a Rhode Scholar.

 

[Industrialsize]

I believe the comparisons are brought up because some voters see little substance in the "message" of Obama which is based on hope and change rhetoric.

The "propaganda" employed by Hitler to persuade his followers to follow him was an air of Nationalism, pride, youth and power that Hitler primed in his Nation. The gift of oration was used by Hitler to dazzle, impress and charm but underneath the "message" was little substance and scary policies dressed up for the masses to fool them.

The speeches aren't the only reason the comparisons abound...
There is the location of his speech in Germany that raised some eyebrows. Is Obama Speech Site Contaminated by Nazi Past?

"The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France," the deputy leader of the Free Democrats, Rainer Brüderle, told Bild am Sonntag. He raised the question as to "whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world." -Speigel
​

And then there is Obama's questionable policy that comes out every so often and the actions of his campaign. Policy questions on Obama are still being debated on his support of FISA and then Obama stated the following in a speech on July 2nd:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives 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." - Barack Obama
​

This line is in the live speech on YouTube but not in the prepared remarks of the transcript.

From Hotair: Are the media airbrushing Obama’s speeches?

The stunning comments from Democrat Sen. Barack Obama that the United States needs a “civilian national security force” that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar United States Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have mysteriously disappeared from published transcripts of the speech.
In the comments, Obama confirmed the U.S. “cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.”
Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting a comment on the situation. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.
​

Obama's Civilian National Security Force
Comments from the article at American Thinker:

Obama's suggestion for a Civilian National Security Force is frightening. He makes it sound good but it's also going to entail children going to school and reporting what they overheard their parents discussing the night before, neighbors are going to be reporting on neighbors, friends are going to be reporting on friends, etc., etc. This is dangerous territory for the United States of America. In other words it will be another police force similar to Hitler's SS troops. If this is what America wants, then that will be the end of my country as we know it. Think twice before you pull that lever for Obama the mad man. -Anna

"We cannot continue to rely on our military..." That must inspire confidence among our troops, as must Obama's "I will's" where our national defence is concerned: "I WILL cut investments in unproven(?) missile defense systems," "I WILL not weaponize space," "I WILL slow development of future combat systems," "I WILL not develop new nuclear weapons," Obama will, in effect, unilaterally disarm, even though Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela and others are ramping up their defences -and offences- as fast as they can. (Incidentally, doesn't Congress have a say in any of this? Last I checked we still have a legislative as well as an executive branch of government).
Will the civilian national security force truly be voluntary, while being just as well funded as the military? "All...will be asked to serve." Michelle Obama at UCLA declared that Barack is going to DEMAND that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation....Barack Obama will REQUIRE you to work... Barack will NEVER ALLOW you to go back to your lives a usual."
As for us serving the government (because that's what it boils down to), isn't it the government which is supposed to be serving us, within the limited constaints of the founding documents? - jmichael

My mother said when she was growing up in Germany, born in 1919, they called the members of this type of organization "brown shirts". I think we all know who they pledge their allegiance to in Germany.
She and her parents left to live in Scotland shortly before the "brown shirts" and their leader, Hitler, came to fruition. - Catherine


​

This is rich........so Obama is NOW a Hitlerite nazi sympathizer who brainwashes the masses with his speaking ability??You keep revealing more of your true colors.....It's clear that in your mind, Obama will NEVER do anything right and you will look for some nefarious motive in everyting he does.

 

[Trinity]

This is rich........so Obama is NOW a Hitlerite nazi sympathizer ho brainwashes the masses with his speaking ability??You keep revealing more of your true colors.....

That's what you called Obama. What I cited were examples of things said and done by Obama and his campaign that have concerned some people to see comparisons of certain characteristics such as the use of demagoguery and the priming of emotional connections of persona and popularity at the expense of political substance, fair reflection, consistency and depth.

 

[Industrialsize]

That's what you called Obama. What I cited were examples of things said and done by Obama and his campaign that have concerned some people to see comparisons of certain characteristics such as the use of demagoguery and the priming of emotional connections of persona and popularity at the expense of political substance, fair reflection, consistency and depth.

NO MISS THAT"S WHAT YOU IMPLIED!>>>>>>>I WAS JUST VOICING YOUR IMPLICATIONS!

 

[Trinity]

NO MISS THAT"S WHAT YOU IMPLIED!>>>>>>>I WAS JUST VOICING YOUR IMPLICATIONS!

Obama wants to start a civilian national security force on apar with the strength and budget of our military army. I implied nothing but that comparisons to tactics and policies used in the past are being made to Obama because some people find similarities. Parallels are not simply drawn on flowery speeches but specific characteristics. Your statement on Obama is your own.