Libs lie when they say Hitler recieved a majority vote

[Avatar4321]

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp

Here is a history of Hitler's rise to power. Just in case any liberal tries to say he was elected to anything. He wasnt.

 

[nakedemperor]

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp

Here is a history of Hitler's rise to power. Just in case any liberal tries to say he was elected to anything. He wasnt.

This is completely fecetious, but you're saying that initally Hitler didn't recieve a majority vote and still rose to power...? And for a time was wildly popular among his populous? =)

JK JK i personally find it crazy to compare Bush to Hitler =P

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This is completely fecetious, but you're saying that initally Hitler didn't recieve a majority vote and still rose to power...? And for a time was wildly popular among his populous? =)

JK JK i personally find it crazy to compare Bush to Hitler =P

Check history, newby.

 

[Comrade]

This is completely fecetious, but you're saying that initally Hitler didn't recieve a majority vote and still rose to power...?

Yep:

In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were:

Hindenburg 49.6 percent
Hitler 30.1 percent
Thaelmann 13.2 percent
Duesterberg 6.8 percent

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, almost 70 percent of the German people voted against Hitler, causing his supporter Joseph Goebbels, who would later become Hitler’s minister of propaganda, to lament in his journal, “We’re beaten; terrible outlook. Party circles badly depressed and dejected.”

 

[KarlMarx]

Well, since we're comparing presidents to notorious persons of the past then I'll compare Clinton to Charles Manson.... and those who defend him to Manson's followers

1. Manson's followers have elevated him to a godlike status, even giving him powers that he does not have. (Clinton supporters have done almost the same thing, crediting Clinton for the 1990s economy, claimining he was tough on terrorism)

2. Manson's followers will defend everything that Charles Manson does, no matter how heinous (Clinton supporters will defend him for committing perjury, lying to the American public, Whitewater and a host of other wrongs)

3. Manson's followers blame society in general for his fate (i.e. the fact that he's in prison) and ignore the fact that they are really the consequences of his actions (Clinton supporters like to blame conservatives and that gosh darn "right wing conspiracy").

P.S. Wouldn't it be a gas if in a few years a rock band named "Marilyn Clinton" came along? The lead singer could dress up as an ex-president and the rest of the band members can dress up like interns!

 

[nakedemperor]

Yep:

Thanks, I uh.. read the article.

Sorry, sometimes my sarcasm is too subtle for communists

 

[nakedemperor]

Well, since we're comparing presidents to notorious persons of the past then I'll compare Clinton to Charles Manson.... and those who defend him to Manson's followers

1. Manson's followers have elevated him to a godlike status, even giving him powers that he does not have. (Clinton supporters have done almost the same thing, crediting Clinton for the 1990s economy, claimining he was tough on terrorism)

2. Manson's followers will defend everything that Charles Manson does, no matter how heinous (Clinton supporters will defend him for committing perjury, lying to the American public, Whitewater and a host of other wrongs)

3. Manson's followers blame society in general for his fate (i.e. the fact that he's in prison) and ignore the fact that they are really the consequences of his actions (Clinton supporters like to blame conservatives and that gosh darn "right wing conspiracy").

P.S. Wouldn't it be a gas if in a few years a rock band named "Marilyn Clinton" came along? The lead singer could dress up as an ex-president and the rest of the band members can dress up like interns!

I mean numbers 1 and 2 can work for any president, really.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Thanks, I uh.. read the article.

Sorry, sometimes my sarcasm is too subtle for communists

Oh yeah. Because our elections are a sham and Bush DIDN'T really win, and yet still rose to power. I get it. You're clever, like soup.

 

[KarlMarx]

I mean numbers 1 and 2 can work for any president, really.

Uhh... no.... if you were ever to read "National Review" or "The Weekly Standard", there is a lot of criticism of some of Bush's policies. Conservatives seem to suffer less from "blind faith"

 

[nakedemperor]

Uhh... no.... if you were ever to read "National Review" or "The Weekly Standard", there is a lot of criticism of some of Bush's policies. Conservatives seem to suffer less from "blind faith"

Haha, not around these parts.

These USMB parts, that is.

 

[nakedemperor]

Oh yeah. Because our elections are a sham and Bush DIDN'T really win, and yet still rose to power. I get it. You're clever, like soup.

I've lost count of the times you've put words into my mouth. As much fun as it is letting you know that I'm not that stereotypical liberal radical you have floating around somewhere in your mind's eye, Bush DID really win, and our elections WERE legitimate. But you probably don't even think that I actually mean that. You're probably going to let your stereotype's voice prevail over me actually telling you my convictions.