Warning: main(/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php) [function.main]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
Warning: main() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
Return the Racist’s Money, or Not?
December 23rd, 2007 at 05:21am Mark Noonan
Ron Paul received a $500.00 donation from a racist named Don Black (he runs a website which shan’t be named here, nor linked - look it up if you are really determined about seeing it). Paul says he won’t return the money because by taking that $500.00, he gives Black that much less money to spend on hatred, and it gives Paul that much more money to spread the libertarian message. Frank James over at The Swamp has this to say about it:
… lot of money is given to candidates by supporters with views out of the mainstream, views many other Americans would find objectionable. That’s a given. The only difference is that Black doesn’t hide his views.
Still, the unwritten rule in politics is that when you find yourself getting money from someone controversial because of what they do or say, someone with views repugnant to most Americans, you give their cash back like it’s radioactive.
Paul’s approach is certainly unorthodox, like so much about the man. That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. And because it’s so different a way of handling such a situation, it presents an opportunity for a discussion about what’s right and wrong in such situations. In short, it makes you think.
Does it? Perhaps. Certainly it makes me think that Paul - a Christian, like me - has a practical amorality in is public actions. This would be in keeping with libertarian thinking, and it why the only thing, in my view, worse than a libertarian is a totalitarian. We are to be neither sheep nor wolves in our dealings with others - neither cowards nor predators. Ron Paul may rationalise his refusal to return a racist’s donation all he wishes, but the real effect of his action is to legitimise evil. Evil there is in this world, and we humans beings are incapable of eliminating it - but wise men and women will shun evil whenever they see it.
Black is free to hold whatever views he wishes, but as his views are evil, I want nothing to do with them, or him - and I’d much prefer it if I never come within a country mile of him or his views except to call him to repentance and with a mind to teaching him that we are all children of God, and thus brothers and sisters. Were Black to ever give me $500, I wouldn’t return it (Paul is right about the good in lessening Black’s resources for speading evil), but I wouldn’t keep it, either - I’d send it along to, say, Missionaries of the Poor (which, being that it is Christmas, you might want to send a few bucks to, anyways) - and ask them to send a kind thank you to Black, along with a picture of the people his donation helped (they are headquartered in Jamaica, ya see?).
Life is a series of opportunties for us to do the right thing - it is not a zero sum game, and its primary purpose isn’t our selves. Each decision is a chance to make the world a better place, and it is a shame that Paul takes such a narrow view of his moral obligations to society as a whole.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Republicans, Social Issues
45 Comments
1. Eric T | December 23rd, 2007 at 8:19 am
Let Ron keep it.
What seems to work for me is not making an issue out of race. If I don’t bring up the persons race in a disagreement and focus on the person instead of their race, It works. Some people always bring up race and make it an issue. And you can be talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with race, yet they will find a way to tie race into it. If Jesse or Al was to give Obama money it would be the same thing. Those guys are real hardcore racists. Alot of people, whether we want to accept it or not. Like to be around people that are similar in culture and beliefs. Here in Detroit, we have areas, entire neighborhoods of Arabic people, we have Mexican town (it is the official name too, on the street signs) A Polish area, African American areas, places where it is mostly Italian. WE have ethnic festivals where folks dress in their traditional clothing and serve food unique to their home countries.
I’m Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Austrian, and German. I notice alot of times Liberals try to make me feel guilty of beign White. I have applied at jobs where. I have actually been told, we can’t hire a White guy at this point in time, we are only taking minority applications.
I understand the idea is to try to make it fair. And years ago there was a real problem with unequality, but when does it end. And is it really working or is it keeping racsim alive and growing? It is like there is some politically correct Heinrich Himmler and his SS out there using race to measure everything from jobs, college or small business loans.
At some point race should not be a factor for anything.
2. Rana Quijotesca | December 23rd, 2007 at 9:26 am
What is so bad about Libertarianism, Mr. Noonan… Do you not think that individuals can take care of themselves?
3. FmrMarine | December 23rd, 2007 at 10:27 am
What about?
1. naacp
2.rainbow push
3.black college
black congressional caucus
4. noa
5.many many many, organizations for blacks only,
I consider the exclusion of all others but blacks RACIST.
will hitlery return ALL money from any of the exclusive, black only organizations?
PS… this point is raised for discussion purpose only, not to be construed to be against any group.
4. anarchist | December 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 am
“What is so bad about Libertarianism, Mr. Noonan… Do you not think that individuals can take care of themselves?” - Rana
Without tax slaves how would we fund our military adventures in the middle east?
Also we need some form of legitimized violent retribution so we can persecute the people that would be so immoral and evil as to smoke pot or have homosexual relations and other things.
5. John Ryan | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 am
I thought that because of all of the Christian talk about the “Good Shepherd” that people were supposed to be his flock ?
I think he should keep the money. I don’t think that anyone for any reason should give people like that money.
And Fmr Marine: This is a discussion area for adults, so keep your playground slurs (hitlery) to others in your age group. Oh and try to remember that Hitler was from the extreme RIGHT wing of politics.
6. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:13 am
What is so “good” about Liberalism (Socialism)?
Do you not think that individuals can and should provide for and take care of themselves and their own families?!!!
AAR
7. Rana Quijotesca | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:16 am
AAR-
I’m not a liberal, I’m a centrist that leans toward libertarianism… so I don’t see what’s so good about socialism…
What is so good about conservatism? If you really want support individualism, why not support freedom in both the wallet and the heart/mind?
8. Mark Noonan | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Rana,
Because we are not free agents - we have free will, but our obligations to others far outweigh our individual rights. Socialism goes too far towards obligations, libertarianism goes too far towards individual rights - Christianity is neither, and strikes the proper balance. Conservatism, in our western civilization, is fundamentally a defense of Christian ideals - so, to be a conservative is to merely be in defense of the best means of ordering a society for liberty and justice.
9. eric | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
John Ryan,
Please educate us and back up your assertion that Hitler was from the “extreme RIGHT wing” of politics. Quotes, sources, etc., showing his right wing beliefs would be nice.
10. FmrMarine | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
NAZI = NATIONAL SOCIALIST !
11. eric | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Check this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yzBvQ9EeF3k
Clearly, Mrs. Clinton is a socialist. Universal Pre-k? How about universal kennel services (for those of us who have dogs and not kids)?
12. Rana Quijotesca | December 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Mark-
What are these obligations to others? And what prevents libertarians from helping others? You seem to be arguing against something else entirely…
13. Craig R. Harmon | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Money is neither good nor evil. Money’s only value for either good or evil is the use to which it is put. The evil of the giver does not rub off on the money and then transfer onto the receiver therefore the money is Paul’s to use for whatever use seems best to him. He should loudly and frequently proclaim racism evil, neo-Nazis wicked and their ideologies right down there with Islamofascist scum. Trust me, the issue of money from these clowns will take care of itself. However, money’s money regardless of who it came from or how it was earned or the uses to which the giver puts his other money. The giver might be evil. The user might be evil. The use might be evil.
Money’s just money.
14. neocon | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Craig,
Ever hear of principals?
Rana,
What are these obligations to others?????
In an earlier thread Rana, you excoriated corporate subsidies, in favor of subsidizing those “who truly need it”. So evidently you do know what the obligations are, don’t you?
15. Craig R. Harmon | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Neocon,
Sure. Hence my suggestion that Paul should reject altogether, unequivocally and publicly the principles of the clowns who donated to him. Money is not a principle. Ideas are. Principles have nothing to do with the simple fact that money can do good or evil in accord with the principles of the user.
If a neo-nazi gives money to Paul and Paul uses it to get elected in order to do what he views as good for the country, the source of that money is irrelevant. The princples of the giver are irrelevant. All that’s relevant is what Paul will do with it.
After all, if the money were tainted by the giver, wouldn’t that taint follow the money if Paul gave it to the charity suggested in the post? At what point does the taint leave the money? Answer: at no point because the money is never tainted in the first place.
16. Rana Quijotesca | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
necon-
First of all… principals run schools…
Secondly… I wasn’t actually endorsing welfare for individuals (I think it should exist, but it should be extremely limited in time frame and scope); I was wondering why Mark supports welfare for corporations who don’t need it instead of people who may actually need it.
You also didn’t answer the question… and what would stop a libertarian from choosing to help others?
17. Rana Quijotesca | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I would also like to point out that Paul isn’t a libertarian; he’s a federalist. He sees more of a role for the states to restrict liberty than libertarians do.
18. AAR | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Rana,
You can claim to be whatever you choose, but you continually espouse the Liberal ideology, and you support the Liberals’ socialistic agenda!
AAR
19. neocon | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Rana,
Thank you for acknowledging my typo, and ignoring the concept of having principles.
Evidently, you don’t have any. And you were endorsing welfare for individuals over corporations, but just like Hillary, you’re trying to have it both ways now.
American corporations pay enormous amount of taxes:
>>>Today, the combined U.S. corporate tax rate stands at 39.3 percent. That means America now has the highest statutory corporate income tax rate in the world—even higher than socialist Sweden and welfare-states Germany and France…<<<<<
So you could look at corporate subsidies as just a program wherein corporations can recoup some of their own money, right?
Craig,
It’s obvious that the ends justify the means in your little liberal delusional world.
Good luck on that.
20. neocon | December 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Oh and Rana,
Nothing would prevent a libertarian from choosing to help others.
So what’s your point?
21. neocon | December 23rd, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Rana,
What’s the matter? Having trouble?
Please provide the evidence where Mark has explicitly stated that he supports corporate welfare to the exclusion of supporting welfare for individuals, to back up your assertion.
I will wait.
22. Craig R. Harmon | December 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Neocon
You do err. You assume that the means, Paul’s use of money from donors, requires some sort of justification. I disagree. Money doesn’t require justification. Money isn’t evil. It is amoral. It is inanimate and therefore lacks the ability to choose and therefore can be neither good nor evil. The donors’ purpose for donating the money to Paul may be evil. I don’t know what motivated the givers to give to Paul but the donors’ motivation is only relevant to some moral judgment that you wish to place on them; it is irrelevant to a moral judgment against Ron Paul.
My presumption is that Paul intends to do nothing with the money that requires justifying by his ends or, indeed, by anything other than Paul’s own principles, principles that are a matter of public record. Paul should be judged on the basis of his principles and actions, not one’s moral judgment of his donors. I’ve already pointed out that the money doesn’t require justifying. His principles will lead to ends of his choosing.
I simply object to smearing Paul by association. That would only be appropriate if Paul used the money to deliberately and purposefully advance the ends of the neo-Nazis who gave the money in the first place. Unless you are suggesting that the donors are buying Ron Paul’s services, that he is becoming their tool to turn America into a Nazi state. I don’t believe that.
Nor am I a liberal, at least not in the current American political sense. I have voted for Republicans in every election since my 18th birthday, including for Regan and Bush, H. W. and W. I merely think about money differently than you. Money is a tool. Nothing more. I honestly don’t see what liberal or conservative has to do with the issue. We all use money. The only thing that matters with money is how it is used, to advance conservative principles or liberal ones.
You’ve suggested that I have no principles. Not true. I’ve even displayed some of my principles here and defended them with rational argument. You’ve inaccurately called me a liberal for whom ends justify means. My point is that means that are not evil do not require justification and I see nothing inherently evil in Paul’s using money donated to him by people we all abhor in order to advance his own principles, rather than the donor’s malevolent principles.
I judge Paul on the basis of his principles and his actions. The ends play into that judgment, too but not in the sense of justifying Paul’s means.
By the way, I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, let alone a shill for the man. I’m simply arguing…um…principles.
23. NeoClown | December 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Eric and Fmr Marine,
The politics of Hitler, and Nazism
Hitler discovered he had two remarkable talents, one for public oratory and another for inspiring personal loyalty. His street-corner oratory, attacking Jews, socialists “LIBERALS,” and communists, began attracting adherents.
Fearing “LEFT WING” members of the Nazi party might try to seize leadership from him during his incarceration, Hitler quickly appointed Alfred Rosenberg temporary leader.
Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power.
Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor.
The politics of Nazism
The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite.
• Individualism over collectivism.
• Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
• Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
• Merit over equality.
• Competition over cooperation.
• Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
• One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
• Capitalism over Marxism.
• Realism over idealism.
• Nationalism over internationalism.
• Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
• Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
• Gun ownership over gun control
• Common sense over theory or cience.
• Pragmatism over principle.
• Religion over secularism.
24. Craig R. Harmon | December 23rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
To clarify, ends do play a role in judging a person. Suppose I start a company turn it into a middling-large multi-national before retiring and turning control of the company to my son. My son takes my thriving multi-national and, in the midst of a strong economy runs it into the ground.
Now I love my son. He’s a great guy but the demise of the company is going to play a part in my judging his competency to run a thriving company. But doesn’t the end maybe say something about the means by which he ran the company?
But the opposite is not necessarily true. Suppose I had left the company struggling due to bad management choices I had made and within five years, my son has it turning amazing profits…via shaddow businesses run by the mob to launder money from prostitution, drugs and all the attendant criminal activities associated with those enterprises. There’s no way I would say that the ends, a business turning a large profit, justifies the means. I would rather the business fail than that he had entered into league with criminals. So then, while ends (running a profitable business into the ground) may illustrate that the means (as well as the business principles of my son) by which the business was run were not good, other ends (a business running profitably but profiting from illegal enterprises) do not justify either the means or the principles that guided those means.
25. Greg-O | December 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
The Nazis were Marxists, actually, and did not pretend to hide it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_nazis_were_maxists.html
FTA: Nazis were Marxists, through and through. Although Nazi condemned Bolshevism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Russia, and although the Nazis often bickered and fought with Fascism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Italy, Hitler and his ghastly accomplices were always and forever absolutely committed to that which we have come to call the “Far Left.”
26. klrtz1 | December 23rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
But, Craig, if your son then gave the illegally acquired money to Ron Paul, no taint would be attached. That means if he gave it to you, probably you would not refuse it either. So you and your son would both be beneficiaries of illegal activities. I hope you don’t eventually end up in jail as a result of your glib rationalizations.
27. eric | December 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
NeoClown,
You made many statements regarding the Nazis and Hitler. However, you have not provided any quotes, any cites, or any sources. You simply made the statements that would lead one to believe Hitler was of the extreme right without any support.
For example, I believe Hitler was indeed a socialist. Support for my belief?
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
Source:
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/
If you take the time to peruse the above cited website, you will see (with pretty damning evidence) that Hitler held many beliefs that are compatible with today’s far left (gun control, animal rights, anti-Christian, anti-Semite, etc.).
28. NeoClown | December 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Actually, the Nazis were right-wing fascists.
American Neo-Nazis are right-wing fascists.
Defining traits of the Right-wing are:
. Individualism over collectivism.
• Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
• Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
• Merit over equality.
• Competition over cooperation.
• Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
• One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
• Capitalism over Marxism.
• Realism over idealism.
• Nationalism over internationalism.
• Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
• Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
• Gun ownership over gun control
• Common sense over theory or science.
• Pragmatism over principle.
• Religion over secularism.
Answer the following questions with either republican, or democrat:
Who wants religion in schools, town halls, court buildings ect.?
Who wants creationism taught in the classroom as science?
Who is in favor of gun ownership?
Who is paranoid regarding “The New World Order, the UN, or any other International Organization?
Who favors Capitalism over Marxism?
Who favors militarism over pacifism?
If you answered republicans, you answered correctly. If you are unhappy at the prospect of sharing a value system with the Nazis, then I suggest you change your value system.
29. eric | December 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
NeoClown,
You did exactly as I expected. You did not even take the time to look at the website that I cited. At least take more than 5 minutes to respond to my post and pretend that you read the information on the website. Again, you have not provided any proof of your assertions. I have. You are a fraud and a charlatan (hence, your name). I am not. And I am proud to be a republican.
Until you provide support for your assertions, this debate is over. Plus, I have to cook dinner for my wife.
30. klrtz1 | December 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I think it’s important to note the paradigm that the argument of the left against the right depends much more on name calling than of analyzing the results of the policies of the right.
And didn’t Stalin actually kill more people than Hitler?
31. NeoClown | December 23rd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Adolf Hitler was a right-wing conservative Christian…
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
- Adolf Hitler
“We are all proud that through God’s powerful aid, we have become once more true Germans”
- Adolf Hitler
“It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge”
- Adolf Hitler
Always before God and the world, the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills”
- Adolf Hitler
“The majority can never replace the man”
- Adolf Hitler
“The world will not help, the people must help themselves. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it, we may wage the battle of our life The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty - of Him who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward”
- Adolf Hitler
“Only force rules. Force is the first law”
- Adolf Hitler
“Who says I am not under the special protection of God?”
- Adolph Hitler
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
- Adolf Hitler
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
- Adolf Hitler
32. eric | December 23rd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Last post, then I am repairing to my living room for the evening to spend time with the wife and dogs.
“Christianity is an invention of sick brains,” Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.
“So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death,” Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.
“Hans Küng is the most prominent Catholic theologian living today, respected by thinkers of all denominations. He is well known around the world and has been Professor of Dogmatic and Ecumenical Studies at the University of Tübingen, Germany, as well as Visiting Professor at Chicago University and at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. He holds honorary degrees from several American universities and has lectured at various universities in Europe, America and Asia.” [Hans Küng, On Being a Christian, Image Books Doubleday, New York, 1976, cover notes]
“the great figures of terror in our century—Hitler, Stalin and their deputies—were programmatic anti-Christians” [Küng, p. 30]
“…we cannot make Jesus a guerrilla fighter, a rebel, a political agitator and revolutionary or turn his message of God’s kingdom into a program of politico-social action, unless we distort and reinterpret all the Gospel accounts, make a completely one-sided choice of sources, irresponsibly and arbitrarily work with isolated texts…and largely ignore Jesus’ message as a whole…Even though it is as much the fashion today to speak of Jesus, the rebel, the revolutionary, as it was in Hitler’s time to speak of Jesus the fighter, the leader the military commander, or in sermons of the First World War of Jesus the hero and patriot, it must be made unmistakably clear—for Jesus’ own sake, regardless of the spirit of the age—that he was neither a supporter of the system nor a politico-social revolutionary. [Küng, p. 187]
source: http://www.davnet.org/kevin/essays/hitler.html
Hitler was a powerful orator who knew that the spoken word could help drive his agenda. It is very likely he made these statements while believing something entirely different. After all, the man was a sociopath.
33. neocon | December 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
>>>Defining traits of the Right-wing are:
. Individualism over collectivism.
• Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance. - Neoclown<<<<<
Then there’s this from an later thread.
………..it looks like women and minorities don’t really need the help of white male voters.
White republican men voting for Democratic candidates - Neoclown…………………….
Who’s the racist again?
34. neocon | December 23rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Clown,
Just a FYI. The Nazis never promoted religion. The following is the Nazi doctrine on Christianity.
>>When we [National Socialists] speak of belief in God, we do not mean, like the naive Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe. The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God. The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest<<
Nor did the Nazis promote individual gun ownership, capatilism, or was he paranoid of the New World order.
The left exemplifies what Hitler said about telling lies and I thank you for demonstrating that.
35. NeoClown | December 23rd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
Right-wing spin machine regarding Saddam’s connection to 9/11.
The right exemplifies what Hitler said about telling lies and I thank you for demonstrating that.
36. NeoClown | December 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Neo Said:
“Nor did the Nazis promote individual gun ownership, capatilism, or was he paranoid of the New World order.”
Every male in Germany from the age of 14 through 70 was drafted into the army and given a gun. Gun ownership in Germany under Hitler is a mute point.
Hitler was very much pro capitalism. Large corporations provided him with weaponry.
Hitler was in favor of HIS “New World Order” the way in which Neocons are in favor of spreading democracy through the world. Hitler would have been paranoid of NATO and the UN.
37. eric | December 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I cannot stop commenting on the stupidity that has manifested itself as NeoClown. Please provide proof that “every male in Germany from the age of 14 through 17 was drafted into the army and given a gun.” That may be the dumbest statement (other than those routinely posted by plainjane) that I have ever seen on this blog. How many Jewish males did Hitler draft? Why would Hitler want to maintain an army that included 70 year old men? How do you conquer Europe with an army of 70 year old men? Perhaps, that is why Germany lost WWII. Your routine submission of baseless, undocumented, ridiculous statements renders any other commentary that you provide completely unbelievable and ineffective.
I am done dealing with stupidity. Good night.
38. NeoClown | December 23rd, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Eric,
Your last post proves Hitler knew what he was talking about when he said:
“The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes.”
— Adolf Hitler
Where did you go to school to know so little of history?
Long before April 20, 1945 there were no Jews to be found in Berlin. The following is an eye-witness account of the last days of the war in Berlin…
“Friday, April 20, 1945 was Hitler’s fifty-sixth birthday, and the Soviets sent him a birthday present in the form of an artillery barrage right into the heart of the city, while the Western Allies joined in with a massive air raid.
The radio announced that Hitler had come out of his safe bomb-proof bunker to talk with the fourteen to sixteen year old boys who had ‘volunteered’ for the ‘honor’ to be accepted into the SS and to die for their Fuhrer in the defense of Berlin. What a cruel lie! These boys did not volunteer, but had no choice, because boys who were found hiding were hanged as traitors by the SS as a warning that, ‘he who was not brave enough to fight had to die.’ When trees were not available, people were strung up on lamp posts. They were hanging everywhere, military and civilian, men and women, ordinary citizens who had been executed by a small group of fanatics. It appeared that the Nazis did not want the people to survive because a lost war, by their rationale, was obviously the fault of all of us. We had not sacrificed enough and therefore, we had forfeited our right to live, as only the government was without guilt. The Volkssturm was called up again, and this time, all boys age thirteen and up, had to report as our army was reduced now to little more than children filling the ranks as soldiers.” […]
[…]The last days of savage house to house fighting and street battles had been a human slaughter, with no prisoners being taken on either side. These final days were hell. Our last remaining and exhausted troops, primarily children and old men, stumbled into imprisonment. We were a city in ruins; almost no house remained intact.”
References:
Lawson, Dorothea von Schwanenfluegel, Laughter Wasn’t Rationed (1999); Ryan, Cornelius, The Last Battle (1966).
39. eric | December 23rd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
You forgot your source:
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/berlin.htm
You still have not provided evidence that Hitler drafted EVERY man from 14 years old to 70 years old. And you have not refuted my above statements. Hitler did indeed draft young boys. That was part of his plan of early indoctrination.
Do not question my education. I have two degrees, ten years working as an attorney, and I have traveled the world. You?
For the last time. Good night.
40. NeoClown | December 23rd, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Eric,
Are you schizophrenic?
How many personalities do you have in there?
Who am I talking to now, the Eric that just asked me a question, or the Eric that said for the last time good night?
I apologize for questioning your education it’s just you don’t come across as very intelligent in your posts. My bad.
Hey, do you know how to stop an attorney from drowning?
41. Mark Noonan | December 23rd, 2007 at 11:40 pm
NeoClown,
Actually, there were Jews in Berlin in April of 1945 - I can’t quote chapter and verse for you because I’ve stored the book, but Cornelius Ryan wrote about them in his masterful look at the end of the Nazi regime entitled “The Last Battle”.
42. eric | December 24th, 2007 at 8:27 am
NeoClown,
I know the punch line to your tasteless joke. It is not funny. As to your advocacy skills, they are pretty weak. You have not provided any sources or cites for your statements or quotes. You have not answered any of my questions. Instead, you have equated Republicans with Nazis. You have called us fascists and racists. You have insulted my education, my intellect, and my profession. You called me a liar and you called me a schizophrenic. What’s next? A “your momma” joke? You are a useless twit.
Vai a puta que te pariu.
43. FmrMarine | December 24th, 2007 at 11:38 am
31. NeoClown | December 23rd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Adolf Hitler was a right-wing conservative Christian…
ANY you sir besides being a total LIAR, are an A$$clown!
44. Tractatus | December 24th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
NeoClown–
You’re dealing with people who are furiously masturbating at the prospect of reading Jonah Goldberg’s book, people who actually think “Nazi = National Socialist…therefore, Nazis were LIBERALS! BLARGH!” is not only a cogent argument but an impeccable one. It’s not exactly a well-informed brain trust here, but they have made up their minds to be in opposition of, you know, actual knowledge and history, and nothing is going to dissuade them from their views, despite your best efforts.
45. Albert Franklin | December 27th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Is this the real issue with congressman Paul, or is it because he is no longer a libertarian? Are blacks and hispanics in Texas so dumb as to vote him back into office that when someone who is liked to racism seeks his favor, that they, as a group, could never fathom the genuine truth?