- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: UFC fighter Bryce Mitchell praises hitler on podcast. “He wanted to purify his country”
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What we're seeing in America today is the same blending of government expansion and blending of government and private enterprise that constitutes the authoritarianism that's called socialism or fascism (depending on the policy specifics and speaker).
Hence, MAGA's adoption of Leftist economic intervention and why it leads to fascist labels.
The entire "populist" angle of MAGA ultimately leads to the fascist comparisons.
You’re doing precisely what I was talking about. You’re taking aspects of “MAGA” that can be connected to similar aspects of fascism while ignoring those aspects that differ. The same exercise could be made of every administration since the beginning of the 20th century. It’s akin to observing your political opponents drinking water and painting them as Nazis because Hitler also drank water.
The modern habit of painting your political opponents as “fascist”, “Nazi”, or “literally Hitler” is absurd. Those who do it are, at worst, being dishonest and preying on the gullibility of the masses or, at best, are simply too stupid to realize they’re making an absurdly incorrect connection where there is no connection to make.
quote:
The entire "populist" angle of MAGA ultimately leads to the fascist comparisons.
This is a prime example of what I was talking about. You connect MAGA to fascism due to the populist aspect of the movement. Do you think populism was an invention of either the Fascists or Nazis? No. That’s absurd. There plenty of examples of populist leaders and movements in American history, none of them influenced by either the Nazis or Fascist and many of them predating both. The fact a movement or leader of a movement can be categorized as populist, doesn’t make them any more fascist or Nazi than it makes them communist.
This post was edited on 1/31/25 at 9:22 am
1
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:18 am to jizzle6609
quote:
It doesnt change him single handily taking them out of a great depression 10x worse than ours and bringing them to Superpower status.
We have very different definitions of single handily
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:20 am to Obtuse1
quote:
He is the only guy in hell that Lucifer trips over his dick to get a selfie with when he sees him taking a stroll around the lake of fire.
Talking about painting a picture with words.
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:20 am to BugAC
quote:
The quickest way to dismiss a discussion is when one calls another a "fascist
Well there's some malleability in the term, that doesn't mean that the term has no meaning or that every application is wrong. It's commonly just associated with authoritarian right, with the parallel being socialist or Marxist and authoritarian left. Both have the same definition and usage issues.
quote:
unless you are discussing historical fascism, and not what the media parrots.
quote:
Hence why fascism is used much more often, especially in serious discussions.
I already covered that before your straw man
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:21 am to roadGator
quote:
Ok. So you also believe the average PT poster thinks Hitler is praiseworthy.
Can you quote where I said that exactly?
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:21 am to roadGator
quote:
You’ve never purchased beer in Wyoming.
Holy shite
I even included a picture for the reference for people like you.
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:22 am to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
Strategic bombing and supplying the Russians might have just helped things along.
Did strategic bombing if entire cities actually help win the war, or is that what we just tell ourselves after the fact?
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:24 am to SlowFlowPro
I understood your reference. I just don’t find you funny.
People with a savior complex just aren’t funny.
People with a savior complex just aren’t funny.
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:25 am to SlowFlowPro
Just say that’s not what you meant even though that’s what you suggested.
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:28 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The same exercise could be made of every administration since the beginning of the 20th century
There have been no right political parties in the US that have adopted the leftist economics that Trump has with his populism.
quote:
The modern habit of painting your political opponents as “fascist”, “Nazi”, or “literally Hitler” is absurd
Note I did not only use these terms and used the parallel of socialism. Have you use socialism (or Marxist , Communist, etc.) to paint your political opponents in a negative light?
quote:
This is a prime example of what I was talking about. You connect MAGA to fascism due to the populist aspect of the movement
The populist aspect that leads to the leftist economics, which leads to the blending of private economics and government, which I referenced in the post above.
Can you define fascism without including an expansion of government that also leads to a blending of Private industry and that government?
quote:
Do you think populism was an invention of either the Fascists or Nazis?
Read what I actually wrote and stop asking silly questions
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:29 am to roadGator
quote:
I understood your reference.
Then why make a comment about me actually buying beer in Wyoming?
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:29 am to biglego
quote:
Didn’t Hitler also hate gypsies too?
He hated Catholics, socialists, and communists too.
When wounded in WWI he was sent home abs he saw these progressive factions (Gypsies, Catholics, Slavs, socialists, communists, anarchists, etc…) protesting against the war and essentially fracturing the home front. In the secular factions, many of the leaders were Jewish, maybe not practicing but definitely from Jewish origin.
Because of this he sought to rid his country of people he felt fractured his German home front and cost Germany the war.
What aided Hitler also at the time was that Jews have historically been barred from being skilled tradesmen in many places in the western world, so large percentages had to turn to white collar jobs for employment. And guess who gets a shite load of blame and vitriol aimed at them during economic upheaval? Bankers, accountants, lawyers, and other white collar professionals.
It was a combination of things that allowed Hitler’s desire for purification of his country to be accepted.
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:29 am to roadGator
quote:
Just say that’s not what you meant even though that’s what you suggested.
I didn't even suggest it. That interpretations is more about you than it does me. I was very clear with my words.
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:29 am to roadGator
This thread, man
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:31 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
Did strategic bombing if entire cities actually help win the war, or is that what we just tell ourselves after the fact?
Historians have been debating this for the past 80 years. It’s one of the most contentious issues of the war. I’d argue the strategic bombing campaign aided in the overall war effort and did hamper German war efforts by disruption of industry and forcing the Germans to stretch their ever dwindling resources, particularly the Luftwaffe. But was it the deciding factor that won the war? No. It helped, but it didn’t “win” the war.
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:36 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
When wounded in WWI he was sent home abs he saw these progressive factions (Gypsies, Catholics, Slavs, socialists, communists, anarchists, etc…) protesting against the war and essentially fracturing the home front. In the secular factions, many of the leaders were Jewish, maybe not practicing but definitely from Jewish origin.
Because of this he sought to rid his country of people he felt fractured his German home front and cost Germany the war.
The irony of this is Hitler wasn’t even a German citizen at that time. In fact, at that time Hitler was literally a “man without a country”. At the start of WWI he had to renounce his Austrian citizenship to join the German Army. And he would not gain German citizenship until 1932. Less than a year later, we was made Chancellor.
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:49 am to ThatTahoeOverThere
quote:
Point being, why was there a Hitler in the first place?
Fighting and chaos in the streets, Hyperinflation, Social disorder. Looting due to inflation
Kind of like what was going on when Democrats were in power and BLM riots and looting.
Now please sure and Capitalize the letter "B" in Black and use a lowercase "w" in the word white.
There is an old saying I have always heard.. If Hitler had never started the war, he would have gone down as the greatest politician in history.
But IMHO.. Hitler didn't come to power because he was a great man, but because of the turmoil that other men had caused by creating the depression and social chaos that was there when Hitler was alive.
Here is a pic of a German woman burning money for heat because it was cheaper to burn money than wood.
This post was edited on 1/31/25 at 9:53 am
Posted on 1/31/25 at 9:56 am to SlowFlowPro
I’ve already told you.
Posted on 1/31/25 at 10:01 am to WWII Collector
quote:
Hitler didn't come to power because he was a great man, but because of the turmoil that other men had caused by creating the depression and social chaos that was there when Hitler was alive.
Absolutely. Germany was in shambles post WWI. Some blame for the rise of the Nazi party lies in the sanctions put on Germany being far too extreme. Their levels of inflation and debt to France and others destroyed their economy. Hitler brought a sense of pride in the German people and fought to make it a focus to put Germany first and course correct the country. That's not what made him evil. It's what made him palatable to the common German. At least to a level that he got some traction and then with a little corruption and strongarming, he could take over. Problem was that on top of that he believed in some very destructive ideas such as all culturally German areas needed to fall under German rule. Plus treating all those not genetically the same were inferior and problematic to German success. And then if you threatened his ability (France, Britain, Russia), you were also an issue. He was psychotic enough to use the most extreme methods to get his vision a reality. He was truly evil. Doesn't mean that Germany didn't need someone to course correct in the first place.
Posted on 1/31/25 at 10:20 am to VooDude
quote:
Stalin was much worse for his own country. Generally, Hitler turned out to be an economic and military (took on over a quarter of the world, including British colonies) genius by listening to his advisors and acting on it, but had evil qualities, especially near the end of the war during food shortages...but relocating a population into concentration camps period is unethical and uncalled for.
Hitler held the German expansion for a few years. So if you see that as a win for Hitler, you have to count Stalin expanding the USSR as a win.
quote:
But Stalin...most incompetent fricker fiction could ever invent...and only lasted because of massive US/UK financial and manufacturing support
I am pretty pro-lend lease in terms and don't buy the idea that Russia would have rolled through Germany without it. The oil and food alone kept their war machine going through the offensive.
That said, Stalingrad was all but won before 80% of the lend-lease shipments were sent. Battle of Moscow was won without aid.
Page 10 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News