I'll take 4 more years of the same please!- Page 3

[jlehrfeld]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 9:51pm

hi. i'm a jew. hitler was a mother-effer because of the holocaust, but i'm willing to admit that he did wonders for germany's economy. if i could i would undo his existence, but, unlike some of the radical liberals who are unwilling to acknowledge the validity of republicans' opinions, i am willing to acknowledge the validity of some of the german workingclass people's appreciation of hitler (if it's for the right reasons, such as how he saved their economy).

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 10:04pm

Holy god. So it's a radical liberal notion to reject Hitler in totality??????????

You two enjoy the rest of your thread and your "open-minded" appreciation of Der Fuhrer's more likable qualities. I feel slimed just by posting anywhere near you two.

[Westopher]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 10:05pm

It was an applicable comparison. Please read through the fact that I brought up Hitler in conversation, and look at my point.

[jlehrfeld]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 10:08pm

No, it's not a radical liberal notion to reject Hitler. It's a radical liberal notion to say that Hitler did absolutely no good for his country. Because that, factually, is just not true. I'm not saying it makes him a good person or excuses what he did with the Holocaust, I'm just saying he did a few good things here and there, and to refuse to acknowledge that is a typical characteristic of a radical liberal -- everybody else is wrong, and saying so without even considering how the opponent might have some (even if just a little) validity in his or her argument.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 10:11pm

I can't believe I'm back here.

What I said was that when a person sends your family members into ovens, it becomes harder to look at him objectively. That has nothing to do with radical liberalism; it has to do with being human. Not that certain sociopaths trying to pass themselves off as decent human beings on this board would know anything about that.

[Westopher]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 10:14pm

Way to call the kettle black.
You don't think I have family members who have served in the armed forces and been in wars? A handful of Germans tried to kill my grandfather, some Japanese bombed my Great Uncle's ship and killed a good number of his friends. But you know what? He doesn't let his opinon of his attackers as a person cloud his global judgement.

[jlehrfeld]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 10:15pm

Wow, Plum, I was just about to acknowledge what you said as being absolutely true, until the last line of what you said. Nice going, dropping all your credibility with a beautiful ad hominem as you just did. Please, enlighten me, what makes me a sociopath (assuming you were, in fact, referring to me)?

By the way, the radical liberal notion thing came from findingnemo's post. Updated On: 11/3/04 at 10:15 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 10:17pm

I wasn't referring to you, actually. It was someone else. And I'll leave it at that.

And my entire family's served in the armed forces for 3 generations. Getting killed while you're a soldier in a war isn't the same as being carted into a train to die in a gas shower. Updated On: 11/3/04 at 10:17 PM

[Westopher]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 10:19pm

Once again, you don't explain yourself.
You must be talking about me, so please, explain yourself. That is, if you have a valid point... but then again, that hasn't seemed to stop you yet.

[jlehrfeld]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 10:19pm

Oh good, that means we can be friends. Hurray! This country is becoming united already, just as both candidates promised would (or at least strongly suggested should) happen. That makes me happy. Drinks all around!

Author's note: jlehrfeld doesn't drink.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 10:20pm

Wasn't referring to you either, Westopher.

[Westopher]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 10:29pm

Now we are all confused.
Now I can see the difference between dying in war and being murdered, but there is also a similarity.
I may not have ancestors (that I know about) who were in the Holocaust, but my uncle is black, and his ancestors sure as hell were slaves in this country. But you know what? He understands that slavery helped make this country great. Updated On: 11/3/04 at 10:29 PM

[Plum]

Posted: 11/3/04 at 10:39pm

Oh my god. I'm just going to back out of here right now.

[Marquise]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 1:50am

can someone please explain to me just how in the HELL did slavery help make this country great? please enlighten me.

[Westopher]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 9:58am

Gladly.
Slavery was the cause for economic boom in the South. It is well known that the South had the strongest economy up untill the industrial revolution, and from thence forth they had the stronger agricultural economy. A country needs a strong economy to thrive, and we had one. It would not have been possible to harvest cotton, tobacco, and other fine products that the world desrired in the quantities that we did without mass numbers of workers (seeing how we didn't have the technology to do it for us).

Note: Please don't blow this up and think I agree with slavery as an idea, I just see how it helped our country.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 10:04am

This just takes me directly back to the Reagan era, I'm just a bit startled that it took less than 24 hours after election day for you to join this site and start spewing this bilge. There are some of us who find it morally reprehensible to separate the "good things" accomplished from the deaths of people like slaves or those who perished in the Holocaust.

Morally reprehensible.

And now, apparently, with the election results (thank you, Diebold!) you just feel that the environment is right for you to discuss this **** on these boards. Could you please just start your inevitable Holocaust denial thread so the rest of us can simply avoid it. Thanking you in advance.

Updated On: 11/4/04 at 10:04 AM

[Westopher]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 10:09am

Please, don't thank me. I'd like to thank you for drawing obscene paralells on par with Michale Moore himself.
Before I continue, forgive me for registering on these boards and actually using them, I didn't know this was forwned upon.
No since you seem to enjoy attacking me rather than stating fact...
I did not start any conversation, "this ****" had already been going on and I decided to take part in it.
It is not morally reprehensible to see multiple facets of something as complex as history. It's called being open minded. The death's of those in the Holocaust and slaves back in the day were not good, I never said that. I said Hitler didn't do only bad things. I said that slavery is a huge cause as to why America prospered. I said nothing about succeeding as a result of anyones death.
The Holocaust happend, please don't try and put words in my mouth.

[Plum]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 6:51pm

Even in the 18th century, early economists (the field didn't exactly exist then) were saying that slavery wasn't even the best way to profits. The cotton gin helped make the South a big-time cotton center, making slavery more necessary, but if it hadn't been cotton it would have been something else. Capitalism is all about finding new things to commodify.

Yes, I've been reading the scary Heilbroner today.

[MaTakeALookAtMe]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 6:56pm

Economic boon at the expense of an entire race of people is always reprehensible, even if it does keep an economy afloat. Praising it is eually reprehensible. Acknowledging the fact that slavery was essential to our country's early economy is only stating fact.; doing so in a manner that seems to minimize slavery's evil or that seeks to temper injustice by pointing out supposed benefits is irresponsible

[Westopher]

Posted: 11/4/04 at 6:58pm

I mean to minimize the severity of nothing

[SamIAm]

Posted: 11/5/04 at 8:29am

I'm sorry but saying that Hitler had some redeeming qualities because he improved the economy is rather like saying that Jack the Ripper had some redeeming qualities because he only killed women.

There are some crimes that impact humanity so greatly that it doesn't matter what else the person did...it doesn't make up for those crimes (and I know you aren't saying it DOES make up for the crimes, but this is just a bad comparison all around).

Hitler also loved art and wanted to gather all the great treasures under his roof...that doesn't make him a positive influence on Germany and there are young Germans who have to live with his legacy and feel embarrassed about it...so I don't think they'd appreciate your bringing him up as a positive influence in any way.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 11/5/04 at 8:35am

jlehrfeld: Your point is well taken and I prefer optimism to cynicism but a presidency is not made of up tiny points...it's a crazy quilt of every decision the President and his staff made to move the country in one direction or another.

Someone mentioned Hitler on this thread and using one little thing you like about Bush to make you less of a cynic about his presidency is rather like saying that you like Hitler because he was a fan of fine art. One quality...one tiny thing...does not erase trillions of dollars of debt, military finagling or any of the other things he did. Clinton's presidency taken as a whole was much more effective...and that's the way history looks at leaders...not one moment at a time...but a 'term' or several terms at a time.

To look at a world leader any other way is naive at best. Having said that, and not being a Bush fan, I will live with his next four years and hope he doesn't manage to do further irreparable damage to this country during his term. I will be a good American and continue to do what I can to support the REAL constitution (not Bush's). In the meantime, don't ask me to like him...this isn't a popularity contest...this is world politics

[Plum]

Posted: 11/5/04 at 10:07am

Clinton's presidency taken as a whole was much more effective.

Well, there I'll have to disagree with you. Bush has been a highly effective President, even if we hate the things he's been effective at accomplishing. Kinda like Reagan, or Andrew Jackson. The former, especially, is often considered "great" because he got so much done- whether he's greatly good or greatly evil depends on your point of view.