they are addressing yeas of entrenched bad spending, duplication, and waste
Thoughts on DOGE?
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
I don’t care to live in a dictatorship no matter the economic cost. I would much rather go through another Great Depression. I refuse to give up liberty or the liberty of my neighbor for economic security.
Apparently you don’t care. The more you speak the more I think you would have been a “good Nazi”. You would be here talking about how wonderful the Autobahn was and how Hitler’s economic policy improved the life of the everyday German after years of economic hardship.
BHO before office as a best selling author: $800,000
Pelosi's net worth in '87 before office: 3.5M
Your party is now claiming free speech was a major contributor of the Holocaust. Dems are now going to great lengths to justify trampling our first amendment rights. What a scary time for our democracy when a major political party not only advocating abolishing free speech but using a false narrative for the same .
I have a feeling she was referring to the period before Hindenberg appointed Hitler to Chancellor for a majority cabinet. During that period the Nazi party became popular. Before Hindenburg appointed Hitler to the Chancellorship the Nazi party was limited in power because it was competing with two other party's. But during that period it gained enough ground for Hindenburg to feel like it was his best option, and one he could deal with.
During that period many speeches by Hitler helped the Nazi party gain enough popularity that Hindenberg felt like appointing Hitler. That contradicts the response by Rubio. The party, and the Chancellor (Hitler) might have never come to power if Hindenburg hadn't appointed Hitler. His speeches were in large part responsible for that. I'm not saying she is right. I'm just saying Rubio's first response didn't prove her wrong.
Go read a history book. Tell me what it says about Hitler pre 1934.
Then go read about the paradox of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=The paradox of tolerance is,the very principle of tolerance.
What a scary time for our democracy when people have forgotten the lessons of the past.
Trump admin pulls hundreds of videos from CFPB’s YouTube channel
The videos included, “How can I improve my credit scores?”
www.theverge.com
This was never about saving taxpayers money.
Hitler's vitriolic beer hall speeches began attracting regular audiences. A demagogue,[106] he became adept at using populist themes, including the use of scapegoats, who were blamed for his listeners' economic hardships.[107][108][109] Hitler used personal magnetism and an understanding of crowd psychology to his advantage while engaged in public speaking.[110][111] Historians have noted the hypnotic effect of his rhetoric on large audiences, and of his eyes in small groups.[112] Alfons Heck, a former member of the Hitler Youth, recalled:
(after attempting to overthrow the government in the Beer Hall Putsch) Hitler was sentenced to five years' imprisonment at Landsberg Prison.[125] There, he received friendly treatment from the guards, and was allowed mail from supporters and regular visits by party comrades. Pardoned by the Bavarian Supreme Court, he was released from jail on 20 December 1924, against the state prosecutor's objections.
While at Landsberg, Hitler dictated most of the first volume of Mein Kampf (lit. 'My Struggle'; originally titled Four and a Half Years of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice) at first to his chauffeur, Emil Maurice, and then to his deputy, Rudolf Hess.[127][128] The book, dedicated to Thule Society member Dietrich Eckart, was an autobiography and exposition of his ideology. The book laid out Hitler's plans for transforming German society into one based on race. Throughout the book, Jews are equated with "germs" and presented as the "international poisoners" of society. According to Hitler's ideology, the only solution was their extermination. While Hitler did not describe exactly how this was to be accomplished, his "inherent genocidal thrust is undeniable", according to Ian Kershaw.[129]
Published in two volumes in 1925 and 1926, Mein Kampf sold 228,000 copies between 1925 and 1932.
At the time of Hitler's release from prison, politics in Germany had become less combative and the economy had improved, limiting Hitler's opportunities for political agitation. As a result of the failed Beer Hall Putsch, the Nazi Party and its affiliated organisations were banned in Bavaria. In a meeting with the Prime Minister of Bavaria, Heinrich Held, on 4 January 1925, Hitler agreed to respect the state's authority and promised that he would seek political power only through the democratic process. The meeting paved the way for the ban on the Nazi Party to be lifted on 16 February.[133]
However, after an inflammatory speech he gave on 27 February, Hitler was barred from public speaking by the Bavarian authorities, a ban that remained in place until 1927.[134][135] To advance his political ambitions in spite of the ban, Hitler appointed Gregor Strasser, Otto Strasser, and Joseph Goebbels to organise and enlarge the Nazi Party in northern Germany. Gregor Strasser steered a more independent political course, emphasising the socialist elements of the party's programme.
I’m very aware of history. As such, I know Hitler permitted only that speech which supported his regime while censoring speech critical of the same. Sounds all too familiar and now such an approach appear to be openly floated.
Gmoney might be correct in that she was referring to the period of time prior to Hitler being appointed Chancellor. The alarming thing is the party she’s supporting actually did openly censor and silent dissenting views. Much like Hitler post 1934. You might look at how he treated speech critical of his treatment of Jews during the inception of the Holocaust.
The Nazis tested their new strategy in the national parliamentary elections of 1928, harnessing their paramilitary formations in violent intimidation of voters, particularly on the political left, in order to improve their own prospects. Though Nazi formations initiated much of the politically motivated violence, Party speakers presented it as the consequence of left-wing and Jewish provocation of the “honest” patriotic sentiment of the Nazi rank and file. Despite the almost constant agitation and violence, the Nazis harvested a disappointing 2.6% per cent of the national vote in this still relatively prosperous year under the stewardship of the Weimar Coalition (Social Democrats, Catholic Center Party, German People’s Party, and German Democratic Party). Nevertheless, the decision of the Nazis to abandon putsch attempts for participation in electoral contests as well as their occasional collaboration with conservative nationalist forces on issues such as opposition to the Young Plan in 1929, an effort of international bankers to restructure the German reparations debt into more manageable payments, lent the Nazi a legitimacy and respectability that they had not previously enjoyed.
With the onset of the Great Depression in the first half of 1930, Nazi agitation began to have increasing impact in the German population. When the Weimar Coalition government collapsed on March 27, the three non-Socialist partners in the coalition, responding to their respective political bases and led by Catholic Center politician Heinrich Brüning, persuaded President Hindenburg to call emergency national parliamentary elections by invoking Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. With this extraordinary step, the Brüning government hoped to manufacture a governing majority that would first exclude the Social Democrats and then facilitate a revision of the Weimar constitution in a more authoritarian direction that would permanently exclude the political Left from real participation in governing.
Sensing an unparalleled opportunity, the Nazis entered the campaign enthusiastically. In the public imagination, they were untainted with Weimar policies that were—they argued—the source of the increasing political deadlock, economic misery, and moral deterioration felt by Germans across the political spectrum. Modern technology (e.g. air travel, radio, mass rallies with technological bells and whistles, and deep engagement of the country’s youth) enhanced Nazi campaigning. Hitler himself, the first German politician to use air travel in a political campaign, blanketed the country to deliver his message of national renewal to a nation perceiving itself to be increasingly spiraling into an existential and lethal political, economic and cultural/moral crisis.
In the September 14, 1930 elections, the Nazi Party captured 18.3% of the vote, depending significantly on new voters, unemployed voters, and alienated voters deserting the middle class parties.
With the onset of the Great Depression in the first half of 1930, Nazi agitation began to have increasing impact in the German population. When the Weimar Coalition government collapsed on March 27, the three non-Socialist partners in the coalition, responding to their respective political bases and led by Catholic Center politician Heinrich Brüning, persuaded President Hindenburg to call emergency national parliamentary elections by invoking Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. With this extraordinary step, the Brüning government hoped to manufacture a governing majority that would first exclude the Social Democrats and then facilitate a revision of the Weimar constitution in a more authoritarian direction that would permanently exclude the political Left from real participation in governing.
Sensing an unparalleled opportunity, the Nazis entered the campaign enthusiastically. In the public imagination, they were untainted with Weimar policies that were—they argued—the source of the increasing political deadlock, economic misery, and moral deterioration felt by Germans across the political spectrum. Modern technology (e.g. air travel, radio, mass rallies with technological bells and whistles, and deep engagement of the country’s youth) enhanced Nazi campaigning. Hitler himself, the first German politician to use air travel in a political campaign, blanketed the country to deliver his message of national renewal to a nation perceiving itself to be increasingly spiraling into an existential and lethal political, economic and cultural/moral crisis.
In the September 14, 1930 elections, the Nazi Party captured 18.3% of the vote, depending significantly on new voters, unemployed voters, and alienated voters deserting the middle class parties.
That's the paradox Poke. Tolerance of Intolerance led to Intolerance of Tolerance.
The only thing you can do is supress intolerance. If you let it spark and burn unopposed it will devour everything.... which is what we saw in 1930 and what we're seeing right now. Hell... Trump just today banned the use of the word 'Women' in childrens books.
You're still complaining about fairness in girls soccer.... meanwhile your daughters are having their social freedoms taken away far beyond the consequences of a stupid soccer game.
Last edited:
Deflection. You’re completely ignoring the fact that by the time the Holocaust started free speech was all but eliminated in Nazi Germany. Dissenting views challenging the Nazi party were non-existent. A pattern we’ve seen in almost every totalitarian regime throughout history. You’re here arguing a regime censoring dissenting voices can be a good thing AND referencing the Holocaust . 😂😂😂
You're completely skipping over the part where they (the German Weimar administration) let the people who ultimately stopped free speech for all reasonable voices...... continue to say whatever the hell they wanted!
The Holocaust and free speech being eliminated was a result of Hitler getting appointed, which was a result of his hate speeches. You have to go to the source of the following events. You as an individual, or a member of a large group of advocates probably would have had no power to stop the limiting of speech, or the Holocaust after Hitlers appointment. You must go back to that period before to have any shot at changing the course of history. Before the appointment, before the depression, before, before, before... That's when it got set in stone, aside from a well planned early on assassination just after his appointment.
Just to be clear, are you advocating the federal government be given the power to silence speech which in their subjective opinion is “ hate” speech? Furthermore, even if the speech they choose to classify as “ hate” speech is speech which is critical of the officials silencing said speech.
Isn’t the censorship we’ve seen over the last few years evidence how a governing party can take and expand what they consider “dangerous” speech to speech with which they simply doesn’t follow the government agenda?
The fact that we continued to let some people who tried to overthrow the US Constitution, give public addresses instead of throwing their asses in Jail until they died is evidence that we're going down the same road the Weimar Republic went down when they kept giving Hitler and the Nazis slaps on the wrist and subsequent reprieves until they finally took full power and completely got rid of free speech.
Trump misinterprets history.... go figure. Also forgets to mention that they made the Great Depression worse, and probably lended somewhat to WWII.
Last edited:
Yeah That’s 100% BS in the modern world
Trump misinterprets history.... go figure.
I'm not advocating anything with my statements about WWII and Hitler in the present time period. I am simply stating that to have influenced events away from Hitler gaining power and the holocaust happening, you would have to do it before Hitler's appointment as Chancellor.
I will say this though. The internet is the benefit and the bane of our existence today. It makes so many technological advances possible, but gives idiots out there easy access to be an influencer, and have a voice beyond what they ever would have had before. It allows them to coalesce in ways they never would have before. Jan 20 Anti Vaxxers, Al Qaeda, etc would have had a much harder time coordinating and being as widely accepted before the internet. That all leads to many people being much more easily influenced.
There is a need for a keeper of the gate, but rational, intelligent, and good minded people can't find some sort of agreement on that. And if they did, the other idiots and power seeking people out there wouldn't let it happen. We need limitations on speech, but nobody will accept what limitations we need. We need to douse conspiracy theorists, people that lie to the masses intentionally, and put out hate speech intentionally.
We need it now more than ever. But we have too many bad actors out there to get an agreement on what needs limiting. They had a better idea in the early to mid 20th century than we can agree on now. But the ideas which were shared by enough people to enact them then, is not possible now. Too many ideas on how to limit speech are out there, to ever find an appropriate way today.
Last edited:
the last administration demanded the I could not work without a shot, what pronouns to use, that boys could be girls, taxpayers pay for illegals, that I must hire based on color and sex; not the best qualified, . . .
Thomson Company acquired Reuters News Organization in 2008. Now Thompson Reuters is the parent company.Amateur hour:
