Hitler and the Democrats

I'm listening to Rush and this morning he's been comparing Nancy Pelosi's comments about the health care protesters and the Republican Party to Nazi Germany. There are many, many similarities RIGHT now in the Democrat Party and the decisions they are trying to implement on this country. I wanted to call Rush and add one more similarity being pushed by the Dem's.......

Apparently, the Nazis had banned smoking and even though this took place, Hitler not only smoked but there are many pictures of him showing that he smoked on a regular basis....

Obama also smokes on a regular basis even though HIS health care program will ban smoking for everybody else.

Obama + Smoking = HYPOCRISY!!!

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Fang1944 on August 6, 2009 at 1:22pm

And what have you been smoking?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Deb on August 6, 2009 at 3:24pm

The only thing I ever smoke is turkey at Thanksgiving.......jagoff.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Action Jeans on August 6, 2009 at 7:23pm

Must be tough to keep lit.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GodHatesTrash on August 6, 2009 at 7:58pm

What a potty mouth! Here are some of yourn Obama-hatin' friends... potty mouths, too.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Friar Tuck on August 7, 2009 at 3:49am

Read the book "Liberal Fascism" by Johan Goldberg to understand why Democrats act just like Fascists.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Action Jeans on August 7, 2009 at 2:22pm

The title of that book is an oxymoron and the author is just a moron.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Friar Tuck on August 7, 2009 at 3:00pm

I guess you didn't read it then?
What's the title of chapter 7?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Action Jeans on August 7, 2009 at 9:55pm

I don't need to read every piece of calculated doublespeak put out by an ideologue with no moral compass or grasp of reality to know that the fundamental tenet of fascism is anti-liberalism. It's an obvious ploy on the part of the author to spread disinformation and muddy the already opaque waters of the modern American's understanding of history and how political categorization works.

I can write a book called "Credible Bullshit", wipe my ass on 250 pieces of paper and call it a scathing criticism of credibility as a concept but that doesn't mean anybody should read it. The very title is a direct contradiction and the aim of the book is to decrease understanding rather than to increase it. For similar reasons, the book you are shilling is absolutely begging to be ignored outright.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Friar Tuck on August 8, 2009 at 12:02am

I see you have NOT read the book. Hence your opinions of it are moot.

It must be on your handlers forbidden list.

Denial of history is the first tenant of mind control. Try reading 1984.

God Bless America and the Constitution that ensures Freedom Of The Press or your peeps would have it banned. Nothing like a good old fashioned book burning to stimulate the liberal mind.

I'll be praying for you!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Action Jeans on August 8, 2009 at 10:14am

No offense, but have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hillbilly on August 9, 2009 at 1:28pm

Speaking of doublespeak,

“Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder sound respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

How right. Do not today’s politicians (and yesterday’s) avoid clarity precisely to pseudo-solidify their windiest decisions and pronouncements? The president is on this count surely not alone in his culpability, but he is alone in his obscurative prowess and propensity. As to Orwell’s warnings about verifying lies and prettifying murder, Obama’s secretary of homeland security, in recent testimony before Congress, referred to cases of terrorist violence as “man-caused disasters,” an intentionally anodyne lexical concoction. And while George W. Bush’s “Global War on Terror” was a murky concept, Obama’s substitution — the “Overseas Contingency Operation” — is even murkier.

“Such phraseology,” Orwell wrote, “is needed if one wants to name things without calling up pictures of them.” And if one wants to pretend that a warring nation isn’t warring or that terrorists and terrorism aren’t terrorizing. The lessons of “Politics and the English Language” are eminently applicable here, to Obama’s penchant for smooth distortion of meaning and inclination to relabel things such that the new labels obscure rather than describe.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/46506232.html