Wow, this guy must have really been setting his hair on fire when the Department of Homeland Security was created! Why, I’m sure there’s a whole archive full of his warnings about how George W. Bush was bringing about the end of the Republic… :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
And had people killed.
I know it’s not popular to think about the suspects we “interrogated” and had other countries “interrogate” as victims, but nevertheless some of them were beaten to death as part of national policy flowing down the chain of command, despite not having stood trial for anything. Sure, they weren’t Jews. They were a different minority religion. Still, the principles of the Great Leader required a few of them to be beaten to death without trial in order to make the trains run on time.
That’s what YouTube is for. It gets easier and easier to covertly record this little bloviations (and even if the audience is perfectly sympatico with the speaker, there’s still the possibility that it occurred to somebody to do some of that thar blackmail tapin’ to help persuade the Rep to help Cousin Jethro get a nice job or something).
Simply having the largest party in the Reichstag wasn’t the goal point for being chancellor. At the time Hitler was appointed chancellor in 1933, no party had a majority. Hitler lost the presidential election to Hindenburg the year before and it was only when several other parliamentary coalitions failed that Hindenburg reluctantly agreed to form one with the Nazis along with Hitler’s demands to be made chancellor.
Anyway, the point is that Broun was dead-wrong when he said Hitler was elected, in any way, shape, or form.
He was wrong, but he wasn’t “dead-wrong in any way shape or form”. Hitler wasn’t elected, but the Nazis were, and, as I think I’d argued in another thread, at that point, I don’t see how any government that excluded the Nazis could have been constituted. There were no workable non-Nazi coalitions at that point, so the only other choice was for Schleichter to continue to govern by decree.
“Hitler was elected” is an accurate statement if we interpret it broadly enough to mean “Hitler came to power in a constitutional republic by lawful and constitutional means and with the support of a mass-based electoral movement”; which is generally the intended meaning anyway.
Broun opposes Obama. So if Obama is Hitler, then Broun must be Stalin (a fellow Georgian). So the Republicans that follow Broun must be Communists.
Political metaphors are fun.
I would expect this kind of statement from a random Joe Schmoe (who may or may not be a plumber), but a congressman? This guy actually takes part in important decisions in the government? Seriously, does he realize what he’s saying? Does he have any idea how the government works? It’s just baffling.
Also, I don’t think any democratic congressman were issuing press releases about Bush making himself a dictator. What some random buffoon says on a message board is different than what’s said by an elected official.
As opposed to the already existing U.S. military that already will be answering to him seeing as he’ll be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces?:rolleyes:
Do these dumbasses even pause for one second to analyze the feces spewing from their pieholes?
No, because then they might get some of it on themselves. The idea is to keep up the rate and the volume so the flow of the spew remains emphatically unidirectional.
It’s like I said on a thread about this at a another forum-we all know that post-WWI Germany, Russia, and Italy were all made up of totally stable, democratic governments that had endured for 200+ years, and overnight, they elected this one guy and just like that! BAM!
(I love how they accuse Obama supporters of calling him the “Messiah”, but want to name every single thing after Reagan and tear up at the mere mention of him. Dude…)
This is why we need a politics forum. A pit thread every time a politician says something that someone doesn’t agree with is starting to get old.
Not that I agree with this guy or anything, but Godwin’s law is kinda dumb, and I’m sure we could talk about what he said without all the snark and namecalling.
This is not “saying something” I don’t agree with. This is an insult to citizenship. Either he believes what he is saying, and he is an ignoramus, or he doesn’t, and he is a manipulative cynic. Is there anything in either of those I am somehow obliged to respect?
Niiiice!
:: golf clap ::
You realize, of course, that you are not exaggerating. Who was the dim bulb congresscritter who got his dick in a wringer about 10 years back for quipping at a fundraiser, “All a n***** wants is loose shoes and a tight pussy!” I remember thinking, “So what? That about covers it for my pink butt too!”
And thanks for reminding me. In spite of ancient military tradition, I am going to have to retire the phrase CMFIC for the duration. Oh well. I’ll get over it.
Not anymore. You’ve got to understand; Freepers take this book to be divine, revealed truth and read it with greater fervor than they do the Bible.
You’re kidding me! Somebody exists who is so dumb they actually take the Pillsbury Buttboy seriously?
That was actually Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture for Richard M. Nixon and later Gerald Ford, and it was more like thirty years ago than ten years back.
One would like to think we’ve made a little progress since then…
“You boys know me! Gimme a tight pussy, loose shoes, and a warm place to shit and I’m fine!”
- Slim Pickens
Hmm. I always heard that quote attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt (addressed to Queen Elizabeth II when Eleanor visited shortly after her coronation by most accounts, though most sources agree she was paraphrasing Cardinal Spellman’s notes when reserving a room at the Vatican Hilton).
Well, I suppose I could have given you the* origina*l quotation, but my browser doesn’t include a cuneiform character set…