Best
119 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    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.
  • #6
    !
    Pretty much my view to a point. But beyond that point I honestly do think a large portion of the Tea Party would make fine Nazi's.
  • #23
    !
    @marine1 Ok My bad. You got me on that one. Holey Toledo I must be on drugs. No way would the Tea party rabble ever be disciplined enough to do more than collateral damage.
  • R Load more replies

  • #15
    !
    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.
  • #20
    !
    @OpEn_MiNdEd Bushka! Nobody wants to claim even the smallest resemblance to Hitler's politics but lets face it: his politics define the word left.

    No need to be embarrassed; we've all got a crazy/weird uncle.
  • R Load more replies

  • #12
    !
    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.
  • #3
    !
    The best comparison of Bush to Hitler was when the pundit (Bill Maher?) said Bush was no Hitler but he might get there if he applied himself.
  • #2
    !
    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.
  • #36
    !
    LOlL not bad, here is my take:

    Obama is more like Carter, ineffective centrest Dem. Cheney you called perfectly. Reagan, a good version of Hitler, is that whay repubs want???

    The rest you call ok...:)
  • #34
    !
    If the political opponent is killing millions of people of the same race or religion then you can call him Hitler. If he wants everyone to have an equal opportunity and health care then you cannot.
  • #53
    !
    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.
  • #11
    !
    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.
  • #107
    !
    Thank God we don't have and hopefully never in my time experience that. Hitler was completely out of his mind. Satan in the flesh.
  • #101
    !
    Again, Politix, NOT ENOUGH CHOICES. It's OK to inform The People of former dictators who have taken similar actions, but until they start duplicating ALL OR MOST of those dictator's policies, it's unwarranted. I can tell you that Fidel Castro Ruz used a Federal Cuban Law, that was in place before he came into power, mandating that ALL FIREARMS BE REGISTERED to CONFISCATE those firearms. In his notoriously famous speech justifying the confiscation of weapons by the state, his infamous ONE LINER is being voiced NOW in the USA by people like Piers Morgan, Dianne Feinstein and others power figures: "Armas para que'? " (literally, "Weapons/Arms for what?" but to state the EXACT same sentiment in English you would need to say: "Who needs weapons?", "Why do you need weapons?", and Piers Morgan's idiotic sine plus ultra: "Only people planning mass murder need AR15s".
    See US Department of Justice Reports which debunk what the media and autocratic political hacks are trying to make us believe at the web site assaultweaponsbanof2013 dot blogspot dot com.
  • #79
    !
    My step mother was a follower of Hitler during the war so I used to hear about how much like him Goldwater was. My rule of thumb is that the first person to bring up a comparison to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao (not all alike in my estimation) loses the argument. So, if you tell me that anyone is like Hitler I categorize you as a dope and read no further.
  • R Load more comments...
Post