# i am growing tired of the threats....



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicol ... esort.html?

you can read this garbage, but the bottom line is *the MAJORITY of Americans are against a government regulated HC reform! period!!*

if these A-holes use reconciliation the wrath of God and the voters will clean their clock come November 2010. and street demonstrations are likely well before that, the kind of thing no one has ever seen before in this country.

Obama, Specter, Reid and Pelosi will tear this country apart and there will be political warfare the likes of which no one can imagine..i agree with Steele, go ahead, try it!


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

> UPDATE: The White House just issued a statement on the president's meeting with Daschle.
> 
> "The President invited Senator Daschle to the White House for a quick check-in on the health insurance reform process and to exchange views on the process moving forward. Senator Daschle is one of the foremost experts on health care and on the legislative process, and has been a friend and sounding-board for the President for several years. The two agreed that substantive reform that lowers costs, reforms the insurance industry, and expands coverage is too important to wait another year or another administration, and they agreed to stay in touch over the coming weeks and months as this critical effort moves forward."


*be prepared for civil unrest and protests/demonstrations across this country...this will not stand with the American people.*


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Does it ever get boring debating with yourself? Just wondering?


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Gooseguy10 said:


> Does it ever get boring debating with yourself? Just wondering?


I think he's waiting for some one to debate with, go ahead give it a shot!!

:lol:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Gooseguy10 said:


> Does it ever get boring debating with yourself? Just wondering?


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

precisely.

:beer:


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Bowstring said:


> Gooseguy10 said:
> 
> 
> > Does it ever get boring debating with yourself? Just wondering?
> ...


Okay, I will take the bait. Let's liven up the politics forum.

First off, people are free to believe, post and be passionate about whatever they want. It is a Constitutional freedom and an innate right in this country. I file other people's opinions under my personal folder of "to each their own." For instance, Obama, like him, hate him, compare him to Pol Pot....to each their own. Think the country is destined for failure.....to each their own.

Second, the reason why many don't debate the dominant prevailing themes on here is because you can't argue with insanity. Meaning, anyone with an opinion other than right wing conservative gets blown out of the water. As a very informal observation, I think less and less people have posted on this forum over the past 8 months b.c it is like beating your head against the wall. How many topics get posted by the same two people and only get responded to by the same two people? Hence the back handed shot of my original post about debating with yourself.

By definition a debate should have two well thought out opposing viewpoints. Instead on this forum a "debate" is people making extreme (read end of the world) claims, followed by attacks on anyone that sees the world any different. It turns into the same old tired argument.

Finally, when posting the sky is falling articles, it would add a hint of credibility if you posted a source. Without crediting a source you leave the reader believing that you are posting information from a biased source. This type of mistake would get an F in 10th grade composition class. In hindsight, it doesn't matter, b.c I think many on here see it as the same mindless, paranoia based propaganda and realize that the people posting the articles are irrationally biased so they don't even bother reading it.....personally I file these articles under my "written diarrhea" folder.

But again, to each their own.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

So I like the fact that you aknowledge that people will have seperate opinions and to each their own.

I agree that you have generally two extremes in most conversation on here... because of the medium being used as it sure is easy to call someone something nasty across the keyboard.

I also agree with you that the basis of a debate is two seperate opinions discussing what each party holds to be the truth in their eyes... and that the outcome SHOULD be in a utopian world the truth... but hopefully in the real world each party adjusts their perspective even if only slightly by seeing it through someone elses eyes.

But were I disagree with you is that all conservatives on here are far right wing.


> Second, the reason why many don't debate the dominant prevailing themes on here is because you can't argue with insanity. Meaning, anyone with an opinion other than right wing conservative gets blown out of the water.


There are both extremes on this forum but you are talking about a hunting & fishing forum that is full of mostly mid-western conservatives. Now myself, I consider myself a progressive conservative as I take stances on either side of the fence because of how I feel personally about issues... I could care less about how other fiscally conservative's feel about it.

There are several topics and opinions on here that are far left... and it is good to have other philosophies present but thicken up your skin a little... and *only ask people to change as much as you are willing to change yourself. *


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

northdakotakid said:


> So I like the fact that you aknowledge that people will have seperate opinions and to each their own.
> 
> I agree that you have generally two extremes in most conversation on here... because of the medium being used as it sure is easy to call someone something nasty across the keyboard.
> 
> ...


Good post.

I like the idea about:

"but hopefully in the real world each party adjusts their perspective even if only slightly by seeing it through someone elses eyes."

Unfortunately, this ideal really isn't happening on this board, or if it is, it is getting overshadowed by a over bearing common theme.....we are all doomed. For this reason less people engage in the "debate" on here.

You are correct that not everyone is an extreme conservative on this board....but the most vocal ones on this board are. It leaves the impression that all conservatives march to the beat of the extreme. But I guess that is like anything in life, the loudest get heard over the majority.

As far as this board having a conservative overtone, it is quite obvious why that is considering the overall topic of the website (as you pointed out). I wouldn't expect anything else.

I know my first post made me sound like a "Ryan like" liberal (again to each their own Ryan) but in reality I am not. I did not vote for Obama but I had the idealistic hope that Obama would give me a reason to vote for him in 2012. While that ideal has faded, I am not ready to wager a bet on the end of the United States as some on this board would.

As far as getting thicker skin, no need. I am not offended, shocked or even mildly upset about the opinions of the extreme. I was simply offering an explanation as to what I see on this board and in other mediums that discuss politics.

As far as asking to consider personal change, I am all for it....but give me something other than the sky is falling and the other side are fascists.

In short, the more extreme people get in their attempt to discredit the other side (this goes both ways.....lib and con), the more and more people get turned off to the so called "debate." It turns into a debate that is dominated more by heart than brain.....but then again, would you expect anything else when discussing politics (or religion.....or res/non res hunting rights......or jumping roosts full of all the black geese that are currently in the Pembina area)?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> I did not vote for Obama but I had the idealistic hope that Obama would give me a reason to vote for him in 2012. While that ideal has faded, I am not ready to wager a bet on the end of the United States as some on this board would.


I did vote for Obama and he has been a disapointment. I also voted for Bush, twice. He was a bigger disappointment. I still don't know if Obama was a better choice than McCain. I think McCain has proven that he is a great man but he didn't get it done during the campaign, we have been over the palin factor a few times.

As far as the sky is falling it does get extreme. Their has been no legislation that has damaged our gun rights, nothing has passed on healthcare, and nothing has been done anywhere else. That is a big part of my disgust, nothing has been done. Except two bonehead giveaways of our tax dollars by both presidents. It is like a broken record in DC. Obama said he was going to be the great unifier. He has been anything but. The closest he has come is getting the cop and the racist professor to have a cold one with him. Obama promised to get both sides to the table and work on mutual legislation, instead he has pushed a socialist agenda and not lived up to expectations that he put on himself.

I do see things getting worse before they get better. IMO congress is a bigger problem than the white house. Unless DC gets things done fast and gets people back to work and closes the economic gap there will be more unrest and probably violence. Hopefully not. A lot of states are asserting their rights and that is a good thing. A lot of people are voicing their outrage and that is a good thing. Hopefully the deadbeats in DC get voted out and some new leaders can work with the few good leaders in DC and get things moving.

And another thing, the college football season is right around the corner and there still is no playoff system :beer:


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Here's two cents to consider:

Love, or hate the politico's, on either side of the fence, I feel that it is my duty as an American with the ability to thoughtfully consider my surroundings to;
A. Be aware of things that can, or have changed my chosen way of life.
B. To change, within or outside of the system, those things that are unacceptable to me, without causing harm to other rational people.
C. To NEVER give up on the concept of the United States of America as the best place in the world for a free man or woman to raise a family and persue the lifestyle of their choosing.
D. To unwaveringly support the men and women of the United States military establishment.
E. Realize that mistakes can be corrected, with concerted effort and time. To think that this country has grown for the last two-hundred plus years without mistakes is ignorant. It can be fixed, but it won't happen quickly.
F. Acknowledge that this time in history is unique, and can not fairly be compared to any other time in our history. The development of the world as we know it has taken place as the result of a great many years of evolution. We must attack our current problems with the same innovative and creative solutions that have allowed us to come as far as we are today.

I could, quite probably, fill out the rest of the alphabet with different thoughts on the current state of affairs, but that would only start a rant by someone else who agrees to disagree with my simple views.
The one thing that I can't do, is think that we have nothing but a bleak future ahead. I just don't believe that is the American way. And I am, if nothing else, a proud American.
Burl


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I like the idea about:
> 
> "but hopefully in the real world each party adjusts their perspective even if only slightly by seeing it through someone elses eyes."


I like that idea too, and it is what I hope for every time I post.

I get a kick out of people who ***** about extremes, and people should be quiet. Without the extremes nothing would get done because people in the center do little or nothing. 
Right now the angry people are going to town hall meetings and protesting or at least giving their representatives an ear full. The first to become angry at which ever party is in power are the people you call extreme. Without these people at the town hall meetings socialised health care would be still going gull steam.
The quiet people in the center remind me of dumb cows going to slaughter. They stand chewing their cud while up ahead a short distance a pneumatic hammer is beating the brains out of the first cow in line. Why worry? They still have six cows to go before they get to them. 
So if you want to see something different post something different instead of taking a cheap shot at someone who is active? You don't want to do or say anything is fine, that's your choice. However, it's really poor to ask others to be quiet and let the poison work. 
My suspicion would be you love what's happening and you don't want anyone alerting people to it. Fess up and come out from behind the moderate mask. I even wonder if your comment was solicited since I have seen it before, and attacking the same people (please look in the archives and you will notice the radical left with three or even four posts in a row). Now on this note I may be right or I may be wrong, but your first move looked very radical.
People are welcome to post whatever they like, and people are welcome to tear up their hypothesis. Why did you choose to tear up individuals? Goosguy10 if you and nine buddies are running from a bear in the dark and the first guy yells look out their is a cliff up ahead are you going to ***** about him? It may or may not kill you if you fall over that cliff, but is there a real need to fall over it at all?
I hope I changed your mind just a little bit. Just a tiny, tiny bit. If I did it's already been a great day.
I see the Obama administration misjudged the debt. It isn't seven trillion for this year it's nine trillion. :gag:


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Experience is the best teacher, at least it is in life's lessons. Some of us have been thru "Doom and Gloom" before. And it isn't fun. The recession in late 2001 was a walk in the park compared to what happened during and after the "Carter Years". So I can understand that the "young", 35 and under, liberal thinking posters on this and other boards have a hard time getting their head around some of us talking about the pending and more than likely "Doom and Gloom" ahead. They haven't "been there done that" so it will be under question or unbelievable to them. I won't bore you with the actual experience I had during the Carter years, because you have to experience it to understand it. Your time is coming. Run away inflation and interest rates, increases in taxes, no economic growth preceded by high unemployment is not something that is new or being used by "fear mongering" to scare everyone, its just the way it has happened thru out history. In this country and the global economy too. The 11.2 trillion dollar lose of wealth in 2008 should be a hint as to where we are heading. Please try to keep an open mind about "doom and gloom" and I'll keep an open mind on why we don't have to worry, even if its tuff to do.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Gooseguy10 said:


> Unfortunately, this ideal really isn't happening on this board, or if it is, it is getting overshadowed by a over bearing common theme.....we are all doomed. For this reason less people engage in the "debate" on here.
> 
> You are correct that not everyone is an extreme conservative on this board....but the most vocal ones on this board are. It leaves the impression that all conservatives march to the beat of the extreme. But I guess that is like anything in life, the loudest get heard over the majority.


spot on assessment



Gooseguy10 said:


> I know my first post made me sound like a "Ryan like" liberal (again to each their own Ryan) but in reality I am not. I did not vote for Obama but I had the idealistic hope that Obama would give me a reason to vote for him in 2012. While that ideal has faded, I am not ready to wager a bet on the end of the United States as some on this board would.


I'm not sure what a "Ryan like" liberal is... as I'm not nearly as liberal as folks make me out to be. Most folks just haven't met or understand what a hard core liberal is... and I am the closest experience they've ever debated with on a regular basis... and it is also the result of a predominant Great Plains "group think" as they don't have many outspoken liberal types in their hometown circles. Therefore I am the scapegoat for anyone left of center. If you've noticed with an objective eye, I haven't had any extreme opinions, but they have been left of center socially.



Gooseguy10 said:


> As far as getting thicker skin, no need. I am not offended, shocked or even mildly upset about the opinions of the extreme. I was simply offering an explanation as to what I see on this board and in other mediums that discuss politics.


ditto.



Gooseguy10 said:


> In short, the more extreme people get in their attempt to discredit the other side (this goes both ways.....lib and con), the more and more people get turned off to the so called "debate." It turns into a debate that is dominated more by heart than brain.....but then again, would you expect anything else when discussing politics (or religion.....or res/non res hunting rights......or jumping roosts full of all the black geese that are currently in the Pembina area)?


If you've noticed, prior to this thread, I've only posted a dozen times in a month. This is not comparable at all to the deluge of hundreds of posts (new threads) posted in that time frame.

something to chew on... and why I agreed with your original post.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> something to chew on... and why I agreed with your original post


Ryan, I do know you, and I know exactly why you like gooseguy10's original post. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. Please avoid making the same mistakes as in the past.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> instead of taking a cheap shot at someone who is active? You don't want to do or say anything is fine, that's your choice. However, it's really poor to ask others to be quiet and let the poison work.


Because he realizes he is beating his head against a wall, and will get flooded with rhetoric that has nothing much to do with a debate. Listen to what he is saying Plainsman. You might gather some insight from someone new reiterating a familiar sounding point.



Plainsman said:


> My suspicion would be you love what's happening and you don't want anyone alerting people to it. Fess up and come out from behind the moderate mask.


Here is a great example of a subtle attack you launch against anyone who points this fact out (again) to you... tongue in cheek or subtle or just in the way you phrase it... recognize your words for what they are.



Plainsman said:


> I even wonder if your comment was solicited since I have seen it before, and attacking the same people (please look in the archives and you will notice the radical left with three or even four posts in a row). Now on this note I may be right or I may be wrong, but your first move looked very radical.


Here you go again in the very next sentence. (He is implying that I solicited your comments Gooseguy)

You imply that I am part of the "radical left"... do you constantly feel the need to paint someone (me) as a villain? really?

And you are comparing "3 or 4 posts in a row" as equivalent to 15 or 20 posts in a row? really?

And lest he be framed as a "radical" like me, he better not have the audacity to post his own genuine feelings on a matter if they so happen to divert from the status quo groupthink that pervades this forum

:roll:

I think you've made his point well with these examples....



Plainsman said:


> People are welcome to post whatever they like, and people are welcome to tear up their hypothesis. Why did you choose to tear up individuals? Goosguy10 if you and nine buddies are running from a bear in the dark and the first guy yells look out their is a cliff up ahead are you going to b#tch about him? It may or may not kill you if you fall over that cliff, but is there a real need to fall over it at all?
> 
> I hope I changed your mind just a little bit. Just a tiny, tiny bit. If I did it's already been a great day.


Yes you have changed my mind a tiny bit.

I don't believe he "teared up" any individuals. No worse than certain individuals have had a fine time tearing me up in the very same manner.

Words to chew on...

and lest anyone think I am in a sour mood... 

a bit of humor


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Because he realizes he is beating his head against a wall


He wasn't beating his head against the wall, he wasn't even involved in the debate. The first post was a little stir the pot.



> Listen to what he is saying Plainsman. You might gather some insight from someone new reiterating a familiar sounding point.


I listen to everyone, but I know you think I will only gain insight if I agree with you.



> Plainsman wrote:
> My suspicion would be you love what's happening and you don't want anyone alerting people to it. Fess up and come out from behind the moderate mask.
> 
> Ryan wrote:
> Here is a great example of a subtle attack you launch against anyone who points this fact out (again) to you... tongue in cheek or subtle or just in the way you phrase it... recognize your words for what they are.


What my words mean is I think he started the first post with the intention of follow up, but first he wanted to discredit the original poster? Attack the messenger (just as you say) to make it easier to discredit their point. If I am wrong Ryan you should have stayed out of this so there would be no need to say these things.



> Here you go again in the very next sentence. (He is implying that I solicited your comments Gooseguy)


It could have been anyone. Why is everything about you? I suspected solicitation, because it came out of nowhere for no reason. I have never seen goosguy10 post much of anything on the political form and when he does he goes right for the person some people want to crucify. Know what I mean Ryan?



> You imply that I am part of the "radical left"... do you constantly feel the need to paint someone (me) as a villain? really?


I believe there is some political area still to the left of you. I also believe that the radical (Marxist) left are villains, and yes I do need to constantly paint them as villains in the hope people will see they are a threat to our democracy.



> And you are comparing "3 or 4 posts in a row" as equivalent to 15 or 20 posts in a row? really?


I comparing two posts in a row on the same thread to three or four posts in a row on the same thread. I post often just to keep things going. I like to go to the Drudge Report, see what's new, and throw it out. Some people appreciate it, but apparently you don't. When you asked me to post more did you mean only things you would agree with?



> And lest he be framed as a "radical" like me





> He isn't framed at all, that's why I left an out for him with these words:
> Now on this note I may be right or I may be wrong,


I am sometimes wrong. Surprise. We can't all be like you who never makes a mistake.

As a matter of fact I doubt he is a radical liberal. The reason I think that is this statement:


> I know my first post made me sound like a "Ryan like" liberal


Here is my guess. Goosguy10 perhaps doesn't much care about politics. I'm sure he doesn't want to hear bad news, he would rather it just go away. However, I have more bad news, it's not going to go away. Not until 2012 anyway. The even worse news is this country may never be the same again. If we get another liberal Supreme Court Judge we are only one step away from the 2nd amendment being interpreted wrong. For sure the younger guys are going to be paying for this One Big *** Mistake America for many years to come. You said the youth put Obama in office, so perhaps it's fitting their lifestyle will pay for it for the next 25 years.

Here is another guess Ryan. What you can't control you will undermine.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Gooseguy10 said:


> Bowstring said:
> 
> 
> > Gooseguy10 said:
> ...


apparently you are Internet challenged, as most of the time i post an article which includes the author's name.......absent that, you can google the headline of the article and find it in it's entirety and read it and verify the author...anyone that would like to debate an article or issue, that chooses NOT to do so need not whine, unless you enjoy hearing yourself...whine!


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Here goes...

There are liberals, to which there are many degrees... there are conservatives, to which there are many degrees.

There are several individuals who post and have posted at varying degrees over the past years on this forum... some liberal and some conservative.

Seriously, guys both sides of the aisle have sounded rediculous in their justification and support of certain issues on this forum. But it seems that both sides have taken their token stance on whether or not they are liberal or conservative... conservatives calling liberals funny names and liberals feeling personally attacked.

Newsflash, liberals are in the minority so they will feel personally attacked because they are making personal stances on public issues.

Newsflash, conservatives take a traditional bullying stance because they are in the majority and are essentially the big mwn on campus. Liberals, who are now in control of the House and Senate feel as though they can send conservatives to the principals office because in fact... they control the administration at the school.

Seriously, this is a forums intent is for discussing, what I would think we all have agreed upon, are opposing views... meaning that very rarely will distinct and identified opposing parties agree.

Let's see some issues here...


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> > I like the idea about:
> >
> > "but hopefully in the real world each party adjusts their perspective even if only slightly by seeing it through someone elses eyes."
> 
> ...


Hey good stuff here. First, I never said be quiet, please re-read the first paragraph of my second post.....to each their own. You can post whatever you want, as much as you want, I simply said that people don't buy into the message b.c it is the same, paranoid message over and over again.

As far as calling anyone who is upset extreme. No not really but if you simply look at all the titles of posts by a selected few......they seem kind of extreme. Off the cuff, I think in the past few months we have compared Obama to Hitler, advocated that he is attempting to start a Civil War, predicted that he is going to overturn the 22nd amendment of the Constitution and called him a fascist.....truthfully now, you see that as mainstream Americans who are just "upset" with their government similar to those who are opposed to health care at town hall meetings? Speaking of headings, the title of this thread is "getting tired of all the threats!" Amen to that brother, but you and are tired for different reasons!

As far as the cow example, you and I apparently see the world in a totally different light. I see you as negatively paranoid and you see me as naive. To put it a different way, you see a cliff ahead, I don't. To be honest with you I am surprised you didn't say, the bear is coming after my nine friends but I don't have a gun to shoot it with b.c the Obama admin took my second amendment rights away.

As far as your hunch about me liking whats going on and am only trying to keep you quiet. Not even close. I would bet that you and I share some very similar political views. The difference is that you see what is currently happening as the end of America, where I see it as a swing on the political pendulum based on 200 plus years of history. Your day in the sun will come again.

As far as my first move looking radical? Asking if someone likes debating with themselves is radical to you? Again look at the topics over the past months (listed above) and tell me how radical a smart *** one line comment really is.

As far as me "tearing up individuals"......get some thicker skin.

And yes, Ryan and I are in cohoots to bring liberal change to a conservative based midwest hunting website. He is working on getting me a government subsidy (25 cents a line) to combat conservatism world wide.

The constant paranoia would be funny if it weren't so damn sad.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

northdakotakid said:


> Newsflash, conservatives take a traditional bullying stance because they are in the majority and are essentially the big mwn on campus. Liberals, who are now in control of the House and Senate feel as though they can send conservatives to the principals office because in fact... they control the administration at the school.
> .


So the BMOC conservatives, who are in the majority, can bully..... but just not right now b.c they don't have a majority in either chamber of Congress or control of the White House.

Does anyone else see a slight contradiction here?

In my mind it is similar to "nobody goes to that restaurant anymore b.c it is too crowded!? :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> As far as my first move looking radical? Asking if someone likes debating with themselves is radical to you? Again look at the topics over the past months (listed above) and tell me how radical a smart a$$ one line comment really is.


Ya, your right, and really I did think it was more smart *** than radical, but I thought that would be more offensive to say. It looks like we agree. :beer:

As far as paranoia, it would be that if were wrong. We are not paranoid if Obama is the person we think he is. 
It's interesting you brought up the second amendment. If you remember the Supreme Court vote was 5/4 reaffirming the second amendment. Now if Obama appoints another liberal judge to the bench do you think anyone will challenge the second amendment again? How do you think that will turn out. 
I confess to hyperbole, but sometimes that's what you do to get people to hear. That's why people are loud at the town hall meetings. If your calm these guys think they can get away with anything. Sad to say, but they don't care to listen unless people are real upset. The guy screaming isn't always the neanderthal, he screams because the guy he is talking to is an arrogant *** who doesn't listen to his constituents. 
As far as being solicited it was just a shot into the bushes to see if anything flushed. After all your post came out of nowhere.

Oh, edit: Go look at : http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... highlight=

You didn't like the comparison to Hitler. The Nazi took over the health care, they took over the German car industry, they were the socialists of Germany. Can you see any comparison now? You think we are over reacting, I would ask you, if a politician sneaks something real bad past us is he more likely to sneak it past you or me?


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> You didn't like the comparison to Hitler. The Nazi took over the health care, they took over the German car industry, they were the socialists of Germany. Can you see any comparison now? You think we are over reacting, I would ask you, if a politician sneaks something real bad past us is he more likely to sneak it past you or me?


You are comparing an American President to someone who was responsible for systematically killing 10 million people in concentration camps (6.5 million jews, 3 million other "undesireables") and plunging the world into a war that killed roughly 50 million people, of which 450,000 were Americans.

So yeah, I fail to see the comparison.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Gooseguy....

Not comparing what he did in the humanitarian aspect....but taking over auto industry, health care, banking, etc. You can compair both paths they are simular.

Germany was in a depression when Hitler took over. He promised huge things. He took over the things above.......then everything went down hill.

We are not saying Obama will start to round people up and kill them. We are not saying Obama will create a new "final" solution. Just look at the economics of the countries.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gooseguy10 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't like the comparison to Hitler. The Nazi took over the health care, they took over the German car industry, they were the socialists of Germany. Can you see any comparison now? You think we are over reacting, I would ask you, if a politician sneaks something real bad past us is he more likely to sneak it past you or me?
> ...


You know what we mean gooseguy10, you simply distort what we say to try convince the less intelligent. Nobody is so inept they can't understand what I said. I did not compare all aspects of Hitler, I stated those that I was comparing. Why stretch it beyond that?


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

> The Nazi took over the health care, they took over the German car industry, they were the socialists of Germany.


Nazism is far closer to Fascism than Socialism. They were avowed anti-Communists. After they set fire to the Reichstag, they blamed the Communists, and used it as a reason to execute the leader of the Communist party (as well as using it as a reason for Hitler to get Hindenburg to ban most civil liberties).


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

omegax said:



> > The Nazi took over the health care, they took over the German car industry, they were the socialists of Germany.
> 
> 
> Nazism is far closer to Fascism than Socialism. They were avowed anti-Communists. After they set fire to the Reichstag, they blamed the Communists, and used it as a reason to execute the leader of the Communist party (as well as using it as a reason for Hitler to get Hindenburg to ban most civil liberties).


So to use the predominant line of thinking here in linking an American President to the rise of Hitler....please read the following.

Bush used deception regarding WMD to go to war, Hitler (as pointed out above) used deception to (eventually) go to war.....one in the same.

Clinton helped revitalize the economy (or at least it worked out on his watch). So did Hitler, one in the same.

Lincoln suppressed writ of habeas corpus and limited free speech during the Civil War.....so did Hitler, one in the same.

Jackson forced the relocation of American Indians resulting in thousands of deaths, Hitler relocated the jews......one in the same.

FDR socialized numerous aspects of American society through the New Deal, so did Hitler, one in the same.

Andrew Johnson and US Grant, used military occupation in the US to control citizenry, so did Hitler, one in the same.

Mckinley and T. Roosevelt annexed Hawaii, the Panama Canal, Guam, the Phillippeans, Cuba, Somoa........Hitler annexed the Sudetenland.....one in the same.

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams.....advocated for the overthrow of their government to implement a new and radical form of government.....Hitler attempted to over throw his government and implement a new and radical form of government.....one in the same.

Obama worked as a "community organizer" to help needy people, mother Theresa worked to help needy people.....must be one in the same.

Apparently by disregarding the entire picture and simply using bits and pieces to compare and prove your point, we can link almost all of our presidents to the biggest mass murderer of all time.

I know you are going to say "we are simply pointing out similarities" and I am saying look at the entire picture before making comparisons to someone like Hitler.

:eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

On single points you can link many people to other people. Remember that old song linking Kennedy and Lincoln. I don't remember the whole think, but Kennedy's secretaries name was Lincoln and Lincolns secretaries name was Kennedy, and the song links about ten things.

Now with Obama you could link him to many other people who have taken away the liberties of their people. Hitler is simply one that people recognize. Also, in searching they often talk of Hitlers socialist agendas. I compared health care, the car industry, the banks. There may be others. One is simply circumstantial, and so are the others, but each thing added adds probability to the first. Much like building a prosecution case in court.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

omegax said:


> > The Nazi took over the health care, they took over the German car industry, they were the socialists of Germany.
> 
> 
> Nazism is far closer to Fascism than Socialism. They were avowed anti-Communists. After they set fire to the Reichstag, they blamed the Communists, and used it as a reason to execute the leader of the Communist party (as well as using it as a reason for Hitler to get Hindenburg to ban most civil liberties).


Then Rush,Palin and Beck better watch thier back!! :huh:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

I have to say Plainsman that it is hard to take you seriously after some of your recent posts. When I read where you try to paint Obama and Hitler together, I was quite disappointed. Only one thing comes to mind when you bring up Hitler, and that is the systematic killing of jews in the holocaust. But I'm sure you know that when you try to link Obama's "socialism" to Hitler's fascism. You're not stupid. I've only been to one concentration camp (Dachau), but I know that calling someone Hitler isn't a trivial offense. That reminds me that in the Netherlands, it's against the law to do the "hail Hitler" salute in public. That's how serious Europeans take any talk about Hitler.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

A couple of us already explained that we are not comparing the concentration camps or any of that. You guys in your attempt to win the health care debate simply don't want to give up on that part. I'll explain it again. We compared only those things we listed, and they do compare. Now if we get some form of gun control down the road that will make one more thing that compares. 
We specifically explained for a reason. So the liberals could not cry foul and make big deal of things we have not talked about. This is what is called deflect and change the subject. The other thing is you hope to discredit us when you have no argument against the points we made. The comparison was valid, so you need to destroy that somehow. 
Liberals compared Bush to Hitler with no real comparisons. Someone made a comparison of WMD, but Hitler didn't claim some other nation had WMD's. I guess they didn't exist so they stretched it somehow.
Just to make this easier lets say we are comparing his actions to Hitler/the early years.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> A couple of us already explained that we are not comparing the concentration camps or any of that.


...and a couple of us explained that you cannot separate Hitler from concentration camps. :huh:


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Look at your American Communist party history... Russia had everyone convinced until they signed the treaty with Germany... then days later Germany invaded Poland and then Russia attacked Germany...

It really is a very interesting piece of history if you take the time and view it from an open perspective. I just watched the documentaryon the Great Depression (History Channel) and there is a whole section devoted to the topic of the American Communist Party.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

I am glad someone else sees it the way I do on here. When talking Hitler, you get the whole bag.

Plainsman, a couple of things, you often times mention hidden agendas. (most recently with Ryan and I cohorting together), so what agenda are you trying to push by linking Obama and Hitler? What conclusion are we to get from your comparison?

Second, this thread has gone fifty different ways but one core theme (in the beginning) has been how constantly pushing an extreme agenda, and using radical means to do so does not give people food for thought (as you contend) but rather leaves people thinking your political agenda is far out there and in turn leaves people turned off completely. Over the course of the past couple of posts you have proved my point exactly. I think in any shape or form, when you actively argue that an American President is similar to Hitler....socially, politically, militarily, early career, late career.....it shows that you are not trying to make a valid point but rather attempting to get people to believe that Obama and a mass murder (to the highest degree) are similar. This tactic does not offer a valid counter argument to something that you disagree with, it is a scare tactic used by radical political hacks.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

northdakotakid said:


> Look at your American Communist party history... Russia had everyone convinced until they signed the treaty with Germany... then days later Germany invaded Poland and then Russia attacked Germany...
> 
> It really is a very interesting piece of history if you take the time and view it from an open perspective. I just watched the documentary on the Great Depression (History Channel) and there is a whole section devoted to the topic of the American Communist Party.


I agree it is a very interesting piece of history. When people are desperate, communism looks like a good alternative. One interesting historical figure is Huey Long. In fact if many on here wanted to really make a valid comparison to Obama and the socialist movement they could have used Long with his "share our wealth" campaign. Too bad b.c they would have made a much more credible argument than with the Hitler comparison.

One minor correction in your post, Germany attacked the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa).


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Huey Long was never in a position to do the kind of damage Obama is.

There are a few similarities between Huey Long and Obama, but not many. Long was not a fan of the federal gov't, Long was thought to be at the least a sympathizer of the Klan, he was a thorn in the side of corporations. Obama is none of these.

Long did want to cap individual wealth and was a master of using the media and self promotion. Long also used tax revenues to do a lot of public projects. I do find it coincidental that the same people that helped bring Long to power allegedly took him down. We may see a similar thing happen at the mid terms. The very people that put Obama in office could be the ones that make him a lame duck. These people would be the middle class voters who were/are tired of getting screwed by our elected officials and thought Obama was the better of two mediocre at best candidates.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> (most recently with Ryan and I cohorting together)


Not true.



> so what agenda are you trying to push by linking Obama and Hitler? What conclusion are we to get from your comparison?


Simply that it's not good to put banks, auto industry, and health care under the government thumb. It makes no difference if Obama is the bad guy or not it sets it up for some guy to come along and take advantage of even if Obama doesn't.



> and using radical means to do so does not give people food for thought


All things are food for thought if your mind isn't closed.



> .....it shows that you are not trying to make a valid point but rather attempting to get people to believe that Obama and a mass murder (to the highest degree) are similar. This tactic does not offer a valid counter argument to something that you disagree with, it is a scare tactic used by radical political hacks.


You compare me to a political hack simply to win an argument you can not win based on merit. However, I am not going to whine which looks like your latest tact.

So would you feel better if we compared him to some other leader who took over industry and health etc. Maybe Stalin, or someone else? No good people have done this so whoever I compare him to you will cry.



> they could have used Long


Great, use Long. I was not familiar with him, and Hitler was the only one I could think of. Not because the comparison was perfect, but because he is so notorious we all know about him.



> There are a few similarities between Huey Long and Obama


Thanks TK, you kept me from being mislead by gooseguy10. So gooseguy why would you decieve me? I'm open minded, can you come up with a valid person I can compare Obama to? One that eventually took over the country and people lost freedom.



> and a couple of us explained that you cannot separate Hitler from concentration camps.


Don't judge me by your inabilities. I can separate every act the man ever did from concentration camps as simply as I can separate your good arguments from your poor ones and your complements from your digs. I would even go so far as to imagine Hitler did some good things. No man is all good nor all evil. Not being able to separate it is emotion. Leave the emotion behind and think.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Goose I will remind you and everyone else that it has been during the debate on HC your party leaders who have used the term


> Brown shirts


 and paid a protester to bring a swastika to a rally in an attempt to discredit those who are opposed to HC!

There is reasons why people compare current actions of our Gov elected leaders to that of the era of Hitler in regards to the economy,control over industry and attempts to control the media.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the death camps or extermination attempt of people of Jewish faith. You may need to be reminded or even informed that FDR, the Golden Child of the Democratic party admired Hitler and how efficient he made Germany by seizing all of the real assets. He admired his control of the media as well and how it gave him absolute power and support of the people.

So let's deal in reality!

GW, was compared to a Nazi,Hitler on numerous occasions from the press, pundits, and people from the opposite party. We have had sitting Senators call our troops and actions terrorists,murderers etc....

I find it funny and sad that you or anyone else would become indigent about the comments made by Plainsman when it was you who twisted his intent and meaning out of the context that they where used and correctly!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I find it funny and sad that you or anyone else would become indigent about the comments made by Plainsman when it was you who twisted his intent and meaning out of the context


Oh, well, I did accomplish something. I pulled the closet socialists out into the open. It would appear they are offended because they approve of all those things. Even when I compared it to what Hitler did they didn't say anything about those political moves Obama has made, they simply tried to discredit the messenger. They appear to understand it when Ryan says don't shoot the messenger, so it works both ways right?  I'm not offended, because I know why they pretend to be offended. They want to poison to work. They would perhaps have shot Paul Revere off his horse too. Especially if it was Stalin coming by sea.  Darn capitalists.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

:lol: I hope your attempts to discredit us make you feel better. I love that line you like to use about "letting the poison work."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

seabass said:


> :lol: I hope your attempts to discredit us make you feel better. I love that line you like to use about "letting the poison work."


Simply defending myself. I am not comparing all things Obama and Hitler have done. You simply tried to paint that picture, and you know better. To defend Obama you simply tried to compare me to all the nut jobs out there. Did you really think people were dumb enough to believe that? There are a few who will pretend to agree, but we know why.

I'm glad you like the phrase letting the poison work. I got it from an old cartoon clip where a woman poisons her husband. On his death bed he has regrets about cheating on his wife and other things he should not have done. He is frantic to confess these things to her. She says "calm down honey, let the poison work". That's what you guys want us to do. Don't say anything bad about what Obama is doing. Calm down and let the socialist poison kill capitalism and democracy.

I'm sorry, but your little pall is doing some of the same things Hitler did. If he could make a second term another thing he would do is gun control. Oh, watch we will hear how the Supreme Court of the land has already ruled. Remember the vote? Five to four. That means one more judge like Sotamayor and it could be four to five. If Obama appoints another judge that liberal do you think someone will challenge the second amendment in court again. You would have to be naive beyond belief to think that want happen. Then we can add gun control as another comparison.

I see one fellow listed single comparisons on here and tried to equate that to my comparison. Far from it. When we get to five or six comparative actions will you guys concede then?


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Great job Ron!


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

And all we were saying is that you cannot separate Hitler from the concentration camps without an underlying implicit message. Visions of the Anne Frank House and Dachau just don't let me separate the two, but maybe its just me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

seabass said:


> And all we were saying is that you cannot separate Hitler from the concentration camps without an underlying implicit message. Visions of the Anne Frank House and Dachau just don't let me separate the two, but maybe its just me.


I understand seabass. It's not just you it's many people. Likewise many of us see Hitlers take over of Germany in segments. I do sincerely see the different aspects of Hitlers early years separated from his later actions. The German people elected him, so he must have appeared as a sane man at that time. He demonized the industries and took them over and all the while the people still didn't catch on. I think there is a pre WWII valid comparison. It's as if power corrupted Hitler and altered his original intents. Maybe it didn't, we will never know.

Please notice I did not compare his childhood and many other things that are comparable. How one grows up and is treated is beyond their control. I don't want to compare situations, only actions of the individual.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> I'm sorry, but your little pall is doing some of the same things Hitler did. If he could make a second term another thing he would do is gun control. Oh, watch we will hear how the Supreme Court of the land has already ruled. Remember the vote? Five to four. That means one more judge like Sotamayor and it could be four to five. If Obama appoints another judge that liberal do you think someone will challenge the second amendment in court again. You would have to be naive beyond belief to think that want happen. Then we can add gun control as another comparison.


So, just let me understand. Let's say Obama adds another supreme court justice to the supreme court, causing the balance of power to shift to the liberal side. Eventually of course they do hear a case related to gun control. For the sake of argument, let's say that the supreme court does rule in favor of the anti gun side. And for the sake of argument this may cause legislation to pass for more strict gun regulation... But that entire process from start to finish means that Obama is like Hitler for you?

The protocol for making more strict gun regulation for Hitler versus Obama are far from similar.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But that entire process from start to finish means that Obama is like Hitler for you?


Wow, were sure not on the same wave length. No, what I mean is if Obama achieves gun control, then we have one, (one) more thing to compare. Off the top of my head I think gun control was achieved by Hitler in 1937. 
I have a shirt that is really worn now. It was Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Clinton in a car together and the caption reads "Gun Control Works". Every politician with intent to do what he knows the people do not want begins with gun control. I think this was the turning point in Hitlers political life.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> When we get to five or six comparative actions will you guys concede then?





> No, what I mean is if Obama achieves gun control, then we have one, (one) more thing to compare.


No, we certainly are not on the same wavelength. It's hard for me to follow what you are trying to say then. Seems to me that you are saying if gun regulation is passed through our legislative system, then we can compare Obama to Hitler.



> So would you feel better if we
> compared him to some other leader who took over industry and health etc. Maybe Stalin, or someone else? No good people have done this so whoever I compare him to you will cry.


By the way, you could look to most any northern European country leader/goverment currently in power as an example of socialistic ideals in play, rather than using Hitler for grandstanding purposes. For example, in Sweden I believe Volvo is largely government owned (at least I know their pay loader division is). I'm sure they have tighter gun regulations that we have, as well as goverment health insurance (of some sort). Several European countries are like this. So no, it isn't necessary to invoke Hitler or Stalin to provide examples.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

In Sweden has mostly one person been responsible for taking over the car industry, the banks, the health care, the gun control (which we don't have at this time)? I doubt that, but it's good that at least you are comparing it to other socialist aspects of other countries. I don't think your example cut it, but I will consider it. Do you have someone we all know who would be better than Hitler? Gooseguy10 took a shot but missed it by a mile. I would like it to be someone who would represent the folly in Obamas political aspirations. Thanks.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

seabass said:


> > When we get to five or six comparative actions will you guys concede then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ford Stalls Volvo Bidding Process
Auto Maker Seeks Better Price, Awaits Outcome of GM's Opel Auction

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124894067573193041.html

The swedish gov isn't the owner of volvo.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bowstring, you may be right. With a few quick searches, I cannot find anything to substantiate my claim on the net. I have a relative who is an engineer for Case construction equipment and he has told me that they cannot compete (well) with Volvo because of the fact they are heavily subsidized by the Swedish goverment.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Now if you think my comparison is bad watch the next couple of days if you want to see people without class.

Remembert when Paul Wellstone crashed his plane? Remember his funeral? Those people had so little respect for one of their own that they turned it into a political rally. Do it for Paul, (cry) do it for Paul, (whine) do it for Paul, (cry some more) do it for Paul.

Do you want to know what's coming around the bend? Do it for Teddy (cry) do it for Teddy (whine) do it for Teddy (pretend you give a crap) do it for Teddy. These libs will turn Kennedy's death into a rally for health care. Never mind he had millions to spend on his own and he sure as heck didn't want the government making the decision to pull his plug. He held on to life just as hard as Marry Jo did trying to suck air from the floorboards of Teddy's overturned car. I know, don't do it for Marry Jo.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Gooseguy10 took a shot but missed it by a mile.


You compare Obama to Hitler b.c of "his early" career and can't comprehend how people can't basically distinguish between the "hitler with good ideas" and the Hitler that killed millions......I compare Obama and Long based on their similar beliefs on "share our wealth" but missed some finer points that TK pointed......... and I missed by a mile. Too funny.

This is getting beyond boring and repetitive.....I should have stuck by my original belief that has kept me quiet all these months......never argue politics or religion.....b.c in the end people aren't willing to use their brain to change their hearts.

Keep churning out the company line and I'll keep laughing.

Have a good weekend folks, off to go fishing then on to Chicago to watch the Cubs.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Seriously... what is the expected outcome of increased gun control?? Ask Hungary and Poland what happened when they registered individuals as gun owners... a college professor of mine lived through it. The only way that they could launch the revolution was because some citizens wrapped their guns in greased rags and burried them in the backyard... guess who's doors were knocked on first after the Nazi's invaded... those with registered firearms.

Let's be careful here.... this thread is about to get pretty hairy.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You compare Obama to Hitler b.c of "his early" career and can't comprehend how people can't basically distinguish between the "hitler with good ideas"


Hitler with the good ideas???? And I'm the nut? Take over the auto industry, the banks, the health care, and those are good ideas? Ya, and I'm the bad guy. Anymore liberals that want to extol the virtues of Hitlers early years?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Gooseguy10 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Gooseguy10 took a shot but missed it by a mile.
> ...


Ahh the cubbies. Much like our gov't they keep looking promising and the disapoint in the end. Enjoy the game.

I find your statement about the brain and hearts interesting because we are all taught by someone and their views shape our brains. The person who has taught you has no doubt had their emotions or brains involved in their teachings. I think the best example of this for me personally was my college professors in history, economics, and business. In two consecutive semesters I had a very liberal history prof, a lib econ prof, then a conservative econ prof, last but not least some conservative business profs. Talk about confusing. If I had listen to one side I would be a neo con, if I had listened to only the other side I would be a pelosi and frank lover. Instead I am stuck in the middle. My point is that both brains and hearts are involved in politics. Frankly I wished more politicians thought with their brains and their hearts instead of their own wallets :******:

Ironically FDR and others compared Long to Hitler and Mussolini too 8) . I saw a show on Louisiana politics and they painted old Huey in a pretty good light, I read wikpedia and it is not quite as flattering. He was a character.

Comparing anyone to Hitler is going to invite trouble. Heck, saddam did a lot of good things before he turned into a meglomaniac. Obama is headed down the wrong road and is not doing the things he promised during his campaign. He is driving the nation further apart, in every facet. Race, economics, religion, foreign policy, and pretty much every other function of gov't. Things are not getting better instead they are at the very least a stalemate. No "change" to speak of.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> > You compare Obama to Hitler b.c of "his early" career and can't comprehend how people can't basically distinguish between the "hitler with good ideas"
> 
> 
> Hitler with the good ideas???? And I'm the nut? Take over the auto industry, the banks, the health care, and those are good ideas? Ya, and I'm the bad guy. Anymore liberals that want to extol the virtues of Hitlers early years?


From an earlier post of Plainsman

[/quote]
I would even go so far as to imagine Hitler did some good things. No man is all good nor all evil. [/quote]

Any more conservatives want to completely contradict themselves in the same thread?

Okay, now I am going to the cubbies.....


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I would even go so far as to imagine Hitler did some good things. No man is all good nor all evil.


I guess it depends on what we are thinking of at the moment. I do think that no man is all good nor all evil, and will stand by that. However since we were talking about banks, cars, health, I assumed you were speaking about those things. That's what assumptions will get you. If I was right or wrong actually depends on what you were thinking when you mentioned the good things Hitler did. I didn't know of any, but still believe people are not all evil. Maybe you could enlighten me and give a couple examples.

As far as the brain and the heart. Well since the heart can't think this is just all cuddly bs. I know I have said that if you 20 and conservative you don't have a heart, but if your 40 and liberal you don't have a brain. Now lets put it all into reality. There is a logical side to our brain and an emotional side. Caring about people is good, but giving them everything and letting them be freeloaders isn't being kind.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Plainsman wrote



> Caring about people is good, but giving them everything and letting them be freeloaders isn't being kind.


I agree whole heartedly :lol: It's called "enabeling"


----------



## utahhunter1 (May 3, 2009)

zogman said:


> Plainsman wrote
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am using my husbands account for this I usually just read the reloading section as i am just starting out reloading. I agree with this statement as well but i just don't see how it applies. The public heath care option is not just a free ride you have to pay into it, and I have not seen anthing yet produced so far that is a complete "free ride as you use". Also if you look at what Hitler did once in power obama has nothing on him. Yes obama has some socialist ideas but he still does not come close to Hitler


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> but he still does not come close to Hitler


I agree, not at all, but the procedures Hitler used to take over the country are the same procedures Obama is using now. Maybe I should have made that clear and said I was comparing procedures and not men. Maybe that will make some liberals riding my behind feel better.



> The public heath care option is not just a free ride you have to pay into it, and I have not seen anthing yet produced so far that is a complete "free ride as you use".


Since they actually do not have a plan yet I can only look at past blunders and through experience over 50 years predict what will come about. I would guess they will have a sliding scale for your insurance just like they do for taxes. That's the lefts way of doing things. It might not be the same as taxes, but I will bet there will be some getting a free ride based on income. Like I said, it's just the way liberals do things.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> > but he still does not come close to Hitler
> 
> 
> I agree, not at all, but the procedures Hitler used to take over the country are the same procedures Obama is using now. Maybe I should have made that clear and said I was comparing procedures and not men. Maybe that will make some liberals riding my behind feel better.
> ...


yes, like the 11million illegal aliens, who will soon be "legal"...free ride for those folks and all who can hurry across the border........


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

utahhunter1 said:


> zogman said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman wrote
> ...


I am going to address this for you as simply as I can. Current plans are for this to be paid for basiclly in three ways. Taxes upon the rich,e,g, $250,000.00 according to Nobama ideas of rich. Second Cuts in services to Medicare, which is simply moving money around on paper. Three, taxes levied on employers and those with insurance through private insurance plans they deem cadiliac plans!

Now I do not have at my finger tips the last report on who actually pays taxes, but if memory serves me right the figure is less than 50% of all working people pay taxes. So in terms of it not being free, that is correct, in terms of users paying for it, there will be more people using it than paying for it.

This is the reason people need to understand the 4 types of spending that occurs!!!!!! Check out the last two in bold!!!!!! Tell me how any Gov program avoids this and name it! Then we can have a inteligent and civil conversation regarding any more increased involvment by our elected officals in the realm of Health Care! I say this simply as a means of getting everyone to stop and think about this without emotion as emotion seems to drive so many in wanting to do a good thing without properly thinking it through. They rationalize away real problems or ignore they exist!

1. You spend your money on yourself: this set of circumstances motivates you to get the best deal at the best price.

2.You spend your money on other people: this set of circumstances motivates you to be as economical as possible.

*3.You spend other people's money on yourself: this scenario implies cost is no object, and spending happens in accordance.

4.You spend other people's money on other people: in which case neither cost nor value has any meaning. *


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Plainsman why are you still attempting to explain how Nobamas actions and policy positions are parallel to those followed by Hitler in gaining power then ultimately control of Germany.

The liberals who chose not to see what almost all others understand do so by choice and no amount of explaining will sway them. It is kind of like watching a kid with new shoes out walking after a rain! They simply cannot avoid the puddles!!!!! They have not developed enough to control those impulses!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman why are you still attempting to explain how Nobamas actions and policy positions are parallel to those followed by Hitler in gaining power then ultimately control of Germany.


Because it's so predictable that they will get bent out of shape for no real reason. It's fun watching them make up reasons to be offended. They have good imaginations. I can't wait to see what they say next.


----------



## utahhunter1 (May 3, 2009)

plainsman I was talking about the procedures used and not the man. Obama does not come close to the procedures Hitler used once in power to completly take control of Germany. You can try all you want to make it out that way but in reality he doesn't come close the the extremes Hitler used. Try all you want to make it seem that way but here is where we run into the problems. There are some of us who are not sure on alot of things and we are trying to shift through the b.s. on both sides of the fence, trying to figure out what is right from or wrong from one side to the other with all the crap that is put out by both extremes. I had many discussions with my husband about the discussion and debates on this forum. He always respected what you and others were trying to do to fight for your rights as americans. But you are preaching to the choir. It does not help sway and educate those of us who are trying to shift through all the bs. Really it just enrages those more who have the same beliefs as you and things like comparing obama to hitler will be accepted by those with your same beliefs but it just seems like more bs from the right to those of us who are trying to weight the sides which only hurts your cause and saying those of us who don't agree with everthing negative that is put out there againts the liberals and obama that we have our heads in the sand and compare us to children as ron did/ call liberals pansies and other name calling. Or saying that we are the uniteligent because we are not sure who to believe with all the bs that is put out does not help your cause, your alienating more than helping sway those of us who are trying to figure all of this out so we can decide what we thing is going to be best for our country. I think this is what many are not understanding. I think that is what many are trying to have understood. And yes it occurs on both sides.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

but i will say this....for all of those who are shocked by what Obama has done and regarding his proposals going forward and are more than just a little taken back by his somewhat radical agenda......where were you before the vote? he told you exactly what he was going to do and now many act surprised?? where were you?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> plainsman I was talking about the procedures used and not the man. Obama does not come close


Yes, I am comparing the procedures also. I have no idea how many procedures Hitler pulled before he had control. Many would be my guess. I'm only aware of the ones I am comparing. That is three things, and perhaps out of 50. I don't know. It's simply that I see a pattern, I look at who he associates with, I remember him explaining who his mentor is, all these things cause me concern. 
He said his most influential author was Marx. He wants to spread the wealth. He is appointing czars who only he controls. All these things should concern all of America.
I think my comparison isn't to hang the man, but to try make people understand that the path he is on could lead to his control while our constitution takes a back seat.
I should also mention that I do it to get conversation going. Often you need to push the envelope some to get a response. I joked about liberal imagination, but I don't care who's imagination it is you sometimes have to poke a little to get it out.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Look at these timeline links, some of the posts on here say Hitler was a fascist. Others compare Nazism to socialist. Actually Hitler started as a socialist and progressed to fascism as did Mussolini.

It doesn't matter to me, I don't want my country to progress towards Lenin/Stain Socialist communism or Hitler fascism.

http://everything2.com/title/World+War+ ... 918+-+1932

http://everything2.com/title/World+War+II+Timeline

http://everything2.com/title/Adolf+Hitler

Control of the masses!


----------

