Friday History Lesson
-
thrash;246541 wrote:
Do you know who I am?Someone who is pissed that his guy lost the election and continues to try and smear the guy who won by comparing him to Adolf Hitler.
I was raised in one country but my father was born in another. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.
True statement.
I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer. Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.
Obama's mother died just before her 53rd birthday in 1995.
I grew up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because this was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.
Attended the best schools he could while in countries overseas. By most accounts of people who know him, he was mostly raised atheist/agnostic...but yes, he changed to Christianity...any reason as to why he did is purely speculation.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career, organizing people.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/cands08/obamatime.html
When did he do this again?
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
Also true...I'm sure any kid whose parent abandoned them would have similar difficulties.
I became active in local politics when I was in my 30s and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40s. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/cands08/obamatime.html
He had a little bit of work history there. Not all of it political, but plenty enough education to help offset it.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was critical of my country in war. But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
The view of the majority of the people in this country seem to think the same thing...right or wrong. If they didn't, the democratic party wouldn't be in control at the moment.
Mine was a peoples campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.
What is the traditional path of politics? And what difference does this make?
I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted minorities such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my nations leader. However, anyone could have easily learned what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. But they did not.
Now you are (at best) speculating. Especially since he hasn't even been sworn in yet. But please tell me what he "really" believes...and then lets see if they happen.
Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.
That's right folks, they found out he really is only 1/2 black.
Who am I?
Please scroll down for the answer...Adolf Hitler
Is that who you were thinking of as you read?
Yes, because as I've pointed out above, a lot of what you wrote simply does not apply to the man you are attempting to smear.
-
thrash;246762 wrote:
Why are you talking about Obama? The history lesson is about Adolf Hitler.I just assumed that you were trying to say that Obama=Hitler since you didn't think that this is who everyone would be thinking of. I just wanted to point out how silly your comparison was. That is all.
-
MisterCMK;246763 wrote:
Chuck has a tendency to be a little touchy about the election results. You'll have to be patient with him.Truth..I hate it when my guy wins.
-
tjamz;246776 wrote:
I just assumed that you were trying to say that Obama=Hitler since you didn't think that this is who everyone would be thinking of. I just wanted to point out how silly your comparison was. That is all.They are similar...but not the same.
-
Just like Bush's "Patriot Act" is similar to the "Enabling Act" of Hitler's according to paranoid people on the left.... for example
History is repeating itself right before our very eyes. The current administration is following the blueprint conceived by Hitler only three-quarters of a century ago … and it’s working.
In the 1930s, the new Reichstag, or German Parliament, met in Berlin to consider passage of a deceitful act that would end democracy in that country and establish Adolf Hitler as dictator. It was given an innocuous title of, “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich” but became known as the “Enabling Act.” Today, we have the equivalent in America known as the “Patriot Act.” As the quote above reminds us, we can foresee the future by learning from the past. But we must be willing to not only be vigilant about our freedoms, but to take action to defend them. Is America willing to stand up to the tyranny of its own government? So far, even our spineless Congress has withered under the lies, propaganda, intimidation, and fear of the Bush Administration. It very well may be too late.
Let’s compare Hitler’s “Enabling Act” and Bush’s “Patriot Act” and see what similarities exist between the two and peek into the road in which America is traveling under this “good ole boy, just one of us” leader.
ENABLING ACT: March 23, 1933, Germany’s new Parliament met to consider the harmless sounding Enabling Act. Governments with covert agendas always give deceiving bills titles that make the people think it is in their best interest.
PATRIOT ACT: Only five days after 9-11, a draft of the flag-waving bill known as the Patriot Act was rammed through Congress and passed within weeks, supposedly in the “best interest” of American citizens.
ENABLING ACT: Nazi storm troopers surrounded the building in which the vote was to take place and even lined the aisles of the voting chamber, staring menacingly at anyone who disagreed with Hitler’s wishes.
PATRIOT ACT: Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee that if they weren’t “with us, you’re against us,” and declared anyone who disputed Bush’s wishes as “unpatriotic,” which intimidated Congress into passing the ill-named act.
ENABLING ACT: Hitler made a speech before the vote assuring the Reichstag that he would use “restraint.” History, of course, proves otherwise.
PATRIOT ACT: Bush promised America the expanded powers would be used only to fight terrorists and not include innocent citizens. That promise immediately went by the wayside.
ENABLING ACT: The Nazis secretly created a crisis to make the new law seem necessary in order to restore stability by burning the seat of German government themselves, which caused mass panic. They then blamed the event on the Communists and claimed they needed the new law to fight this evil.
PATRIOT ACT: The events of 9-11 created the crisis needed to pass the freedom eliminating Patriot Act. Emerging evidence points to the fact the Bush Administration may have known, or even been part of drafting, the tragedy so that the Patriot Act could be justified and enacted, giving the president and his secretive cabinet vastly expanded power. It is certainly suspicious that a bill the size of the Patriot Act, which would require massive time and research to prepare, was ready in five short days after the event. Some speculate the bill was already drafted prior to 9-11 and presented to Congress as necessary to “fight terrorism.” As we have since seen, the expanded powers have been enormously abused by including innocent American citizens and vast circumventing of the U.S. Constitution.
Both the Enabling Act and the Patriot Act have legally torn down the democratic process and paved the way for takeover of each respective country. Out of cowardice and fear, the Reichstag became a cheerleader for Hitler, much as Congress has become for Bush.
Can you spell d-i-c-t-a-t-o-r boys and girls???
See, it's just as silly when I put things up like this comparing Bush's policy to that of Hitlers.
-
Oh, this is just a forward I got. I thought it was interesting enough to share. It is surprising that many people seem to figure this is somehow related to Obama.
Clearly, Hitler and Obama aren't the same. For one, Obama never got put in jail for all of his subversive activity.
-
The comparison of the enabling act to the patriot act assumes a government culpability in 9/11. It is immediately thrown the fuck out on account of stupidity.
I hate being put in a position of defending Bush or the patriot act since both suck, but don't be dumber than both of them.
-
tjamz;246785 wrote:
Just like Bush's "Patriot Act" is similar to the "Enabling Act" of Hitler's according to paranoid people on the left.... for exampleSee, it's just as silly when I put things up like this comparing Bush's policy to that of Hitlers.
Similar...but not the same.
-
thrash;246786 wrote:
The comparison of the enabling act to the patriot act assumes a government culpability in 9/11. It is immediately thrown the fuck out on account of stupidity.I hate being put in a position of defending Bush or the patriot act since both suck, but don't be dumber than both of them.
No shit? Isn't that what I said about it looking silly about posting it up?
I at least prefaced mine by saying it was silly/ridiculous, you on the other hand seem hell bent on convincing the world (or at least fargostreet) that Obama is the anti-christ who is out to enslave/kill anyone who is in his way.
Maybe you are right...or maybe you are the antichrist...you are likable, very educated and extremely critical of the current direction of government. You have the ability sway others opinions into following lock-step with you. None of us know anything about you or your past. You have gained popularity on this website through non-tradional means. Instead of proposing unity, you encourage rebellion of the current government, going so far as saying you would move to Alaska should they successfully secede from the Union.
See how easy it is to make assumptions about people with whom you don't agree?
This ad paid for by "Fuck the anti-christ", Chuck Schwan CEO.
tjamz does not believe that thrash is the anti-christ or is in any way affiliated with a an organization intending to overthrow the US Gov't. This post is merely a parody put forth to illicit smiles, giggles, and LAWLZ from the interweb community
-
-
thrash;246796 wrote:
I never said I'd move to Canada. They are much worse than here. Hate-speech "courts" scare the weewee out of me.If you know of a ND-secession group that's looking to create something like Galt's Gulch here in ND, I'm interested in joining though
im down, can northern MN come with too?
-
thrash;246796 wrote:
I never said I'd move to Canada.Sorry...meant to say Alaska...don't know why I typed Canada.
-
As far as secession goes...I don't think we'd lose the second go-round. And before the idiots have a field day with that comment, study up on the American Civil War and discover the truth as to why The South lost.
integra_gsr98;246584 wrote:
I lost all my guns in a boating accident.I left all mine in a sugarbeet field in Grand Forks.
-Peter
1991 240SX
-
Afsil80;246841 wrote:
As far as secession goes...I don't think we'd lose the second go-round. And before the idiots have a field day with that comment, study up on the American Civil War and discover the truth as to why The South lost.I left all mine in a sugarbeet field in Grand Forks.
Their troops were FAR better than Union troops but the Union was able to destroy their economic livelyhood and thus basically strangle them into submission...
-
The South definitely had better commanders/officers, but the sheer number of Union troops and the superior methods of transporting goods (and the availability of raw materials in general) made it increasingly difficult for the South to win
-
One of the policy decisions I'd make if my say mattered is that the various state NG's could never be commanded by a federal authority... they answer to the state and that's it. Furthermore, it would be illegal to deploy them beyond US national borders.
I'd sign up for the guard if I knew I'd never be deployed overseas and never have to answer to the feds (as opposed to the governor). I'm willing to fight pretty hard to defend my home. Not as excited about going to the other side of the world to shoot at people.
-
well put thrash
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login