Fox News has never been shy of hosting guests who compare Obama to Hitler and the Nazis. According to Fox pundits, the president's alleged Nazism ranges from promoting gun control to mandating contraceptive coverage for employees.
However, Fox took a different approach to Nazi allusions when CBS's Bob Shieffer compared "taking on the gun lobby" to "defeating the Nazis." TPM has put together a video of Fox reactions, including Sean Hannity calling Shieffer's comparison an "over-the-top defamation":
It's been done by both sides so much now that it really doesn't mean anything any more or carry any substance. Whenever I hear a Hitler comparison on the news, the credibility of the person talking crumbles.
Obama = Hitler GW Bush = Hitler Hillary = more Stalin than Hitler Cheney = Hitler...big time Clinton = Mao Bush I = Hitler Reagan = Hitler, but ok good version Carter = Carter Nixon = kinda of a Hitler/Mao hybrid.
Look at the religious right's favorite issues. Anti-science, anti GLBT rights, and anti-choice. Look at the neo-Nazis in the US today -- they are on the same side of all those issues. The fundagelicals are not as overtly racist as they were in the 60s -- but the rest of it lines up quite nicely. I'm not saying that the fundies and the Nazis are the same -- they are different and separate political movements, but they do share more ideology that either does with the political left in the US today.
It's stupid. There are Nazis in the US. Christian Identity, The Creativity Movement, National Socialist Movement, etc. The members of these organizations are self-proclaimed Nazis, admirers of Adolph Hitler and adherents to the ideology presented in Mein Kampf. If you ask them they will verify this.
When you apply the term "Nazi" to people that are obviously not Nazis, have nothing to do with Nazis, do not embrace anything Nazi -- then you are letting the real Nazis off the hook.
The way this question is posed stinks...you are first asked if it is OK to compare your opponent to Hitler, and when you are ready to post it changes to "is it OK to call your opponent Hitler?" Well, IMHO, it is alright to compare your opponent's TACTICS & POLICIES to those of Hitler, or anyone else for that matter. It is not, however, alright to call your opponent "Hitler." As much as we are tempted to do this from time to time, it never solved anything.
As a general thing, if Hitler is mentioned in a discussion it's because the person bringing him up has run out of ideas.
This is especially obvious when a person claims (without foundation) that "Hitler was a liberal." This is merely a way to compare a large group of people to Hitler, which, again, is a sign of that person being fresh out of ideas.
But to answer the question, no, it's never appropriate to compare anyone to Hitler. It is offensive and it serves no purpose but to inflame emotions.
@Denizen_Kate Game point! I watch FNC occasionally but rarely Hannity. I'm ok with the channels right wing agenda; they provide contrast to other major TV news networks. Nevertheless, he stands out for his prohibitive interviewing style and his 'pot-calling-the-kettle-black' commentary....
Your statement is a frequently repeated fallacy. Germans were allowed to own no guns or ammunition after WW1. The Weimar Republic passed a law that allowed guns to be owned and traded with permits. The Nazis passed a law in 1938 that allowed rifles and shotguns to be owned and traded by anyone (except Jews) without a permit, and allowed ownership of pistols to "trustworthy" Germans with a permit. Considering the fact that well-armed countries could not defend themselves against Hitler's armies, the often repeated story that Jews could have defended themselves if they had possessed firearms is also highly improbable.
No, Mr. Obama does not intend genocide. He does not intend takeover of the world. He is not promoting a totalitarian regime. He has been nothing like Hitler. You obviously have never, ever read a history book.