Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I would think with all your anti-semetic rhetoric that you would be a big fan of Hitler's!

Posted By: Lu on 2009-01-06
In Reply to: So, was Hitler righteous then? sm - Just the big bad

Oh the hypocrasy!




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

rhetoric rhetoric - just tell people what they want to hear, it worked in 2000 and 2004 right?
xx
Anti-Semitism versus Anti-Zionism

I wanted to address an exchange below that occurred between myself and a couple of others on the board (just the big bad and another poster who did not use anything to identify herself) last night.  In response to my post about the righteous prevailing meaning the Israeli's would prevail because they are the "righteous", just the big bad responded "So was Hitler righteous?"  She was likening the Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians as being akin to Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews.  I then pointed out her anti-Semitic rhetoric.  To which I was blasted for accusing an anti-Zionist as being an anti-Semitic.


 


I want to point out to many of you who hold strong opinions regarding the Israel/Palestinian conflict, there is a very fine line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, a line that was very clearly crossed when just the big bag posted her Hitler remark, a line many have crossed in this discussion by likening the Gaza Strip to a concentration camp.  When you say these things you have become an anti-Semitic.  Below is an excerpt from an article written by Ami Isseroff:


 


If you judge a Jewish state by standards that you apply to no one else; if your neck veins bulge when you denounce Zionists but you've done no more than cluck "well, yes, very bad about Darfur";

if there is nothing Hamas can do that you won't blame 'in the final analysis' on Israelis;

if your sneer at the Zionists doesn't sound a whole lot different from American neoconservative sneers at leftists;

then you should not be surprised if you are criticized, fiercely so, by people who are serious about a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians and who won't let you get away with a self-exonerating formula "I am anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic" to prevent scrutiniy.  If you are anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, then don't use the categories, allusions, and smug hiss that are all too familiar to any student of prejudice.   


I think that sums it up.


 


No dear, it's anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic.
Horrific is as horrific does. This long term occupation has spanned 60 years. The Holocaust spanned 12. Thanks to your Zionist government, its historic anmesia and its barbaric practices, the Jewish people have lost their exclusive claim to pain and suffering at the hands of state-sponsored terrorism aimed at the genocidal annihilation of an entire population. Your Holocaust was based on religious affiliation and racial purification. The Palestinian Holocaust is based on the ethnic cleansing of a pathologic nationalism that has been out of control for 6 decades.

You cannot declare yourself in charge of defining any other person's beliefs based on your concepts of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. I very painstakingly explained to you where I was coming from with that and how I make the distinction. It is the nationalistic fascist ideals that underpin the Zionist movement, not the Jewish people or their religious affiliation that are the targets of the hatred. In fact, they are also captive to their own Zionist leadership, but to a much lesser degree than the Palestinians.

The Holocaust is the only thing in recent history that can be used by comparison to describe the plight of the Palestinians. In fact, there is no parallel historical context that it can be placed in, other than perhaps the apartheid of South Africa. The most accurate description would be a combination of the two horrors.

Any way you slice it, you are trying to defend the indefensible and will never succeed in gaining any credibility, global tolerance of acceptance (except, of course from the US, who is using your country and your people for their own personal gains...better watch your backs) as long as you are the occupiers and the oppressors.
And anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage
will fix the economy?  I think not.  Besides anyone with half a brain cell knows BOTH of them will raise taxes on all of us.  Forget tax breaks.  How do you think the $700 billion and climbing is going to get paid....from money falling out of the sky?????  Get real.
Anti-choice, anti-welfare,
No hypocrisy there?
Anti-gay/anti-abortion

I'm someone who believes in minding my own business.  What others do in their family lives is none of my business.  There hasn't been one single (or married) gay person who has ever hurt me.


On the other hand, the policies of the last eight years have hurt me a great deal.  I don't have health insurance, so McCain can't tax mine, but he will tax everyone else's.


I want a President who can speak English (for a change), one who is intelligent and even tempered, and one who not only acknowledges that there is a huge problem with the middle class but whose entire platform has been devoted to solving that problem.


One day, McCain says the "fundamentals of the economy are strong."  The next day, he's canceling a debate to rush back to Washington to fix the "crisis," except that he doesn't really "rush," and he didn't cancel the debate.  He's running around like a chicken with its head cut off.


Obama's slogan has always been change, from the very beginning, and McCain has stolen that slogan.


I'm just personally sick and tired of politicians who are pro-corporations and anti-Americans.


Corporate tax breaks simply don't work.  The beneficiaries of these breaks pocket the money.  They don't create jobs; they outsource them.  As MTs, we should know that more than anyone.


Obama wants to reward businesses who KEEP jobs in America.  That's why I voted for him, along with the other reasons above, and that's why my daughter and son-in-law also voted for him, so he has received three votes from this household alone.


The "trickle-down" theory doesn't work and depends on the non-existent benevolence of greedy executives.  It's time to try the "trickle-up" theory, IMHO.


Everyone is so upset at the thought of rising taxes.  I wish someone would tell me just HOW we expect to pay for all Bush's wars, as this will fall to the next President, along with the present financial fiasco.


Rhetoric?
I don't know what posts you have been reading, friend Lurker, with the anything to do with hatred, loving terrorists, etc., are directed at the post containing just that thing. One poster who shall remain nameless stated emphatically that investigating Bush took precedence over terrorism. To me, that is a statement supporting terrorism, and while maybe not idiotic, does not seem to me to be a very smart thing to say, considering Amadinejad stated this morning he wanted the next group of Al Qaeda leaders to come from Iran and that he was sending the US a message soon. And then this afternoon, we find out that the nuclear watchdog group found plutonium in the nuclear waste at the Iranian nuclear plant. But your liberal friend who proudly calls herself so wants to investigate Bush rather than concentrate on terrorism. That would be laughable if it were not that a great number of liberals are in full agreement with her. Which is concerning to say the least. Several who post the liberal board and on the conservative board who clearly identify themselves as liberals do hate democracy (evident in their posts), make frequent statements in support of terrorism (taking attention off them is supporting them), spout socialist policies (why they are called socialists)...if you don't fall into any of those categories, should be no big deal to you. You are including yourself in the group saying we. Liberals come to the conservative board too. Conservatives are not the only ones who cross over boards.
Rhetoric

Per Onelook:
noun:  study of the technique and rules for using language effectively (especially in public speaking)  (hmmm...yep)
noun:  using language effectively to please or persuade  (okay, I get it)
noun:  high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation (ohh, for sure!)
noun:  loud and confused and empty talk  (that's the nuts and bolts of it)


As far as rhetoric is concerned, I would say O has it mastered. 


Palin was speaking the truth, plain and simple, and she has the record to prove it.  Get over it.  If you are so embarrased, go live somewhere else.


 


Where is all of "O's" big bipartisan rhetoric now?
Obviously that is all it was....rhetoric.  Preached we had to work across the aisle...bipartisanship...to get things done.  And now, with the biggest crisis this country has faced in decades, and he has a chance to put his money where his mouth is...what does he do?  Decides what is best for Barack, and that is the tack he takes.  ANY credibility he had left with me is gone.
Admit what? Your rhetoric?
BTW, brush your teeth - your breathe stinks - I know where your head has been.
This pub party rhetoric is at least 50 years old.
applies to the 21st century please?
Guess not. 50-year-old rhetoric
fu
Here's the deal. This kind of rhetoric is exactly
and does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of your broken down party and the dirth of leadership you are currently experiencing. This kind of disconnect between your party and the rest of us is exactly what you should be spending your time trying to come to terms with.

Being a democrat, it is fine with me if you persist along these lines, since it would serve to ensure similar election results next time around, but for your own sakes, you guys really do need to GET A GRIP.
Bitter self-serving rhetoric?

I have absolutely no personal ties whatsoever to the middle east, so exactly why would I be bitter, and what would I have to gain?  Your statement makes no sense.  The main benefit of actually recognizing the history of the region (as opposed to the Israeli version of the *truth*) would be for better political relations with the middle east.  Have you noticed that the rest of the world sees what's going on?  Why do you think there is so much resentment in the middle east for the US?  Israel (or rather our empowering of it and it's abuse of that power) is one of the main problems over there. 


Why would I care about your opinion?  I don't.  There are very few people's opinions that I actually value on this board.  Those would be the ones who can actually discuss a subject with reasonable viewpoints, and guess what?  Most of them disagree with me on most everything.  LOL 


I'm simply trying to get you to stay on the subject, which is obviously a lost cause.


Your rhetoric was meaningless months ago...
and it is just as meaningless today. I supported Obama then, and I support him now, as do all of the people who voted for him. It must be miserable to live with such hate in your heart. I would pity you, but it seems that you are doing a pretty good job of that on your own.
No difference. Fact is that primary rhetoric
whenever you try depict rhetoric reversals as LIES, the challenge of your own candidates reversals will be waiting for you. Lame game and pointless.

Yes Sam, Biden is running with O. JB is a 35-year veteran in the Senate and if he felt O was not prepared for office, why then is is willing to place himself on the same ticket? JB knows what he is doing. There is no stronger statement of support than that. No brownie points for you on that one.

Day by day, we will be seeing dems, pubs and indies surface from Alaska who have bones to pick with SP. Wonder why that is? You can try to discredit and dismiss them to your heart's content, but you cannot ignore the fact that the public is never that forgiving and these types of testimonials will have impact on voter confidence. Funny how the verifiable facts that are a matter of public record included in Kilkenny's comments seem to have completely escaped your notice. Those facts will stand for what they are...challenges to the claims that she and the party are making about her fiscal responsibility and evidence of her tendency to want to run the show, run over anybody who gets in her way and take revenge on those would would oppose her. Not such a breath of fresh air after all, and looking a bit on the hypocritical side...a trait that some people associate with dishonesty. So yeah, whose lies and whose truths are not for you or I to decide. We have no choice here except to do our homework, put our views out there and leave it up to the voters to decide.
Actually, nasty, tacky, low-class rhetoric is exactly that,
You seem mighty sure of yourself while you presume to speak for a complete stranger.
Denounce Fox News Outrageous Rhetoric

Fox News Crosses the Line


Target: Fox News Sunday Host Chris Wallace
Sponsored by: Media Matters



For news coverage to be "fair and balanced," there has to be a line separating news from political activism – a clear boundary between legitimate commentary and demagoguery.


Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace repeatedly characterizes his network as "fair and balanced" – a source of news that should be taken seriously. However, several recent actions on Fox News illustrate that the network is contributing to a culture of conservative paranoia and anti-Obama political activism.


For example, since launching his Fox News show, Glenn Beck has engaged in increasingly outrageous rhetoric that promotes a culture of conservative paranoia – from imitating President Obama pouring gasoline onto the "average American" to mocking Obama's aunt's "limp."


If Wallace wants to continue to portray his network and influential Sunday show as a credible source of news, he owes it to his viewers to speak out publicly against Fox News' recent behavior. So please join us in asking Chris Wallace to publicly denounce Fox News' recent actions and repair the damage done to his network's credibility.


 


Link below to sign petition. 


No, work for a living, and have heard all the liberal rhetoric before.
x
Bush just casually reverses 5 years of rhetoric. sm

How many more lies before everyone wakes up?


Editorial Toledo Blade:  Another lie on Iraq


WHEN President Bush declared last week that nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a large segment of the American public must have been very surprised.




They would be the die-hard supporters of the war in Iraq, the one-quarter to one-third of Americans who, according to opinion polls, believe to this day that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11.




No one likes to think that their President is lying, but for Mr. Bush to casually reverse five years of rhetoric is like Bill Clinton claiming I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.




No, there is no DNA evidence that we know of to indict Mr. Bush for perjury. But the public record includes repeated statements by the President, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and other administration officials that linked responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, both directly and indirectly.




The alleged connection was the administration's strongest selling point for the war, slaking the American people's thirst for revenge for the 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.




As Mr. Bush put it on Oct. 7, 2002, We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. … We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.




Here he is again, in his 2003 State of the Union address: And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.




And in his Mission Accomplished photo op, May 1, 2003: In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front.




Mr. Cheney was even more specific: In 2003, the vice president claimed that the government was learning more and more about links, before 9/11, between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This came even after the CIA had debunked any such claims. In 2004, the veep said flatly that Saddam had long-established ties with al-Qaeda.




Now, you can argue all day about whether faulty U.S. intelligence misled Mr. Bush, or about what the meaning of suggested is, but this much is clear: The administration relentlessly blurred what was a clear distinction between the militantly secular regime of Saddam and Islamic extremists like the 9/11 hijackers so as to create a laser-beam connection in the public mind that they were one and the same.




So for Mr. Bush to now claim that nobody has ever suggested that the Sept. 11 attacks were ordered by Iraq, as he did last week, is yet another lie in the chain of mendacity that shackles the Bush presidency.


 


Bush starts changing his tune/rhetoric.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.

There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.

And I do feel that those few who use abortion as a means of birth control, well there should be restrictions and a definite "no."
You're a good little communist/socialist/marxist in your rhetoric..nm

Translation: I watch a lot of Fox News and stick strictly to party rhetoric.nm
z
Hitler
WOW.  Im sure if I looked up google, I could find millions of posts about the real reason Hitler wanted to exterminate the jews.  I cant believe you think it is because they were communist or socialist.  Flash..Flash..The jews were not socialist or communist..albeit, I cannot speak for all, but as a people, as an ethnic group being exterminated by Hitler, it was because they controlled much in germany and instead of Hitler taking the blame for no jobs and poverty, he blamed the jews and gypsies. 
Yep. Welcome the new Hitler.
The Lord is coming. BETTER BE READY. Also been getting ready for the big earthquake in my state and no, it is not California. Posted on the news and having earthquake awareness this month. Supposed to be a 9 and should last around 10 minutes with 60 feet tidal wave hitting the whole Northwest.
Hitler backer
Well, if we are gonna get into Hilter talking..George W. Bush's relatives in the past helped finance WWII for Hitler..
Hitler vs Saddam
I remember the stories as a young girl about Saddam throwing babies up in the air and shoting them as they fall. This was during Bush Sr.'s term. There is no doubt in my mind that he was tyrannical and murderous, but from what I understand the mass murderings, chemical genocide in Iraq happened in the 80's and early 90's. The threat of the Gulf War and UN sanctioning (and I know if it's failures)had pretty much tight gripped the dictator. There was no immediate humanitarian need for action in 2003 I'm aware of.

Hitler had a well publicized plan and factory like set up to eliminate the Jews. There was an immediate need to stop him.
Yep, made me think of Hitler too.

nm


 


HITLER WAS A CHRISTIAN.....

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The phrase "separation of church and state" which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.


Wikipedia - Separation of Church and State United States


http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm


LOL Hitler...let me ammend what I said

I do believe some people would vote for satan if he ran as a Republican.


What about Adolf Hitler or any of the other
in the past?  If God allowed those, then why didn't they fulfill the prophecies?
Hitler was a Christian
Anyone, of any faith can be a threat, but it is much easier to pick on the black man and say he is a muslim to hope to get votes to your side. Makes me ill!
characteristics of Hitler.
my 2 grandmas who are in their 90's.  Better adapt to the new change coming. 
*Evil* is also Hitler....(sm)
you should do a comparison between Hitler and Bush.  Just Google it.
So, was Hitler righteous then? sm

Unfortunately, the reality is that the good guys don't always win.


What? Sounds like Hitler
What is he going to do? Maybe I really do not want to know. How demanding he is. Most of you all wanted change and boy are you going to get it.
no, majority was INTIMIDATED by Hitler.

You compare Obama to Hitler but you...
are speaking all the German.  Good grief!
Sorry, I do not agree to a Hitler style
x
That congressman is comparing him to Hitler
I can't remember his name, but I saw it on Fox News. All he's doing is getting everybody in an uproar and scaring them. I think that's why people are posting this now.

Let be what is, everybody, and just have a sit-and-wait approach. It's much less stressful! :)
people praised Hitler

People praise Obama.  That's all you got?  Sticks and stones,babycakes, sticks and stones.


 


When Hitler did it they called it genocide...(sm)
I guess they had a good teacher.
Hitler did not prevail. Don't be stupid.
x
There is an obvious reason for using Hitler..(sm)

Hitler was the one who enacted genocide on the Jews, so you would think that they, in turn would not want others to suffer as they did....Wrong.  I don't think the Israeli government gives a rats butt about the holocaust, or anything else for that matter with the exception of domination as a nation (aka greed).  So, now that Israel is basically doing the same thing that Hitler did (they had a good teacher), in my eyes they are no better than Hitler or any other who would perform genocide, and if they are doing it in the name of God, well...that's even worse.


There are my words, and yes, I have chosen them carefully.


Just say, "Hiel Hitler," all you brownshirts.
xx
Did you just quote the Hitler Youth Handbook?!
"The sleeping giant is stirring and a youthful new leader has emerged to restore us to the greatest nation in history."

You scare me.

And I hope you weren't one of those involved in the voter fraud linked to Obama's campaign.
Majority wanted Hitler, too, moron.
nm
I will change the world???? Welcome back Hitler

We aren't hiring someone to change the world.  That's not the job of the US President.  If he can't even get that right????


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081101/twl-obama-i-will-change-the-world-3fd0ae9.html


 


I'm sure Hitler had blind faith followers - sm
I'll bet the folks who blindly followed Hitler thought he was above reproach, just like O's fanatics think he is 'the one.'

I'll bet if you said anything ill of Hitler, their young, charismatic, shining 'hope' you would have received just as much foulness as you get on this board if you say anything negative about O.

I doubt the people who fell so in love with Hitler knew, or cared to know, a whip about his true character, his true beliefs, or his true plans. Similarly, I've yet to see any eagerness on the part of O-followers to look past the bumper sticker and take a good, hard look at the man they have just stuck America with.

Of course, the latest Tom Cruise movie on the, unfortunately, unsuccessful plot to kill Hitler shows how well Germany's shining ray of hope and change played out.

You'd think the world would be too saavy to let that happen again.

Although, if you look at the world around us, it appears we never learn anything from history.
Hitler was a choirboy compared to your average
Such as Red-Evelope-Woman, for example.