Conservatives: What did Hitler get wrong?

That's neat and all, but they're not the Nazi political party of the 30's, and share none of the socialistic economic platform that brought them to power, despite the fact that you're enamored with their cute little costumes.

 

Neo nazis insane right antifa insane left neither have any bering on the right or the left

 

Yeah that's ironic alright. I voted for Trump because I vote for dirt before I'd vote for anything to do with the modern day establishment in either party. Dirt is cleaner. You on the other hand would vote for a pig if it had a D after it's name oh wait you probably voted for several...

 

I said not too many. How many is to many to you?

 

You said me.

So complete fabrication.
As for the left, its all about the right wanting to turn back civil rights. Supporting neo nazis.

 

What sort of calculus does the left perform to determine the acceptable level of racists?

For instance, if Don Lemon were to call a black person an uncle Tom is there some sort of math trick to perform that determines if the party as a whole is still below the acceptable level, or if it's time for the party to disavow & reject his opinion?

What if its a party attack against a black political leader like Steel, Carson, Cain, West, et al? Should someone important in the party yank on the reigns, or should it slide because of percentage?

How about when it's happened to Clarence Thomas? Okay 'cause true, or what?

 

Of course, there were all those conservatives that called Obama an uncle Tom.

No wait, that was Ralph Nader & Ajamu Baraka.

 

So, who and how many used the term uncle tom?

 

Phew, Steve Harvey is a veritable firestorm of uncle tom accusations, being both the target of and flinger of the invective.

Somehow both in defence of a liberal agenda....so strange.

 

Just give me the formula, and I'll do the leg work for you. Apparently there's a threshold to meet.

 

First of all, you are confusing two separate issues, the first being that the OP called all conservatives "Nazis", which refers to the political party of Germany of 1933-1945, while you are using the term to refer to a few radicals of 2016-2017. They are NOT the same. Second, you are painting ALL conservatives with the "Nazi" brush just because a few radicals support Donald Trump. As I said before, Donald Trump supporters are not conservatives, and Neo-Nazis are not conservatives. Would you appreciate it if I called you a Black Panther just because you and the Black Panther party support many of the same goals and voted for Hillary Clinton? Because that's what you're doing when you label everyone on the right a Nazi, you Black Panther, you.

 

I don't know it. Wasn't taught in math class. Google?

 

Well I just assumed you did, since the premise of your question, ”how many is too many?" And your assertion that there [aren't too many] both require such a threshold. You must have calculated something to come up with your not too many stat.

I'm of a mind to think that if racism is bad, and calling someone an uncle tom is racist, then that is logically racism that is born from and subscribed to by the left.

Every black conservative I know, from economists like Thomas Sowell, to radio hosts like Larry Elder, heck, even Condi Rice has been called an uncle Tom (clearly more evidence of the left's gender confusion)

Uncle Tom, to the left, is a derogatory term for a black person with conservative views. An uncle Tom is race traitor, as if the only way to advance as a black person is through a liberal ideology. And that ideology is that you, as a black person, are at a disadvantage because of your race. You cannot succeed without our help to overcome that disadvantage. If you refuse that premise, you are a traitor.

 

Didn't read all 30 pages but i can think of 3 major mistakes, one of which was the foreseeable result of his dictoral regime.


1. First is 2 parts. Part one, playing politics at Dunkirk. Should have let the army finish the job before the English were able to.get their people out. Part 2 is not immediately invading England.

2. Invading Russia. He had a non aggression pact with Russia and they even worked together in Poland. He hated the communists, but shpuld have been able to control himself.

3. His iron grip on the armored divisions, the foreseeable result. If the Panzer divisions were released as soon as the invasion started, there is a good chance they could have broken the Omaha landings. By breaking the Omaha landings, the rest of the invasion likely breaks down also.

You can also add him being allied with Japan. Without that alliance, FDR may not have the justification he wanted for joining the war in Europe also.

 

I see. Your logic is flawed.
Everyone left of you aren't robots and think the same.

Do rwers all think the same?
Is the world binary to you?

 

I'm not talking with everyone on the left. I'm talking with with you. You made the claim, then you asked me to ratify it. I refuse. You justify your own claim that not too many people on the left use a term universally known to mean something negative left leaning people say about a black person who sides with conservatives.

It's certainly not used by conservatives to talk about anyone...the meaning of the term precludes any reason they would have to use it.

I'd say it's too many if the term has any meaning at all in modern politics.

 

You made the original claim.
I merely stated what you did. Only changed con to lib.

 

here.
You started the not to many thing.

 

And as I've argued, it's not a term conservatives use. Can you name any conservative using the term? I've named many who have been called one.

Not too many in this sense is zero. Its not a conservative pejorative.

 

I've not heard one, but it is possible.
Mostly rwers refer.to blacks in much more derogatory terms.

 

Your not too many on the other hand encompasses every black conservative I know, including some liberal black politicians and publiuc figures that didn't present as liberal enough.

 

Certainly the term has been used. But I am skeptical of saying everyone has been called that.

 

No doubt there are derogatory words used by people of all stripes. Are they all either Hitler, or inconsequential, or can we simply deal with racism no matter what the political bent of the person?

 

And I doubt the problem is isolated to not too many.

Look, racial prejudice is bad, not because of minority status, or skin color, or multiculturalism, or social justice. It's bad because its illogical. It's not supported by rational, reasonable argument. That applies whether your prejudgement is intended to be negative or if its intended to be positive. Judgements made on bad premises are bad, across the board.

So when someone lobs the Hitler card at conservatives and demands the justification of prejudice, it's important to point out just how universal the mistakes of Hitler really are.

If for example you think you could never be a Hitler, think again. He was human with a brain in his head just like you. You make the same logical errors. You leap to equally wrong conclusions. The outcome might be different if you had his power, but are yoiu so certain it would be any less terrible?