elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
- Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was pure evil. Therefore, vegetarians have evil ideals.
no he wasn't
I get what you are saying though.
- Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was pure evil. Therefore, vegetarians have evil ideals.
I think quite a lot of them do. I can't and won't give any percentages, but from my limited experience with conservatives, I think it's more than either of us would like. Some conservatives like to think that race isn't an issue, They claim to be color-blind or "post-racial, "but it's such a deep issue in this country, deeper than any of us want to admit. I think many conservatives, and many "liberals" (PUMA anyone?) are still terrified by the idea of a black man as president.Martha, let me ask you something. What percentage of us evil white conservatives do you believe have a problem with a black person with a funny name being president? 1%? 2%? Because that's about what I think it is.
I don't know you, so why would I comment on this? I think you have more issues with race than you'll admit, because I think most Americans do, myself included.What about me? You don't know me that well, but what about me? Do you think I'm opposed to him being president because of his policies, or because of the color of his skin? Tell me. Because I'm fine with a president Colin Powell, or a president Condoleeza Rice, or a president JC Watts. So if you think I have a problem with his skin color, I think you owe me the decency of telling me so.
When people like you throw the word "socialism" around, and it's a completely wrong, what else are we supposed to think? Once again, if you think this guy's a socialist, then you have no idea what socialism is. No idea.I find the use of race (almost all of it on the Democratic side) quite upsetting and very telling, though not surprising. I knew that once Obama and his administration and his policies- not to mention the Democratic Party as a whole- start to plummet in the polls, then they would throw the ol' "Well it's because he's black!" tantrum. It's actually pretty funny.
It's impossible to give a percentage but it would be higher than that. I see it a lot here where I live, we saw at the tea parties, we've even seen public officials getting caught sending out racist emails. So I would say higher than 2%.1%? 2%? Because that's about what I think it is.
The very first person to bring up race in FYM leading up to the election was you actually. Saying the only way Obama will win is because he's a handsome black man.I find the use of race (almost all of it on the Democratic side) quite upsetting and very telling, though not surprising.
Martha, let me ask you something. What percentage of us evil white conservatives do you believe have a problem with a black person with a funny name being president? 1%? 2%? Because that's about what I think it is.
no he wasn't
no he wasn't
I get what you are saying though.
A biography of Hitler I had read and this site argues otherwise that he was.
http://www.geocities.com/hitlerwasavegetarian/
I do happen to notice that a lot of the websites that argue that he wasn't fall victim to "reductio ad Hitlerum" arguments, out of fear that if Hitler was a vegetarian, then all vegetarians are guilty by association, or this kind of implicit unrealistic view that vegetarianism can solve all the world's problems and make all people nice just by avoiding meat.
Either way, it's all really besides the point.
Author Robert Payne, in his biography of Hitler, The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler (Praeger, 1973) theorizes that the image of Hitler as a vegetarian ascetic was deliberately fostered by Joseph Goebbels:
"Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress....His asceticism was a fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self control, the distance that separated him from other men....In fact, he was remarkably self indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of the ascetic. His cook, an enormously fat man named Willy Kannenberg, produced exquisite meals and acted as court jester. Although Hitler had no fondness for meat except in the form of sausages and never ate fish, he enjoyed caviar...." (p. 346)[7]
A biography of Hitler I had read and this site argues otherwise that he was.
http://www.geocities.com/hitlerwasavegetarian/
I do happen to notice that a lot of the websites that argue that he wasn't fall victim to "reductio ad Hitlerum" arguments, out of fear that if Hitler was a vegetarian, then all vegetarians are guilty by association, or this kind of implicit unrealistic view that vegetarianism can solve all the world's problems and make all people nice just by avoiding meat.
Either way, it's all really beside the point.
Hey, aren't you a vegetarian? And aren't you pure evil? Also - remember that time you convinced me you didn't exist? Isn't that the Devil's greatest trick? I'm starting to see a trend here...
How do you get your protein? Do you eat Hitler?
How do you get your protein? Do you eat Hitler?
therefore he couldn't have be a vegetarian, thank you for proving my point
are you saying Hitler was made of Tofu?
Well, I hate evil. I hate Tofu. Therefore evil must be made of tofu, and since Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore evil, clearly he was made of Tofu. If we keep at it, kids, we'll have all the mysteries of the universe solved by the time this topic reaches 1000.
this discussion makes about as much sense as the current health care debate in the US.
k, sorry, it got a little detailed up there. Quick summary for the younger generation:
Health care = socialist = fascist = hitler = evil = tofu = makes people healthy, though evil = no need for health care = lol @ canada.
Make sense?
Fascist states and socialist dictatorships are both totalatarian systems, and to that extent they may have a lot in common. But philosophically they are not the same at all.
Staying on-topic is so over-rated.
Mussollini, the father of fascism, was a socialist.Properly understood, whether you agree with either or not, socialism and fascism have absolutely nothing in common. Fascism uses (or used) the tools of the modern state and mass industrial society to further fundamentally anti-modern objectives. Quite a trick. Socialism, in whatever form I can call to mind, bases itself on a doctrine of 'progress'. Again, whether you like or dislike what either is about.
Fascism is not just a word for nasty people you don't like. It is a Holy Roman Empire of an ideology, stranded mysteriously in the age of bombs and mass media. It probably hasn't gone away, it's just that Hitler is the example that always springs to mind. I could think of others. Franco's Spain, Mussollini's Italy, Peron's Argentina.
But there was a list!