>> ^volumptuous:
If parents can teach their children the lessons of Christ, they can teach them the lessons of Hilter.


Right. Because the only difference between Hitler and Jesus was facial hair.

If parents can teach their children the lessons of Christ, they can teach them the lessons of Hilter.

wtf guys? This isn't cheesy

This is one man single handed staring down a line of tanks and one of the most ruthless governments in the world (at the time.)

All by himself saying - "kill me in cold blood - i dare you"

This is Ghandi shit right there. Noone stood up to Hilter, Noone stood up to Stalin. This guy stood up to his own army all by himself.

We watch action films every year where "america saves the world" again and again. That's cheesy. Name one person in the western world in the last 50 years who's showed as much balls as this.

>> ^klaqua:
Just proves that if you make shit up, make a video with cool music, show some cleavage and state things as fact (that are obviously not fact), you too can have a fan club and be hailed as hero.
Hitler could not be mistaken as and was not a Christian. His god was nationalism and the hate for the Jews. A hate that had no background in religion but common street rhetoric of the time. Someone had to be blamed for the loss of the first WW.
The much praised enlightenment and the "discovery" of evolution was much more an idea from which Hitler took it's page. Hitler used Evolutionary Theory to Justify the Holocaust. http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm
You can deny the facts but does not make them true!
http://www.icr.org/article/285/
Now that is just one of the 'facts' that are beyond wrong. Research the crusades and some of the wars you mentioned and you will find that while people call them self "religious" doesn't make them so.
Grow up and research your "propaganda".


Wow, there are so many errors in your argument, it's kinda funny.

First of all, your first source that you site to argue that Hitler used evolution to justify the Holocaust comes from a far-right Pentacostal Christian website...this is the website that also decries the seperation of church and state and describes abortion as "The great American holocaust"... not exactly a balanced viewpoint there. Your other "source" is just as bad - 'The Institute for Creation Research'...c'mon dude, seriously? You're going to need a lot more than that to convince me.

Let's set a few facts straight here:

1) Hmm...#1...oh yeah, Hilter was a deeply devout Catholic! How about some quotes, yes?

"I say: my Christian feeling points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me towards the man who, once lonely and surrounded by only a few followers, recognized these Jews and called for battle against them."

and

"I am deeply moved to perceive that his tremendous struggle for this world against the Jewish poison was most profoundly marked by the fact that he had to bleed on the cross for it..."

2) The Nazi party was officially Christian and the majority of members were Christian! Their political policy was to make Christianity the state religion of Germany.

3) R0SENCRANTZ is right. Pope Pius XI signed, and Pope Pius XII negotiated, a concordat with Hitler that gave the church immunity while they supplied the Nazis with money and legal protection for their acts. Pope Pius XI also signed a similar one with Benito Mussolini.

4) Some of the most antisemitic European political and social movements of the 1930's and 1940's were Christian parties.

5) The role of atheists and freethinkers during that time? Well, only 1.5% of the German popluation was self-proclaimed as such, and as stated by Stewart W. Herman Jr, an American clergyman who lived in Nazi Germany during the rise of Hitler, "The athiests may immediately be discounted as exercising any perceptible influence on German religious thought today...[their influence] has been suppressed completely by the new regime which places 'godlessness' in the same category with anarchistic Bolshevism."

This was mostly taken from an article by William Sierichs, Jr., an editor for a newspaper in Louisiana. He has a degree in journalism from LSU. The article is not online, but a similar one can be found in 5 parts from a professor in sociology at the University of Wisconsinhere.
Critically acclaimed books by professors in sociology, history, and anthropology contributed to this article. Authors such as:
Moshe Herczl, Randolph Braham, and David Kertzer.

>> ^Raverman:
Hitler would be proud


I think Joseph Goebbels, the masterful propaganda minister, and Hermann Goering, Hilter's designated successor, would be proud also.


“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.”
- Joseph Goebbels


“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship…Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
- Hermann Goering

>> ^digitalbombdog:
>>I'm sure Hitler would have approved of this =P
Though I don't know that he'd approve of having his name misspelled...twice.


LOL that's what I get for speed submitting when I found a good video.

LOL that's what I get for speed submitting when I found a good video.

In reply to this comment by digitalbombdog:
>>I'm sure Hitler would have approved of this =P

Though I don't know that he'd approve of having his name misspelled...twice.

>> ^SSIops:
I'm sure Hitler would have approved of this =P


How could he not approve of his own performance? I doubt even he would have performed such BLASPHEMY on himself!!

Just discovered that your Monty Python vid: http://www.videosift.com/video/Classic-Monty-Python-sketch-Mr-Hilter
is a dupe of: http://www.videosift.com/video/Monty-python-hitler-scene

Oh poor Mr. Hilter

Damnit, Legacy

Go back and read the entire thread, and watch the video again.. I mean seriously.

1) No one said invalidate. We said DEGRADE, COMPROMISE.

2) HILTER WAS NOT ELECTED, he was appointed. So for the love of sushi, stop saying he was elected.

3) Badnarik(Spelled 'BAD' narik) places blame on the Jews for the holocaust....period, end of story.

4) You equate getting almost the entirety of WWII history wrong to a few spelling errors. Are you kidding me?

Damn straight, you are doomed repeat history, especially if you don't even know it.

Drachen,

Comparing anything to rape in a debate, for me is right up there with comparisons to evil dictators, making up words, and name calling. You should rethink you terrificly bad analogy and try another one.

You are operating under the consistent and false assumption that the Jews did not try to stop Hitler. You are unequivocally wrong on that point.

As for analogies, I got a better one.

A man gets carjacked, in the middle of suburbia. Would you blame him for being carjacked?

What burns me most about the video is that the "teacher" missed the most obvious analogy: both Bush and Hitler used a terrorist crisis to "temporarily" suspend civil liberties in order to catch the bad guys. In Hitler's case, "temporary" became "permanent." Similarly, we have seen the Bush administration try to make policies instituted after 9/11 that infringed on civil liberties permanent as well. That's as far as the analogy goes, though.

But this guy misses that completely and goes off on this crazy tangent about how the people should have stopped Hitler. He implies that Hitler was somehow elected by the people when this is clearly false--Hilter was APPOINTED Chancellor by the German President and later APPOINTED temporary dictator by the German Congress. The people (German, Austrian, Jews or otherwise) didn't have a say in the matter and even if they'd had one, no one could have possibly foreseen what Hitler intended. Could anyone in this country have predicted during the Bush-Gore election that Bush would invade two countries, systematically begin dismantling civil liberties, and generally tarnish the image of America across the world? No, of course not.

I do appreciate the idea that freedom requires vigilance, but because of this guy's whack-job of an argument that idea gets completely lost. What's scarier is that because he is an authority figure and therefore supposedly knowledgeable, many of his students will probably just accept what he says without bothering to check it out for themselves. The guy may have had good intentions but I think he did more harm than good here.

My understanding was that the origin of 'hate crime' was to contextualize for a judge/'jury of peers' that the reason behind a seemingly pointless violent crime was that the crime was not personally directed at the victim, but at the social group that they represent to the attacker(s). What this MIGHT mean to a judge or jury is that this person's vendetta against a whole social group means he wasn't just attacking the individual, but a group of individuals (which is a rather interesting conceptual point), that the person's driving hatred could lead them to commit another, similar act in the future, since the motivating factor was hate (& not monetary benefits, or anger with a single person).

In the context of something like this, ... between 'stupid', 'criminal act', and 'hate crime', I'd vote stupid because I know the context is mocking a right wing politician who is perceived to be hilter-esque. If he were chasing jewish children, I could see that being criminal because they have reason to believe they are in danger, ... and because he's wearing a fucking hitler costume and chasing jews while yelling at them, its not that big of a leap in logic to assume that he might be making a statement about his hatred for jews.

... and is the joke that his impersonation of hitler is so shitty?

Geez SandMan.. Is your gov't capable of lying and distorting facts so they could bomb and invade an entire country?

Oookay.

So, you want logical reasons of why to blow up major US landmarks? Ok, how about the WTC were losing money, and also sold to private owner who made billions. Um, the Enron investigation disappeared instantly. Billions were made in trading in the minutes leading up to airplanes impact. (How do you think the CIA / blackops make money to run their operations, if not from drug sales?)

Um, how about this for why not just blow up a bridge... Brother Bush was in charge of security. You don't find that odd? How about looking at some facts. The FBI encourages and supplied nitrogen that went into the 1993 WTC bomb. They knew about that plan and allowed it to happen. (The only reason it didn't work is the idiots parked to far from the support column they were given a map to park next to).

So simple facts seem more reasonable than your elaborate "trust the bizarre official explanations" theory. Did the gov't know about the 1993 attempt ahead of time? yes. Did they let that happen? yes. Did people make billions from the plane attacks? yes. Did ANYONE investigate stock trading leading up to 9/11? No. Did Enron SEC files all go permanently missing? yes (WTC7). Can you think of another "Pearl Harbor" event which would better produce the pro-war, anti-muslim sentiment of 9/11? Would blowing up a bridge, school, etc. give the same effect? Can an images be more TV friendly? Why were people sent back to their offices? Certainly with a second inbound plane, someone warned security at the WTC complex. (Neil Bush must have known about a 2nd plane)


Why did Hilter burn down the Reichstag. (Are you 100% ignorant of history)

LOL. It's like listening to some skinhead or hilter youth, or Brit Hume, or Cartman. There's a whole shitload of QMs blowing innocent people up all over the world, Farhad. Don't waste your time on his ignorant rantings. He's like a one-man "Fox and Friends"... moronic and sad, although good for a giggle now and then.