Agnapostate
Rookie
- Banned
- #81
Really, shut the **** up. Is it that difficult to conclude that neither the Democrats or Republicans are legitimately comparable to Hitler?
Hitler Hated Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals, and Jews
- Thread starter pal_of_poor
- Start date
Really, shut the **** up. Is it that difficult to conclude that neither the Democrats or Republicans are legitimately comparable to Hitler?
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
We haven't been practicing Capitalism since circa 1913 and yes we are practicing Fascism.
.
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,996
- 280
He's just spewing the wingnut talking points.
Really, shut the **** up. Is it that difficult to conclude that neither the Democrats or Republicans are legitimately comparable to Hitler?
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
[. Is it that difficult to conclude that neither the Democrats or Republicans are legitimately comparable to Hitler?
Really?
Read the Nazi Party Platform , then repost.
Agnapostate
Rookie
- Banned
- #85
Cuntufascist, you shut the **** up too until you get around to rebutting my posts on the topic. 
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
Cuntufascist, you shut the **** up too until you get around to rebutting my posts on the topic.
HUH?
Have I touched a nerve?
.
RadiomanATL
Senior Member
[. Is it that difficult to conclude that neither the Democrats or Republicans are legitimately comparable to Hitler?
Really?
Read the Nazi Party Platform , then repost.
Yeeeeaaaah....neither one is comparable.
I don't see either side saying only those of pure blood can be citizens, only these citizens can hold office, Jews must leave the country, all newspapers printed in a language other than english must get permission from the state first and so on.
Not only that, but I don't see either party doing the things that made the Nazi's, well, Nazi's, after this was written in 1920. I think that those old boys went even farther than those pages in their platform a few years later.
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
[. Is it that difficult to conclude that neither the Democrats or Republicans are legitimately comparable to Hitler?
Really?
Read the Nazi Party Platform , then repost.
Yeeeeaaaah....neither one is comparable.
OK Vern, Let's dissect the Nazi Platform:
7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
Aren't the zombified persecuting Our Mexican Alien Friends; Aren't the Know Nothings demanding that aliens be excluded from Obama's Hellcare. Didn't President Hoover expatriate Hispanics of Mexican Descent even if they were US Citizens?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
.
Agnapostate
Rookie
- Banned
- #89
RadiomanATL
Senior Member
Had to go all the way back to Hoover?
Lets just nip this in the bud here.
Just because certain parts of Hitler's, the Nazi,'s Stalin's, the Communist's (fill in the blank with your favorite hated regime in history) platform happens to be pretty analogous to certain parts of a modern American political party's platform does not mean that the modern American political party is comparable to all that those regimes stood for. If the Nazi's declared that water is indeed wet, does that then make it evil that H2O tends to actually be a bit moist? If the Nazi's wanted a strong military, does wanting a strong military make one a Nazi? If the communists did not want religion in the government, does that make wanting a non-religious government communistic?
It's intellectually dishonest. And those that purvey this view are either a) knowingly intellectually dishonest themselves b) trolls or c) just plain stupid.
Multiple choice. Take yer pick.
R
rdean
Guest
Yea, okay, so I'm an idiot. But still, KKK and Aryans consider themselves more Republican than Democrat. Republicans want school prayer, tax breaks for the rich. Republicans hate Communism, Socialist, Homosexuals and are not very fond of the Jews. Republicans are anti education (they want to teach "mysticism" is equal to "science").
And for those that say Hitler wanted a "final" solution and neither Democrats or Republicans are like that, I believe it's only because of the law. If Republicans thought they could enforce a "final solution" against the gays, does anyone believe that wouldn't? If they had the opportunity? You only have to read what they believe on this site alone.
All you have to do is a search on "Gay final solution Republican" and you get lots of people like Scott Renfroe:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsQZiKyJgmw]YouTube - Scott Renfroe Compares Being Gay to Murder[/ame]
I just wish I understood why Republicans are so dishonest.
Last edited by a moderator:
RadiomanATL
Senior Member
The dumb is strong with you.
AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,930
- 0
- Banned
- #94
They aren't dishonest. You're wrong. Most Republicans don't want to kill gays. And most KKK members and white supremecist groups aren't Republican. In fact, the KKK comes out of the South, which has traditionally been a DEMOCRAT stronghold, and the isolationist groups are libertarians.
"Final solution" is eugenics, and I'll give you one guess on who supports it. That's right, our current fascist regime and the majority of democrats who want to do away with unwanted and poor children, old people, and imperfect people. And if you listen to their verbage, they describe anyone who doesn't agree with them on any subject as imperfect. Stupid, ignorant, inbred, etc.
"Final solution" is the determination that a group of people is somehow lesser than your own group, and that's exactly what you see with the Dems and their insistence that Christians and/or Republicans are substandard.
Where do you think this is going?
Last edited:
AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,930
- 0
- Banned
- #95
BTW, Peta wants all humans off the face of the planet as do most environmentalist groups.
Are they Republicans, too?
And Immanuel openly states he wants to deny health care to ppl "for the good of" the rest of the population, starting with old folks. That's "final solution" stuff for real.
Is he a Republican?
Are they Republicans, too?
And Immanuel openly states he wants to deny health care to ppl "for the good of" the rest of the population, starting with old folks. That's "final solution" stuff for real.
Is he a Republican?
paperview
Life is Good
AllieBaba
Rookie
- Oct 2, 2007
- 33,778
- 3,930
- 0
- Banned
- #97
Look what I found when I googled "Democrat Final Solution":
"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated"
"Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf
"Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others"
"Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: "Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide" and "the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care."
NEJM -- What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?
"In the Netherlands, approximately 3100 cases of euthanasia and 550 cases of physician-assisted suicide occur annually, representing 2.3 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively, of all deaths.31 (There are an additional 1000 cases [0.7 percent] in which euthanasia is performed without the patients' explicit, current consent.31 Such cases are neither sanctioned in the Netherlands nor permitted by the current proposals for legalization of physician-assisted suicide in the United States.)"
NEJM -- What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?
"Clearly, the more life forgone, the greater the projected savings. In addition, Dutch physicians estimated that 8 percent of the patients who died as a result of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia would have lived longer than six months29,30; such patients are not "terminally ill," as defined by Oregon's law governing physician-assisted suicide and most American proposals for legalization, and thus would not be permitted to receive a physician's assistance with suicide in the United States."
NEJM -- What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?
The Netherlands information is there because there's is a country that allows euthanasia...and it has lead to non-consensual euthanasia (aka, "murder") on a grand scale. It's not legal, but nobody is prosecuted for it. It's an open secret.
From the same link:
"Another reason may be that people overestimate the number of Americans who die each year. Less than 1 percent of Americans die each year. Of these, many would be unable or ineligible to request a physician's assistance with suicide, even if it were legalized: newborns with serious birth defects, minors, victims of trauma, persons who die suddenly from myocardial infarctions or strokes, and patients with dementia. More important, if Americans were to choose physician-assisted suicide at the same rate as the Dutch choose euthanasia, only 0.027 percent of Americans might choose physician-assisted suicide if it were legalized. Put another way, more than 99.97 percent of Americans would continue to receive the usual health care at the usual cost. Because physician-assisted suicide would not affect the health care provided to the vast majority of Americans, it would not substantially reduce overall health care costs."
Again Immanuel:
"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated"
"Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf
"Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others"
"Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: "Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide" and "the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care."
NEJM -- What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?
"In the Netherlands, approximately 3100 cases of euthanasia and 550 cases of physician-assisted suicide occur annually, representing 2.3 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively, of all deaths.31 (There are an additional 1000 cases [0.7 percent] in which euthanasia is performed without the patients' explicit, current consent.31 Such cases are neither sanctioned in the Netherlands nor permitted by the current proposals for legalization of physician-assisted suicide in the United States.)"
NEJM -- What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?
"Clearly, the more life forgone, the greater the projected savings. In addition, Dutch physicians estimated that 8 percent of the patients who died as a result of physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia would have lived longer than six months29,30; such patients are not "terminally ill," as defined by Oregon's law governing physician-assisted suicide and most American proposals for legalization, and thus would not be permitted to receive a physician's assistance with suicide in the United States."
NEJM -- What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?
The Netherlands information is there because there's is a country that allows euthanasia...and it has lead to non-consensual euthanasia (aka, "murder") on a grand scale. It's not legal, but nobody is prosecuted for it. It's an open secret.
From the same link:
"Another reason may be that people overestimate the number of Americans who die each year. Less than 1 percent of Americans die each year. Of these, many would be unable or ineligible to request a physician's assistance with suicide, even if it were legalized: newborns with serious birth defects, minors, victims of trauma, persons who die suddenly from myocardial infarctions or strokes, and patients with dementia. More important, if Americans were to choose physician-assisted suicide at the same rate as the Dutch choose euthanasia, only 0.027 percent of Americans might choose physician-assisted suicide if it were legalized. Put another way, more than 99.97 percent of Americans would continue to receive the usual health care at the usual cost. Because physician-assisted suicide would not affect the health care provided to the vast majority of Americans, it would not substantially reduce overall health care costs."
Again Immanuel:
"This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
Contumacious
Radical Freedom
I see, so the fact that the US has a huge welfare/warfare state apparatus is a mere coinkidink ?
.
paperview
Life is Good
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Trump posts image of himself as Jesuschrist- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 0
-
-
Impeachment Bombshell: Secret memos expose Ukraine accuser’s bias, hearsay, and false claim- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 0
-
If any individual compared themselves to Jesus, what would you think of them?- Started by frigidweirdo
- Replies: 0
-
