• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

McCain's lost it!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
So let me get this right. The "only votes that matter" choices have both endorsed subverting the Constitution. Am I correct in that assumption?
 
Constitutional protections against government abuse have created the value of The United States and value for its citizens. To discard these protections is to devalue the country and its people.

The people behind this bill need to be tossed out of their positions and shunned as un-American.
 
PC Surgeon said:
This needs to be read again. There should be a push to call for each of their resignations immediatly.
Click to expand...

They can propose any legislation they wish and I have no doubt Obama will support it, if quietly.

Politicians have grown used to people wanting them to void the Constitution when it suits them and they just do these things as a matter of course.
 
loki8481 said:
wait, what? 😕
Click to expand...
Hitler was a socialist. Didn't anyone wonder why he was the leader of the National Socialist Party? Ducati's point is that the tea baggers would never support someone as left wing as Hitler.

A few Nazi social programs:
-Kraft durch Freude or "Strength through Joy" (government funded vacations)
-a very strong anti-smoking campaign
-Hitler Youth (boy scouts)
-Volkswagen (a car most Germans could afford)
-forest management and efforts to reduce air pollution
-animal rights and animal conservation

Hitler loved animals and was very serious about animal rights (he was a hippy liberal). The Jewish and Muslim ways of preparing meat were made illegal because it was considered cruel. While animals are usually killed as quick and painless as possible, kosher and halal meat is prepared by cutting an animal's throat and letting the animal bleed to death. Have you ever heard a person ranting that people who are cruel to animals should all be killed? Hitler was one of those guys.

Obama is arguably more right wing than Hitler. Obama has a huge majority but he refuses to pass anything similar to UHC or expand medicare or medicaid to cover more people. Germany had socialist healthcare before Hitler was even born, and Hitler made no attempt to get rid of it. Hitler was perfectly ok with government healthcare.

If Hitler ran for office in the US, he would probably run as a democrat. His way of getting the country out of a recession was to start huge government projects like the autobahn, the highway systems, and government funded vocational training. He was very similar to FDR (a democrat) in that regard.
 
ShawnD1 said:
Hitler was a socialist. Didn't anyone wonder why he was the leader of the National Socialist Party? Ducati's point is that the tea baggers would never support someone as left wing as Hitler.

A few Nazi social programs:
-Kraft durch Freude or "Strength through Joy" (government funded vacations)
-a very strong anti-smoking campaign
-Hitler Youth (boy scouts)
-Volkswagen (a car most Germans could afford)
-forest management and efforts to reduce air pollution
-animal rights and animal conservation

Hitler loved animals and was very serious about animal rights (he was a hippy liberal). The Jewish and Muslim ways of preparing meat were made illegal because it was considered cruel. While animals are usually killed as quick and painless as possible, kosher and halal meat is prepared by cutting an animal's throat and letting the animal bleed to death. Have you ever heard a person ranting that people who are cruel to animals should all be killed? Hitler was one of those guys.

Obama is arguably more right wing than Hitler. Obama has a huge majority but he refuses to pass anything similar to UHC or expand medicare or medicaid to cover more people. Germany had socialist healthcare before Hitler was even born, and Hitler made no attempt to get rid of it. Hitler was perfectly ok with government healthcare.

If Hitler ran for office in the US, he would probably run as a democrat. His way of getting the country out of a recession was to start huge government projects like the autobahn, the highway systems, and government funded vocational training. He was very similar to FDR (a democrat) in that regard.
Click to expand...
my comparison had nothing to do with socialism/communism

more that, as much as the democrats seem to gleefully want him to lose the primary, the guy he's running against is no better (and, in fact, probably worse from a liberal's perspective).
 
ShawnD1 said:
Hitler was a socialist. Didn't anyone wonder why he was the leader of the National Socialist Party? Ducati's point is that the tea baggers would never support someone as left wing as Hitler.

A few Nazi social programs:
-Kraft durch Freude or "Strength through Joy" (government funded vacations)
-a very strong anti-smoking campaign
-Hitler Youth (boy scouts)
-Volkswagen (a car most Germans could afford)
-forest management and efforts to reduce air pollution
-animal rights and animal conservation

Hitler loved animals and was very serious about animal rights (he was a hippy liberal). The Jewish and Muslim ways of preparing meat were made illegal because it was considered cruel. While animals are usually killed as quick and painless as possible, kosher and halal meat is prepared by cutting an animal's throat and letting the animal bleed to death. Have you ever heard a person ranting that people who are cruel to animals should all be killed? Hitler was one of those guys.

Obama is arguably more right wing than Hitler. Obama has a huge majority but he refuses to pass anything similar to UHC or expand medicare or medicaid to cover more people. Germany had socialist healthcare before Hitler was even born, and Hitler made no attempt to get rid of it. Hitler was perfectly ok with government healthcare.

If Hitler ran for office in the US, he would probably run as a democrat. His way of getting the country out of a recession was to start huge government projects like the autobahn, the highway systems, and government funded vocational training. He was very similar to FDR (a democrat) in that regard.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever seen the Hitler Youth compared to the Boy Scouts!

I don't disagree that Hitler and the National Socialists were in fact socialists, but in all fairness Hitler's socialism is greatly overshadowed by his, um, Hitlerism.
 
ShawnD1 said:
Hitler was a socialist. Didn't anyone wonder why he was the leader of the National Socialist Party? Ducati's point is that the tea baggers would never support someone as left wing as Hitler.
Click to expand...

Hitler was not a socialist. He was a ultra-right wing fascist.
 
Jhhnn said:
Presumes facts not in evidence- basic innuendo and projection, not surprising at all.
Click to expand...

You should take a gander through the original thread. Obama is quoted as supporting everything in this bill, including indefinate detention for American citizens under certain circumstances.
 
xj0hnx said:
BWAHAHAHAHAHA, seriously? WOW. Hitler was THE socialist.
Click to expand...

Only in your revisionist history mind. If he was the socialist you claim, he wouldn't have crushed worker's rights, institute what amounts to a police state, strong nationalism, death camps for actual socialists and communists, etc....
 
Blackaiagnst1 may be partially correct in saying, " Obama is quoted as supporting everything in this bill, including indefinate detention for American citizens under certain circumstances."

But it may still leave much room for a world of difference between Obama and GWB. The GWB sin was mainly in the extreme and neglectful way "certain circumstances" were defined. With GWB&co historically cheerfully knowing they were detaining many innocent people while doing nothing, nothing at all for years and years, to ascertain if they were innocent or that there were any grounds at all to continue holding them.

Its simply the difference between certain debatable responsibility in war time and certainly and the total irresponsible abuse of power in the case of GWB&co.

My personal view is that I trust no one with that power, war time or not, Obama included, but in the case of GWB&co, we already know they should be prosecuted for war crimes due to immoral mis use of power. Further we can almost certainly say every 20'th century US President has illegally mis used power, but most kept that mis use tightly under their own control. With GWB almost the worse offender in making it routine benign delegated neglect.
 
Lemon law said:
Blackaiagnst1 may be partially correct in saying, " Obama is quoted as supporting everything in this bill, including indefinate detention for American citizens under certain circumstances."

But it may still leave much room for a world of difference between Obama and GWB. The GWB sin was mainly in the extreme and neglectful way "certain circumstances" were defined. With GWB&co historically cheerfully knowing they were detaining many innocent people while doing nothing, nothing at all for years and years, to ascertain if they were innocent or that there were any grounds at all to continue holding them.

Its simply the difference between certain debatable responsibility in war time and certainly and the total irresponsible abuse of power in the case of GWB&co.

My personal view is that I trust no one with that power, war time or not, Obama included, but in the case of GWB&co, we already know they should be prosecuted for war crimes due to immoral mis use of power. Further we can almost certainly say every 20'th century US President has illegally mis used power, but most kept that mis use tightly under their own control. With GWB almost the worse offender in making it routine benign delegated neglect.
Click to expand...


LOL, but Bush!!!!!!!!!111111oneoneoneoneoneone
 
werepossum said:
I don't think I've ever seen the Hitler Youth compared to the Boy Scouts!
Click to expand...
That's basically what it was. You learn survival skills, leadership, teamwork, and you get a utility knife while you're there. Oh and short shorts. I can't forget about the shorts.

Here is a picture of some Hitler Youth scouts knife
hyk400.jpg


Here is an American boy scouts knife:
Camilluslockback2.jpg


Hitler Youth camping:
other_hitleryouth12.jpg


Hitler Youth game of "kill the jew":
<picture censored>

Hitler Youth saluting someone:
hilter_youth_mind_contol.jpg


American boy scouts saluting someone:
scouting-calgaric-lithuanian-klaipeda08-17-1933.jpg



If he was the socialist you claim, he wouldn't have crushed worker's rights
Click to expand...
Crush workers rights? He had widespread support because he got people working again. Middle class people loved Hitler. He had millions of government workers building infrastructure and armaments. You can't legally strike, but you can get a new job if you want. Vocational training was strongly encouraged. Strength Through Joy was a government program to keep people happy and plan vacations while the Beauty of Work program was to make work more enjoyable.

Employing people and redistributing wealth through government programs is what socialism is all about, and that's exactly what the Nazis did. They also put people in prison for random amounts of time without trial, just like Obama and McCain want to do, but putting people in camps isn't really a socialism thing. That's more an asshole thing and it's not limited to just socialist or just capitalists.
 
Lemon law said:
Blackaiagnst1 may be partially correct in saying, " Obama is quoted as supporting everything in this bill, including indefinate detention for American citizens under certain circumstances."

But it may still leave much room for a world of difference between Obama and GWB. The GWB sin was mainly in the extreme and neglectful way "certain circumstances" were defined. With GWB&co historically cheerfully knowing they were detaining many innocent people while doing nothing, nothing at all for years and years, to ascertain if they were innocent or that there were any grounds at all to continue holding them.

Its simply the difference between certain debatable responsibility in war time and certainly and the total irresponsible abuse of power in the case of GWB&co.

My personal view is that I trust no one with that power, war time or not, Obama included, but in the case of GWB&co, we already know they should be prosecuted for war crimes due to immoral mis use of power. Further we can almost certainly say every 20'th century US President has illegally mis used power, but most kept that mis use tightly under their own control. With GWB almost the worse offender in making it routine benign delegated neglect.
Click to expand...

The difference, really? With Bush there was no doubt what you were getting. He wasnt up giving charismatic rally speeches (yes we can!) to indoctrinate his troops (yes we can!) that he has the cure (yes we can!) to GWB sickness....(yes we can!)...all the while, putting GWB tactics (yes we can!) on fucking steroids.
 
Brainonska511 said:
No. Socialism is about the workers owning the means of production.
Click to expand...
Not specifically means of production, but money. Socialism is when the government controls the money. For example, I can say Canada's universal health care is socialist because the government controls how it's funded. It doesn't matter that 99.999% of clinics are privately owned. They are government funded through taxation, therefore it is socialist. Roads are socialist too, even though roads are made by private companies.


Hitler was a big propenent of centralized power and power going from the top down; not a big fan of democracy, which would most likely play a big role in a socialist system.
Click to expand...
Socialism does not require democracy. Germany had socialized medicine back when the country was run by royalty.
 
ShawnD1 said:
Socialism does not require democracy. Germany had socialized medicine back when the country was run by royalty.
Click to expand...

While this is true, the values of socialism and the values of democracy line up very well (Socialism = the people have power over economy, Democracy = the people have power over politics), therefore socialism and democracy naturally *should* go hand-in-hand.
 
This is sickening. Of course it would never stand up in court, but the fact that people -- people in positions of power -- suggest something like this is astonishing. I don't trust anyone with that kind of power, I don't care who it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top