Perhaps a point, however, if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat. I am not comparing Obama to Hitler, but I am comparing some of the policies as being parallel.
Tony Blair does not fit the personality of a control freak, Neither does Rice, she has many conservative ideals. I have admired Condelezza Rice. You have to look at the personalities and the entire package deal of the people, oe. I do not believe I have gone to any extreme, as throughout this entire election cycle, I attempted to look at the most favorable potentials of Obama, but I also recognize the red flags.
Tom Tancredo's political platform during the Republican primaries, for example, included not only the suggestion that all illegal immigrants should be rounded up and deported, but also that a moratorium on all legal immigration should be put into place, prohibiting legal immigration for a number of years in order to allow those legal immigrants in the country to "assimilate".
He was opposed to any kind of guest worker program, wanted to institute English as the only official language of the United States, and said that the "survival of the nation" depended on immigration reform.
In regard to Islam, he described the religion as a "a civilization bent on destroying ours", and he suggested that, in return for any kind of future terrorist attack on the United States, America should destroy Muslim holy cities like Mecca...
If I am not mistaken German is the only "legal" language of Germany, and highly restricted immigration has been a characteristic of the German government for many decades and continues today. These are not the positions of some "Republican-like" lunatic fringe, but rather long established policies of the state.
georgeob1 wrote:If I am not mistaken German is the only "legal" language of Germany, and highly restricted immigration has been a characteristic of the German government for many decades and continues today. These are not the positions of some "Republican-like" lunatic fringe, but rather long established policies of the state.
You are correct in regard to immigration policy that is arguably more restrictive than current US practise. On the other hand, within the European Union, as a national of one of the 25 EU countries you can move to, live and work rather freely in the country of your choice. Which would be somewhat comparable to a political construct where citizens of any North, Central or South American country had the right to freely move to and live within the United States.
Does your government policy require you to provide non-citizens with healthcare, education, access to most welfare benefits, and other 'perks' of citizenship as ours does?
Well, as I just said, even a political platform like Tancredo's will still be seen as part of the mainstream spectrum in the United States. You essentially confirm this.
Tancredo's positions that are strongly based on nationalist principles, and often even embrace xenophobic ideas. And his platform doesn't merely acknowledge certain problems associated with immigration, but rather offers overly simplistic solutions to many problems, which are often only marginally connected to immigration.
Unemployment numbers are rising? Deport all illegal immigrants. American schools are not performing well enough? Put a complete moratorium on legal immigration. Healthcare is becoming unaffordable for many US citizens? Outlaw all guest worker programs. Federal government spending is going up? Make it illegal to print government issued paperwork in any language but English.
In summary, while many of these issues deserve discussion, Tancredo has based his platform on a mindset that blames immigrants for all the woes of American society first. And it's this kind of nationalism and xenophobia that is typically found in neo-Nazi parties in Europe.
Neo-Nazi's also use butter on their toast... JUST LIKE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES!!! OMG! They must have the same philosophy!!
Please stop with this. It's silly and pointless to discuss similarities between any political platform and Nazism. On either side.
At it's heart, Nazism is a terrible thing based on hatred and fear and has no bearing on American politics. Obama is not a Nazi, Bush is not a Nazi, conservatives are not Nazi's and liberals are not Nazi's. The Democratic party is not similar to the Nazi party and neither is the Republican party. Making these comparisons lessens what Nazi's really are and that should never be forgotten.
But at least I see your point here in making the comparison between his view and Nazi-ism. But you're making a hugely exaggerated stretch. The Nazi's blamed ALL the Jews for their problems rather than just those breaking the law. The Nazi's zeroed in on certain people based on WHO they were (Jew, Gypsy, homosexual, etc.) and presumed to eliminate them not just from Germany but from the face of the planet. Tancredo has assigned no race or category to those he has targeted but rather focuses on those who are clearly breaking our existing laws, wants to enforce the existing law, and wants to establish policies that would discourage others from breaking the law.
Well, you'd have to be specific as to which "non-citizens" you are referring to. As I said in the post you quoted, as a non-citizen from one of the other 24 EU countries, you'd still enjoy most of the rights that citizens of the country enjoy. If you want to read up on the details, here's a link to more information on the European Commission website.
As I also said in the post you quoted, immigration policy concerning immigrants from outside the European Union into one of the EU countries is arguably more restrictive than current US practise.
Foxfyre wrote:But at least I see your point here in making the comparison between his view and Nazi-ism. But you're making a hugely exaggerated stretch. The Nazi's blamed ALL the Jews for their problems rather than just those breaking the law. The Nazi's zeroed in on certain people based on WHO they were (Jew, Gypsy, homosexual, etc.) and presumed to eliminate them not just from Germany but from the face of the planet. Tancredo has assigned no race or category to those he has targeted but rather focuses on those who are clearly breaking our existing laws, wants to enforce the existing law, and wants to establish policies that would discourage others from breaking the law.
I see your point, and I mostly agree with it. But as I essentially just pointed out in the post to McGentrix, I'm not trying to compare Tancredo to the Nazis. The point was that the positions he takes are similar to the political platform neo-Nazist parties are campaigning on in Europe. It's true that Tancredo never got much traction, and the same is true for those parties in Europe, which, in parliamentary elections, routinely get significantly less than the 5% of the total vote to even qualify for seats in the parliament.
What you describe between the EU countries is not that different than the citizens of the various 50 states moving around the country here.
But I suspect if a large number of people were seeking to set up permanent shop in Germany and these folk were escalating your unemployment numbers among German citizens, were overloading your schools, health facilities, and social services, and your crime rate was soaring due to illegal activities conducted by the newcomers, you would probably not be as sympathetic to their presence as you seem to think that we should be sympathetic.
What you describe between the EU countries is not that different than the citizens of the various 50 states moving around the country here. As each state has its own Constitution and some laws, regulation, policies that differ from other states, those migrating around the country operate under federal laws wherever they are but are subject to different state laws where they are visiting or establishing residence.
:"JM, Why do you find it "creepy?" The president is only making a request; it's not legal nor enforceable."
Re: JamesMorrison (Post 3603883)
Quote:"It seems that there are an increasing number of Americans who feel that the change they are now getting is not what they voted for."
Oh, does it seem that way?
What led you to conclude that this is true?
Cycloptichorn
Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth
MARCH 13, 2009
By DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN and SCOTT RASMUSSEN
It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.
Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date.Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives. There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.
Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seated, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.
When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit.
Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama's budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call for a second stimulus package.
While over two-thirds support the plan to help homeowners refinance their mortgage, a 48%-36% plurality said that it will unfairly benefit those who have been irresponsible, echoing Rick Santelli's call to arms on CNBC.
And although a narrow majority remains confident in Mr. Obama's goals and overall direction, 45% say they do not have confidence, a number that has been growing since the inauguration less than two months ago. With three-quarters saying that they expect the economy to get worse, it is hard to see these numbers improving substantially.
There is no real appetite for increasing taxes to pay for an expanded health-insurance program. Less than half would support such an idea, which is 17% less than the percentage that supported government health insurance when Bill Clinton first considered it in March of 1993.
While voters blame Republicans for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, the fact is that they do not believe Mr. Obama has made any progress in improving the impulse towards cooperation between the two parties. Further, nearly half of voters say that politics in Washington will be more partisan over the next year.
Fifty-six percent of Americans oppose giving bankers any additional government money or any guarantees backed by the government. Two-thirds say Wall Street will benefit more than the average taxpayer from the new bank bailout plan. This represents a jump in opposition to the first plan passed last October. At that time, 45% opposed the bailout and 30% supported it. Now a solid majority opposes the bank bailout, and 20% think it was a good idea. A majority believes that Mr. Obama will not be able to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.
Only less than a quarter of Americans believe that the federal government truly reflects the will of the people. Almost half disagree with the idea that no one can earn a living or live "an American life" without protection and empowerment by the government, while only one-third agree.
Despite the economic stimulus that Congress just passed and the budget and financial and mortgage bailouts that Congress is now debating, just 19% of voters believe that Congress has passed any significant legislation to improve their lives. While Congress's approval has increased, it still stands at only 18%. Over two-thirds of voters believe members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping the American people. When it comes to the nation's economic issues, two-thirds of voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress.
Finally, what probably accounts for a good measure of the confidence and support the Obama administration has enjoyed is the fact that they are not Republicans. Virtually all Americans, more than eight in 10, blame Republicans for the current economic woes, and the only two leaders with lower approval ratings than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
All of this is not just a subject for pollsters and analysts to debate. It shows fundamentally that public confidence in government remains low and is slipping. We face the possibility of substantial gridlock along with an absolute absence of public confidence that could come to mirror the lack of confidence in the American economy that the Dow and the S&P are currently showing.
Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" (Random House, 2008). Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company.
