O oh oh, what a jolly party the Republican Party is

flaja wrote:

No it is not a judgment call. We have ample and reliable records and eyewitness accounts telling us what Hitler did.

Please read again. The reason I said Ellison's case is a little different is because he did not compare someone with Hitler. I think comparing someone with Hitler is out of bounds, period. But that shouldnt make it taboo to draw any and all parallel or comparison to anything that happened in the Nazi era.

No democratic politician is like Hitler - as you say, we have ample and reliable records and eyewitness accounts telling us what Hitler did, and no US politician is anything like that. Equating any US politician with Hitler trivialises the evil of Nazism. But making parallels or comparison between individual things people do or suggest now with individual things that happened in the Nazi era is a tad different. It's still a very tricky comparison that's probably still unwise to make in most cases, but it's definitely not the same as saying Bush=Hitler or Hillary=Hitler, as you try to make it out to be.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

To me, saying that could be a good thing.
It says that the candidate opposed to the death penalty will stand by his principles, no matter who the criminal is.

IMHO,standing by your principles is ALWAYS a good thing.
If the candidate opposed to the death penalty is that willing to stand by his principles, even when he is wrong, he would get my vote.

That speaks good for you. Unfortunately, most people are not like you..

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
To me, saying that could be a good thing.
It says that the candidate opposed to the death penalty will stand by his principles, no matter who the criminal is.

IMHO,standing by your principles is ALWAYS a good thing.
If the candidate opposed to the death penalty is that willing to stand by his principles, even when he is wrong, he would get my vote.

That speaks good for you. Unfortunately, most people are not like you..

But MM has a good point here. If the Dem stood up and said, "That's right, I don't want to execute anyone, but that's not the same as not punishing them. Put them in jail for life. It's cheaper for the state, worse punishment for the accused and jives with my moral code", that might be a winning rejoinder. My personal take is that most Americans are more pro-justice than pro death penalty. A "lock them up and throw away the key" strategy would be just as effective for most people.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

If the Dem stood up and said, "That's right, I don't want to execute anyone, but that's not the same as not punishing them. Put them in jail for life. It's cheaper for the state, worse punishment for the accused and jives with my moral code", that might be a winning rejoinder.

I dont share your optimism.. But Kaine did win those elections back then, so there was some justice!

It's an old thread, this - I merely revived it to add that "Dialing the Republicans" piece, which seemed to fit the title perfectly... Mad

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

flaja wrote:
No it is not a judgment call. We have ample and reliable records and eyewitness accounts telling us what Hitler did.

Please read again. The reason I said Ellison's case is a little different is because he did not compare someone with Hitler.

You must not know anything about the Reichstag fire. Following Hitler's legal appointment as Chancellor of the Weimar Republic the Nazis needed a national crisis in order to invoke part of the Weimar Constitution that allowed the government to abolish civil liberties so they could lock up Hitler's political opponents. To create the crisis the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag building. Following the fire Hitler had President Hindenburg issue the Reichstag Fire Decree that effectively abolished civil rights in Germany. It is customary for the Left to equate this decree with the PATRIOT Act. So comparing GWB's reaction to 9-11 with Hitler's reaction to the Reichstag Fire is the same thing as comparing GWB to Hitler.

And how is it logical to be prohibited from comparing someone to Hitler, but comparing someone to the Nazis in general is OK?

0 Replies

Quote:

comparing someone to the Nazis in general is OK?

Re-read and correct what you say he said. You misrepresent. That's naughty.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

You must not know anything about the Reichstag fire.

flaja wrote:

To create the crisis the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag building.

Somehow I think that writing two sentences like that in one post is a bit too ironic...

Along with stating that you have a background in history.

Tsk.

0 Replies

Hitler was against the death penalty? I never would have guessed.

You learn something new every day.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

You must not know anything about the Reichstag fire. [..] To create the crisis the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag building.

Like Old Europe said, there's just too much irony here... Razz

(It wasnt the Nazis that set fire to the Reichstag building.)

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
comparing someone to the Nazis in general is OK?
Re-read and correct what you say he said. You misrepresent. That's naughty.

According to NewsBusters Ellison, speaking to a group of Atheists, said, "[9/11 is] almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, [the Nazis] blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

Republican Congressmen Zach Wamp and Eric Cantor later called upon Nancy Pelosi to reprimand Ellison for making the comparison.

The National Anti-Defamation League called upon Ellison to apologize for his remarks.

What is it about Ellison's comparison of GWB with Hitler/Nazis are you missing?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

flaja wrote:
You must not know anything about the Reichstag fire.

flaja wrote:
To create the crisis the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag building.

Somehow I think that writing two sentences like that in one post is a bit too ironic...

Along with stating that you have a background in history.

Tsk.

Huh? Care to explain?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

flaja wrote:
You must not know anything about the Reichstag fire. [..] To create the crisis the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag building.

Like Old Europe said, there's just too much irony here...

(It wasnt the Nazis that set fire to the Reichstag building.)

By any reputable account it was. The Dutch communist that was charged with the "crime" was given a sham trial. Expert testimony showed that the supposed arsonist didn't have the time or the technical ability to start as many individual fires as were started in the building, but he was convicted anyway.

There was a tunnel that lead from Goering's residence in Berlin to the basement of the Reichstag building. Historians generally accept the fact that member of the SA used this tunnel to place incendiary material in the basement of the Reichstag. At his trial in Nuremberg after the War, German general Franz Halder gave an affidavit in which he claimed that he had heard Goering take credit for the fire at a birthday party for Hitler in 1942. Anyone who thinks the Nazis didn't start the Reichstag fire is a fool.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

Huh? Care to explain?

Well, certainly. I'll have a go at it.

This claim here of yours

flaja wrote:

To create the crisis the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag building.

is, at the very best, disputed.

The claim was made by the Communists in the immediate aftermath of the fire. Outside of Germany - given the sham trial the Nazis put up at the time, trying to indict all Communists and make people believe in an impending "Communist coup d'etat" - this version found some supporters.

However, it seems that both sides were rather trying to manipulate the public point of view of the events in favour their respective agenda than to reveal the truth.

Of course, in the case of the Soviet countries, the tale that the fire was started by the Nazis was propagated for decades after the end of the Second World War, along with stories of Communist heroism in the face of fascist oppression.

Then these claims here of yours

flaja wrote:

By any reputable account [the fire] was started by the Nazis].

and

flaja wrote:

Historians generally accept the fact that member of the SA used this tunnel to place incendiary material in the basement of the Reichstag.

simply don't reflect the truth. It is certainly not "generally accepted" by historians that the Reichstag fire was started by the Nazis.

In fact, the prevailing account today seems to be that van der Lubbe actually acted alone - in spite of what the Nazis would have the public believe (they tried to manipulate evidence and reports to point to a vast Communist conspiracy, which rather backfired, as quite a few people reached the conclusions that yes, it was probably more than one perpetrator, but no, it was not very likely done by the Communists).

There are certainly problems with all the theories concerning the Reichstag fire. If anything at all, that would merely warrant a statement like "there is still discussion about who started the fire." But picking one theory that maybe just fits a specific agenda and declaring it an established fact when it is not seems to be rather premature.

And this claim of yours,

flaja wrote:

Anyone who thinks the Nazis didn't start the Reichstag fire is a fool.

does not even merit discussion.

However, let me point you the websites of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Jewish Virtual Library - two organisations you would trust with the historical account, I hope - and ask you to find where one of these states that it is an "generally accepted fact" that the Nazis started the Reichstag fire.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Along with stating that you have a background in history.

Tsk.

Thanks for the linkback, old europe.
Fascinating Cool

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

is, at the very best, disputed.

Not by reasonable people.

Quote:

The claim was made by the Communists in the immediate aftermath of the fire. Outside of Germany - given the sham trial the Nazis put up at the time, trying to indict all Communists and make people believe in an impending "Communist coup d'etat" - this version found some supporters.

If the Nazis did not themselves set the fire what purpose did the sham trial of communists serve? If there is legitimate evidence that someone other than the Nazis set the fire, why was not such evidence ever brought to light?

Quote:

simply don't reflect the truth.

I doubt that you'd understand the truth if you saw it.

0 Replies

I find it wildly amusing that most of the particpants on this thread are not Americans, and thus have no irons in our political fire. Apparently, Republicans really turn Eurotrash types off. Fine with me.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

Not by reasonable people.

Ah, but there is no such thing as "reasonable" history. Now you're talking about politics. Historical facts are just that - facts.

flaja wrote:

If the Nazis did not themselves set the fire what purpose did the sham trial of communists serve?

Isn't that pretty easy to see? The Nazis were at that time already running an election campaign (the Reichstag fire was a couple of days before the elections) claiming that the Communists were about to stage a huge revolution, that if they were to be elected, Germany and Europe at large would see a bloody civil war, and that the "Asian pest of Communism" had to be stopped.

The fire and the process were a very welcome opportunity to show to the public just how grave a danger Communism was.

flaja wrote:

If there is legitimate evidence that someone other than the Nazis set the fire, why was not such evidence ever brought to light?

It was. It actually points to Marinus van der Lubbe. Read up on it.

flaja wrote:

I doubt that you'd understand the truth if you saw it.

I don't know what personal insults have to do in a discussion about historical facts. Chances are that they won't boost your credibility.
Quite apart from that, I'll report any further ad hominem attack coming this way - just for the sake of civilised discussion.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I find it wildly amusing that most of the particpants on this thread are not Americans, and thus have no irons in our political fire. Apparently, Republicans really turn Eurotrash types off. Fine with me.

One of the few worthwhile things the Republicans have managed to do in recent years. For all of his faults and all of my disgust with him, GWB did have the guts to tell the Frogs and the Hun to go to Hell when they both needed to be told where go.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

old europe wrote:
is, at the very best, disputed.

Not by reasonable people.

Quote:
simply don't reflect the truth.

I doubt that you'd understand the truth if you saw it.

You're not big on finding or bringing links and sources that would actually confirm what you assert is the undisputed truth, are you? Why don't you take OE up on this challenge:

old europe wrote:

let me point you the websites of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Jewish Virtual Library - two organisations you would trust with the historical account, I hope - and ask you to find where one of these states that it is an "generally accepted fact" that the Nazis started the Reichstag fire.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

flaja wrote:
old europe wrote:
is, at the very best, disputed.

Not by reasonable people.

Quote:
You're not big on finding or bringing links and sources that would actually confirm what you assert is the undisputed truth, are you?

You really expect me to find weblinks to corroborate data that I have accumulated over the past 30 years or so?

Quote:
Why don't you take OE up on this challenge:

Because he is an ignorant fool.

According to Hannah Vogt (a German) the Communist Party had nothing to do with the Reichstag fire and was not, as the Nazis claimed, planning any kind of civil disobedience, sabotage or uprising. In fact Germany's Communist Party had been ordered by Moscow to not do anything that would give the Nazis an excuse for imposing something like the Rechstag Fire Decree. As Vogt points out there is no definite proof that the Nazis set the fire, but the incredible speed with which Hitler exploited the fire gives credence to the rumors that circulated in Germany at the time that the S.A., acting under Goering's orders, set the fire. (The Burden of Guilt, Hannah Vogt, translated by Herbert Strauss, Oxford University Press, New York, 1964).

According to William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1959, 1960): "The whole truth about the Reichstag fire will probably never be known." The people who would have known the truth are all dead, but "Even at Nuremberg the mystery could not be entirely unraveled, though there is enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the Nazis who planned the arson and carried it out for their own political ends."

0 Replies

O oh oh, what a jolly party the Republican Party is

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know