Hank Williams Jr. calls Obama Hitler & "the enemy", pulled from Monday Night Football

Dammy said:
Bet if he had said that about Bush, he would be applauded.
Click to expand...
not by me. anyone who uses the "Hitler comparison' has no arguments

anyway, bush is too stupid to be anything like Hitler.
Hitler was very complex and very clever
 
Not sure I'd go so far as to say Hitler was an intellectual, he certainly proved to be a lousy general. He was good at manipulating people, he had that sort of crazy charisma that attracted people - and scared the shit out of the rest. He's most known for causing the biggest war ever in history and that's why some people did compare him to Bush - the war in Iraq seemed like it had the potential to grow quickly past the borders. Luckily it didn't.

And Hank Williams is a moron.
 
faethor said:
Why yes just as Olive oil is made from real olives; Baby Oil is made from Babys and Girlscout Cookies from Girlscouts.
Click to expand...
Olive Oil IS from Olives, however you get Canola Oil from a turnip
Baby Oil is FOR babies
Girlscout Cookies are SOLD BY Girlscouts

seems to be probable cause for a police search of your basement ....
 
Colbert plans to save poor Americans who may be un-ready for some football:
“Not hearing that song left me dangerously unprepared for some football,” Colbert said. “I’m in my living room innocently watching a Chevy Silverado ad and suddenly a bunch of gigantic, angry men in shiny tights start hitting each other, hurling and kicking a weird, leather oblate spheroid. It was hours before I realized it was some football. And needless to say, I was not ready for it.”

Colbert then auditioned for the part.
Click to expand...
 
Glaucus said:
Not sure I'd go so far as to say Hitler was an intellectual, he certainly proved to be a lousy general. He was good at manipulating people, he had that sort of crazy charisma that attracted people - and scared the shit out of the rest. He's most known for causing the biggest war ever in history and that's why some people did compare him to Bush - the war in Iraq seemed like it had the potential to grow quickly past the borders. Luckily it didn't.

And Hank Williams is a moron.
Click to expand...
whoa, snap!
I never said Hitler was an "intellectual" !!!
being CLEVER is not intellectual.

yes, he was all about manipulating people. He got people to Prove their love and loyalty to him by out-grossing each other with plans to kill the 'unworthy'.
I've been fascinated by his ability to play people against each other. That really is quite skillful. revolting and skillful. Bush never had that kind of cleverness and boy, aren't we lucky.
 
cecilia said:
whoa, snap!
I never said Hitler was an "intellectual" !!!
Click to expand...
He was, though. He thought about things, he "intellectualized". He was an artist and he developed his own philosophy and argued it (you may disagree with his argument or the quality of it but that doesn't negate that he made one).
I think intellectual would be a fair description to apply to Hitler. Intellectual doesn't connote that the particular thoughts a given intellectual has are in line with your own. Sigmund Freud was an intellectual and his ideas are positively barmy.
Bush never had that kind of cleverness and boy, aren't we lucky.
Click to expand...
No we are not, because the people that he worked for did (and do) have that skill - and are still in power.
 
Glaucus said:
That's an interesting theory, but history just doesn't support it.
Click to expand...
History supports itself. It is the winners that write history. Archeology often contradicts history. Much of the bible, after all, is history but it's not necessarily true.

Many credit Romans with civilizing Europe and building the roads etc, but that's because the Romans said they did and wrote about it. Archeology says it's not that simple. Similarly Britain was a great and glorious empire civilizing savages and putting our brave boys on the line to do this selfless work.

All public and national histories are mythologies. There are histories that hove much closer to fact but they tend to remain locked away for academic reference rather than general consumption.
There is no shortage of examples of people being conquered and yet maintaining their roots.
Click to expand...
Of course, because they maintain their own histories. It takes more than force to wipe out a people's histories. The Jews have maintained their own version of history over centuries which has been integral in keeping a separate identity. but, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, they say. Hitler had crafted for his reich a compelling history which doubtless he could have expanded to include the lands he "freed".

It would probably be not far different from the myth that we constructed for ourselves about how "we" freed Europe, despite the fact that we committed atrocities in doing so.

And if huge numbers of German troops died in US pow camps and no one ever heard about it, how did you hear about it?
Click to expand...
It isn't unknown or lost history. It's simply not talked about much because it doesn't serve the heroic narrative.
And we do know about the aerial bombardment of Germany (Dresden in particular) and the nuclear bombs in Japan. Those are both nasty thigs you'd think they wouldn't want us to know about and yet, they're in all the text books. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Both depicted as unfortunate but necessary victory to save Europe/America from an even worse fate.
But anyway, my main concern with your post was that you tell us that Hitler's only real sin was that he lost.
Click to expand...
In a very pragmatic sense it is the only one that actually matters. Are our current owners really so much better than Hitler? Yes, you might say, because they aren't killing Jews - but they are killing other people - just far away people so we don't have to care and we aren't even allowed to see what it looks like to kill them. Hitler is the guy we are all supposed to hate but Churchill who was every bit as viscous is a hero.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Canola is rape.
Click to expand...

Canola was developed from rapeseed, an oilseed plant. “Rape” in rapeseed is from the Latin word “rapum,” meaning turnip. Turnip, rutabaga, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, and mustard are closely related to the two natural canola varieties commonly grown, which are cultivars of Brassica rapa

Brassica rapa is widely cultivated as a leaf vegetable (mizuna), a root vegetable ( turnip), or as a oilseed ( rapeseed oil).

Canola is an excellent engine lubricant.
 
Glaucus said:
And if huge numbers of German troops died in US pow camps and no one ever heard about it, how did you hear about it?
Click to expand...
FluffyMcDeath said:
It isn't unknown or lost history. It's simply not talked about much because it doesn't serve the heroic narrative.
Click to expand...

In early April 1945, the United States was responsible for 313,000 prisoners in Europe; by month's end this total increased to 2.1 million. After the fall of the Third Reich, the number rose to 5 million German and Axis POWs. Of those, an estimated 56,000, or about 1 percent, died.

Those captured by the Soviets fared far worse. Officially, the Soviet Union took 2,388,000 Germans and 1,097,000 Axis combatants from other European nations as prisoners during and just after the war. More than a million of the German captives died. Those that lived were not released until 1956, after Stalin's death.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
History supports itself. It is the winners that write history. Archeology often contradicts history. Much of the bible, after all, is history but it's not necessarily true.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I think we're talking past each other here. We're using the same facts to support different arguments. Yes I know that the same man the Persians call The Great Satan is the man the Greeks call Alexander The Great. But that also underscores what I'm trying to say. Hitler conquered Europe and you say his sin was that he lost and that if he had won he'd re-write the history books and make himself a hero. My point is that, although that might have worked amongst Germans, it wouldn't amongst anyone else. My point about history is that there are not too many examples of large groups conquered by an enemy that over time become integrated and drink the cool-aid. And there are reasons for that which I won't bother getting into.

It isn't unknown or lost history. It's simply not talked about much because it doesn't serve the heroic narrative.
Click to expand...
It doesn't serve anything actually. Fact is, if you were a POW in WW2, your best bet of survival would be as a German POW in a US camp. You certainly would not want to be a German POW in a Soviet camp, or even worse, a Soviet POW in a German camp. Interestingly, US POWs in German camps received about the same treatment as the German POWs in US camps. The US is known for badly treating the Japanese POWs, and that has been discussed more openly because it was more of an issue. That along with the internment camps were always considered a stain on the US. But the reality is there's really not much to say about the treatment of German POWs in US camps simply because they got some of the best treatment for their time.

Both depicted as unfortunate but necessary victory to save Europe/America from an even worse fate.
Click to expand...
Depicted yes, but you won't find too many Japanese who will agree with that - and that's kinda what we're debating here Fluffy.

In a very pragmatic sense it is the only one that actually matters. Are our current owners really so much better than Hitler? Yes, you might say, because they aren't killing Jews
Click to expand...
Oh enough with the Jews already, even if Hitler never killed a Jew he was still bad for Germany. He killed many others and you know it. We all know it. And even if he didn't kill anyone he'd still be bad because he threw in jail anyone who questioned or challenged him. You didn't need to be a communist, gypsy, homosexual or Jew to find yourself locked in jail without trial. So far all your arguments are very unconvincing and the comparison to Churchill is ridiculous.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
He was, though. He thought about things, he "intellectualized". He was an artist and he developed his own philosophy and argued it (you may disagree with his argument or the quality of it but that doesn't negate that he made one).
Click to expand...
Did he though? Hitler was great at reading. He was great at quoting too. He seemed to have a great memory for things. He was self taught and proud of it. Being able to quote lines from books seemed impressive and it is. However, that does not make one a thinker. And what philosophy was his own? Antisemitism? Mass death? Conquest? Fascism? None of these were his ideas, he stole them from others and popularized them with his brand of charisma. Overall, there are two main reasons why I don't consider him a true intellectual:

1) He loved his own voice. Yes he read many books, but he was also very selective. It was documented that he would often decide whether to read a book or not by skipping to the conclusions to see if they supported his own. And when he did hang out with the intellectuals, it was only so that he could tell them what he thought - he was never interested what others thought except when they agreed with him. He judged the strength of a general not by his wisdom or accomplishments but by his loyalty. In fact, it's even been documented that he insisted on issuing orders to units even AFTER he was informed that they no longer exist. To me, a true intellectual must be able to at least debate. Instead he saw himself as a genius and anyone who didn't agree with him was quickly considered an idiot. He was well known for going on rants about the idiot intellectuals. A close minded intellectual is not an intellectual.

2) He didn't seem to learn from what he read. He read many things, and remembered much of it, but did he understand it? I seriously have my doubts. Aside from his tunnel vision, he's quite famous for his mistakes. He spent a lot of time studying military strategy and even had first hand experience in WW1, but he's well known for making basic strategic blunders that cost him dearly on the battle field. And he was repeatedly warned about his mistakes beforehand by his generals. Well, until he started having them executed.

So one thing he had going for him was his ability to focus. He was self taught and highly cultured in the things he was interested in. But that alone doesn't make him a man of letters. He was more a man of action.
 
Glaucus said:
Yes, but I think we're talking past each other here. We're using the same facts to support different arguments. Yes I know that the same man the Persians call The Great Satan is the man the Greeks call Alexander The Great. But that also underscores what I'm trying to say. Hitler conquered Europe and you say his sin was that he lost and that if he had won he'd re-write the history books and make himself a hero. My point is that, although that might have worked amongst Germans, it wouldn't amongst anyone else. My point about history is that there are not too many examples of large groups conquered by an enemy that over time become integrated and drink the cool-aid.
Click to expand...

I have to concede that what you say here is quite true in many cases. The Japanese certainly resent being under the American thumb, but the Germans, on the other hand, have never really objected because there are much greater cultural similarities- though the elites have tried to get out from under the US by forming a European Union which seems to be on the brink of falling apart. Ultimately I think the French aristocracy would have been more comfortable under Germany (along the lines of Charlemagne's Frankish Kingdom - a great mythology to hang your hat on) than under Britain or the US.

Oh enough with the Jews already, even if Hitler never killed a Jew he was still bad for Germany.
Click to expand...
Oh, agree and disagree, in that order. Britain and the US were bad for Germany, they were, after all, who were bombing her. Oh, I know we can say that the allied war was a response to Hitler's aggressions but for the most part, leading up to that, life was pretty good for the average German who wasn't an enemy of the state. It isn't good anywhere to be an enemy of the state.
As to the Shoa, it's central to the narrative. To distinguish between good and evil then good guys need the bad guys to do something that the good guys don't. Sometimes they have to settle for eating the wrong food or putting bags over their women - but Hitler, well, ...
 
Glaucus said:
Overall, there are two main reasons why I don't consider him a true intellectual:
Click to expand...
Your criticisms are not unlike criticisms of other intellectuals. Intellectual doesn't equate to being right or nice or smart. You can't just reserve the word intellectual for people you approve of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top