lawmakers' failure to appreciate Me

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is what scares me, and it is nothing new, in fact it predates Trump by quite a bit. An interesting tidbit is that Trump in 2000 when he started his first campaign for President with the Reform Party called Pat Buchanan a "Hitler-lover".
Disturbing Parallels Between America & 1930s Germany
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010 BY BRYAN HYDE
Sharing is caring!
The practice of invoking a comparison between your opponent’s argument and Nazi ideology is such a common occurrence in internet discussions that, years ago, an author and attorney named Mike Godwin coined a tongue-in-cheek adage known as “Godwin’s Law.”

Strictly speaking, this tactic constitutes an informal fallacy in that it relies upon hyperbole in an attempt to derail a person’s arguments via guilt by association.

I’ll be the first to admit that it is overused.

A case in point is how the president of any nation that refuses to submit to the demands of our own national policy makers is invariably labeled as “the next Hitler.”

As the political ramp up to a war with Iran continues, we’ll all have plenty of opportunity to see this practice in action.

The sad thing about Godwin’s Law is that legitimate comparisons can be drawn between 1930’s Germany and the American populace today.

That’s not the same thing as saying that our government is led by Nazis or that our leaders are rounding up the undesirables to be systematically exterminated.

It simply means that the same types of trends that blinded Germans to the potential of Adolf Hitler can be found within our society today.

Too many Americans believe that Germans as a whole were arrogant and evil and knew what Hitler was capable of from the very beginning.

But that’s not the case at all.

We forget that Germany in the 1930’s was a turbulent place economically and politically. With hyper-inflation ravaging the value of the German mark, a wheelbarrow full of money was required to purchase a mere loaf of bread.

On top of the financial unrest was the fear of takeover by the Bolsheviks who had recently succeeded in turning Russia into a giant Soviet prison camp.

In 1933, a terrorist firebombing of the German Reichstag building added another dimension to the panic felt by many German citizens.

On top of all this fear of economic distress, communism and terrorism, were the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which was still punishing the Germans for their part in the First World War.

With their dignity in tatters, encompassed by trouble on every side, it is understandable that a charismatic leader might come forward–especially if that leader offered strong solutions to the problems vexing Germany.

But in order to accomplish the monumental task of fixing the problems and leading Germany to what many Germans considered its proper status among the nations, that leader would require that the German people trust him with absolute power.

By playing upon their fears, Hitler persuaded the German people to grant him unprecedented power and the long downhill slide to their well documented destruction began.

So where are the parallels in our society?

Our economy is–to put it mildly–on shaky ground thanks to a dollar that has lost over 95% of its purchasing power since 1913 and mounting public and private debts have our markets as twitchy as a tightrope walker juggling hornet nests.

The solution pursued by those who make our nation’s monetary policy is to sell more bonds (go further in debt) to the Federal Reserve and have it print more money which will, in turn, further reduce the buying power of the dollar through inflation.

Those industries that have stronger political connections than others (read fascism) are treated to taxpayer-funded bailouts for being “too big to fail.”

Since September 11th of 2001, the American people have lived in an unending cycle of fear and a corresponding expansion of government powers to address terrorism abroad while building a garrison state here at home.

Consider that in 2001, we lost just under 3,000 U.S. citizens in the 9/11 attacks, but during that same year homegrown American criminals murdered FOUR TIMES that number.

Statistically, your likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack is about the same as that of dying of a spider bite.

But when our leaders tell us that they need to spy on our phone calls, e-mails, bank accounts and library transactions, a surprising number of modern Americans fall into line just as their German counterparts did during the ascendancy of the Third Reich.

When our government claims power to kidnap, torture, detain indefinitely or even murder American citizens without due process–in the name of fighting terror–many consider it their patriotic duty to support these actions just as the Germans of the 1930’s did.

Just as Hitler justified his aggression against other nations as acting in Germany’s self defense, too many Americans view any use of military force as automatically righteous and justified without measuring such actions against the standards of Just War.

And just as patriotic Germans shouted down those who questioned Hitler’s aggression, self-styled “great Americans” consider it their patriotic duty to silence those who question our leaders’ actions.

One of the most telling similarities between Nazi Germany and modern America is a growing acceptance of the practice of marginalizing and dehumanizing a targeted group of people who are blamed for the ills of our nation.

In Germany it was the Jews who bore the brunt of this treatment as German society methodically marked them for destruction, first by innuendo, next by legal sanction and finally by the direct action of rounding them up and exterminating them.

Other groups including gypsies, communists, homosexuals and those with permanent disabilities were labeled as being a danger to the Fatherland and likewise targeted for elimination.

We must remember that the process by which the Final Solution was implemented was as gradual as it was deliberate.

Had Hitler started rounding up the Jews in the spring of 1933 the German people could have quickly discerned what he was doing and withheld their support.

By first carefully sowing seeds of distrust for the Jews and then implementing laws that forbade them to be a legitimate part of German society, the Nazis were able to convince enough Germans that Jews were somehow not really people at all.

It’s easy to picture a majority of German people as possessing a fanatical hatred for the Jews, but in reality it was primarily their calloused indifference that allowed the atrocities of the Third Reich to move forward virtually unopposed.

Too few Germans took the time to give serious thought to the official propaganda they’d been fed regarding the Jews and Hitler’s efforts to “defend” the Fatherland.

By the time some Germans realized what was being done in their names, it was too dangerous to speak out.

The current hysteria in America over Muslims in general is disturbingly familiar to those who have studied the methods used to dehumanize the so-called undesirables in 1930’s Germany.

The propaganda flows daily from various media sources who are vigorously trying to inflame public opinion against Muslims everywhere, not just those in America.

Thus far the propaganda campaign to convince Americans that Muslims are an existential threat to our nation has succeeded in rousing the right wing through its highly contrived tale of a so-called “Victory Mosque to be built at Ground Zero” of the 9/11 attacks.

Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, it’s astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.

Never has information been so easy to come by, and yet the tried and true methods of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement are being employed at this moment.

********************

Right...it's good to know that people should not be marginalized by calling them Nazis. Calling Trump a Nazi is a Hitlerian fear tactic. Labeling someone a Communist is fear mongering. Referring to a group as Progressive is Hitleresque fear mongering. Marginalizing half of Americans by depicting them to be heartless capitalist pig Conservatives will lead us down the path of Hitler's Germany. Pointing out Christians as some tyrannical liberty destroying cult drives us into a hysteria which will wind up with concentration camps. Pointing out that Islam is not compatible with our Consitution, though, THAT is the really big and ultimate dehumanization. THAT is the "tried and true method of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement being employed at this moment." After all, as you say, "Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, it’s astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking."

Actually, using the internet it is easy to determine that Islam actually is not compatible with our Constitution. Just as Nazism and Communism and Socialism are also not compatible with our Constitution. But that's neither here nor there. We must not fear monger. Even though the Germans did not have the advantage of seeing how Nazism worked throughout the rest of the world, and even though we do have the advantage of seeing how Islam (as well as Nazism and Communism and Socialism) works throughout the rest of the world, we should not use that readily available information to say something that might "marginalize" someone.

But, in the meantime, let us keep calling Trump Hitler. Let us keep saying Conservatives and Christians are the real existential threat. Let us keep shouting them down and keep them from speaking at Universities.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Right...it's good to know that people should not be marginalized by calling them Nazis. Calling Trump a Nazi is a Hitlerian fear tactic. Labeling someone a Communist is fear mongering. Referring to a group as Progressive is Hitleresque fear mongering. Marginalizing half of Americans by depicting them to be heartless capitalist pig Conservatives will lead us down the path of Hitler's Germany. Pointing out Christians as some tyrannical liberty destroying cult drives us into a hysteria which will wind up with concentration camps. Pointing out that Islam is not compatible with our Consitution, though, THAT is the really big and ultimate dehumanization. THAT is the "tried and true method of sowing seeds of distrust, and the urging of legal disenfranchisement being employed at this moment." After all, as you say, "Given the vast amounts of information that are readily available to most of us in a matter of milliseconds via our computers or even our cell phones, it’s astonishing that so few Americans are willing to challenge the outrageous claims and do even the most rudimentary fact-checking."

Actually, using the internet it is easy to determine that Islam actually is not compatible with our Constitution. Just as Nazism and Communism and Socialism are also not compatible with our Constitution. But that's neither here nor there. We must not fear monger. Even though the Germans did not have the advantage of seeing how Nazism worked throughout the rest of the world, and even though we do have the advantage of seeing how Islam (as well as Nazism and Communism and Socialism) works throughout the rest of the world, we should not use that readily available information to say something that might "marginalize" someone.

But, in the meantime, let us keep calling Trump Hitler. Let us keep saying Conservatives and Christians are the real existential threat. Let us keep shouting them down and keep them from speaking at Universities.

Who called Trump Hitler, this was written in 2010.
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about Christianity?
Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?

Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there.
The war on drugs has failed
The war on abortion failed, it only lasted 100 years and did not eliminate abortion.
I'll admit that being a Republican at a liberal arts college can be dangerous and I have a little experience with that.
But i do believe that if you are young being liberal is not bad, but what happened at a local college with a conservative speaker was disappointing.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Who called Trump Hitler, this was written in 2010.
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about Christianity?
Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?

Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there.
The war on drugs has failed
The war on abortion failed, it only lasted 100 years and did not eliminate abortion.
I'll admit that being a Republican at a liberal arts college can be dangerous and I have a little experience with that.
But i do believe that if you are young being liberal is not bad, but what happened at a local college with a conservative speaker was disappointing.

"Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?"

Tell that to Christian bakers who get sued for having the nerve to want to practice their religion.

"Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there."

It's called reacting to empirical evidence, and advocating for what works over what doesn't work. Hooray, 75% of black babies are now born to fatherless households! And if I say we need to re-establish the importance of the black nuclear family, that makes me a regressive who wants to go back in time? Or does it make me a rational person who knows how to identify and address the root cause of a problem?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Or anything that would prohibit the practice of any religion?"

Tell that to Christian bakers who get sued for having the nerve to want to practice their religion.

"Conservatives want to look at history with a narrow view and pick the time they liked and try to get back there."

It's called reacting to empirical evidence, and advocating for what works over what doesn't work. Hooray, 75% of black babies are now born to fatherless households! And if I say we need to re-establish the importance of the black nuclear family, that makes me a regressive who wants to go back in time? Or does it make me a rational person who knows how to identify and address the root cause of a problem?

First of all, I can't believe someone wanted a cake from someone that didn't want to make them one, or that a Christian would think they are sinning by making a cake. Two fools only make money for lawyers.
It's not just black babies, it's low income households.
But just eliminating the current system won't cure the problem, the system needs to help and not just be the net that keeps you from dying but has no escape for people without the tools to do so.
Whoopi goldberg had a late nite TV show years ago, I watched her interview one of the Wayans Brothers. They both grew up in the same Projects. They had a great discussion about going back and seeing the same people and why and how they got out of there. They both said it was because their parents worked. Sounds simple doesn't it. Just take the net away, we didn't used to have one.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

First of all, I can't believe someone wanted a cake from someone that didn't want to make them one, or that a Christian would think they are sinning by making a cake. Two fools only make money for lawyers.
It's not just black babies, it's low income households.
But just eliminating the current system won't cure the problem, the system needs to help and not just be the net that keeps you from dying but has no escape for people without the tools to do so.
Whoopi goldberg had a late nite TV show years ago, I watched her interview one of the Wayans Brothers. They both grew up in the same Projects. They had a great discussion about going back and seeing the same people and why and how they got out of there. They both said it was because their parents worked. Sounds simple doesn't it. Just take the net away, we didn't used to have one.

"I can't believe someone wanted a cake from someone that didn't want to make them one"

I can't either, that's a very good point IMO.

"or that a Christian would think they are sinning by making a cake"

I don't agree with that either. But the First Amendment gives them the right to do it. When Obama was POTUS, a tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company in Michigan fired some Muslim drivers who wouldn't haul alcohol on religious grounds. The Obama administration sued the tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company on behalf of the drivers, saying that one cannot be forced to abandon their religious beliefs at work. Why do Muslim truck drivers get that protection and not Christian bakers? That's my question.

"But just eliminating the current system won't cure the problem"

I Agree with that. too. I guess I thought you were saying it's wrong to look back at what worked, and to advocate for returning to what worked. Not all change is productive change, not all change is "progress".

10 years ago, no one would have believed me if I predicted that soon, it would be considered "old fashioned" for me to say that if a man has to go to the bathroom, he should use the men's room. Is that progress? Not to me.

But you made good points.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

First of all, I can't believe someone wanted a cake from someone that didn't want to make them one, or that a Christian would think they are sinning by making a cake. Two fools only make money for lawyers.

It's ironic that you can't believe someone believed something. At any rate, Here is a more rational and constitutional summation: www.gopusa.com/?p=38782?omhide=true

the system needs to help and not just be the net that keeps you from dying but has no escape for people without the tools to do so.

What is the system that will do what you want it to do--or believe will do what you want?