have you seen the great news?
youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g
obama’s support from terrorists in gaza is overwhelming…
-Imp
As I say every time you make an argument like this, Hitler really liked to breath.
speaking of hitler…
blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/e … semen.html
it seems that the seattle times is defending hitler to make obama look good…
LMAO…
-Imp
edit: can you hear the chants in denver? “Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Obama!”
Imp, you really aren’t very good at this whole ideology thing. You posted a link a to Al-Jazeera, with the idea of ridiculing the Obama campaign with their new supporters. But yet the link is to Al-Jazeera, a station that most Right Wingers in the states, such as yourself, don’t take seriously (unless it suites their purposes). And the clip that you show spends half its time discussing a bunch of twenty year old kids in an internet cafe. Hardly a group I would acknowledge as having respectability. The other half it spends questioning the political motives of a lame duck president’s peace initiative in the last eight months or so of his presidency. Yeah. That’s who I want to defend…
Also, insofar as your analysis of the Hitler article goes, you’ve come to the end of the line of debate, analysis, and rhetoric when you have to compare your enemies to Nazis.
Imp, frankly, you aren’t good at this whole politics thing. It’s great to see, because even if Obama loses in November, McCain ain’t your candidate either… Enjoy the margins you cute little Bircher you…Let the grown ups run things. We aren’t quite as paranoid.
thank you but it isn’t a question of paranoia, I was simply adding to the debate…
-Imp
THAT qualifies as “praise of Hitler”? Saying “in 1938 people knew a lot less”? Please, point out one good thing the article says about Hitler, Imp. Anything at all that the article says about Hitler that you feel classifies as “praise”.
you know the times changed it after the fact, but have no fear, here is the original and the revised copies.
" Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.
What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.
We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. But in 1938 it was different. Germany’s eastern and western borders had been redrawn 19 years before—and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following their historical wisdom: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one."
Here’s what it looks like now; guess what ended up in the bit bucket?
" Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.
The narrative we’re given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. But in 1938 people knew a lot less. What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim (though he was making it in a last-minute, unreasonable way.) Germany’s claim was that the areas of Europe that spoke German and thought of themselves as German be under German authority. In September 1938 the principal remaining area was the Sudetenland.
So the British and French let him have it. Their thought was: “Now you have your Greater Germany.” They didn’t want a war. They were not superpowers like the United States is now. They remembered the 1914-1918 war and how they almost lost it.
In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic—that is, territory that was not German. Then it was obvious that a deal with him was worthless—and the British and French did not appease Hitler any more. Thus the lesson of Munich: don’t appease Hitlers."
nice try to cover the left wing spin.
-Imp
You know, Imp, I understand left and right, and the weaknesses and foibles of both. But you really ought to move a little off right and maybe more toward center. Too many of your political posts paint you as a caricature spouting the company line. I mean, really…
I heard Obama had a black baby . . .
I think that’s a rumor.