PDA

View Full Version : Hitler wins again. Yay democracy.




Anti Federalist
01-09-2013, 03:04 PM
Hitler Wins Again

Posted by Butler Shaffer on January 8, 2013 07:42 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/130255.html

It has been some 3-4 years since I last held my classic "election" on the first day of class in our law school. (The students - 2nd and 3rd year - don't know who I am, and I hand out the ballots before doing or saying anything.) The candidates for office are Candidate A and Candidate B, each of whom is identified not by name, but by description of behavior and/or policies advocated.

In the past, Candidate B receives - on the average - about 75% of the vote. Today - with 22 students voting - Candidate B received 20 votes [just under 91% of the vote] while Candidate A got 2 votes [just over 9%].

Oh, yes, for those who haven't followed this exercise before - of which I have reported herein in the past - Candidate A is a composite of such Revolutionary War heroes as George Washington, John Hancock, Sam Adams, Paul Revere, etc.. Candidate B is Adolf Hitler.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For Whom Would You Vote?

In each of the past two years, and on the first day of class, Law
Professor Butler Shaffer, Southwestern University School of Law, presented
his students with the following voting exercise. Bear in mind that these
students knew nothing about the Professor nor had he said anything to them
before opening up the class with this exercise.


VOTING EXERCISE

"It is time to elect the leader of a great nation, and you have been
presented with the following candidates:

CANDIDATE "A": A well-known critic of government, this man has been
involved in tax protest movements, and has openly advocated secession,
armed rebellion against the existing national government, and even the
overthrow of that government. He is a known member of a militia group that
was involved in a shootout with law enforcement authorities. He opposes
gun control efforts of the present national government, as well as
restrictions on open immigration into this country. He is a businessman
who as earned his fortune from such businesses as alcohol, tobacco,
retailing, and smuggling."

CANDIDATE "B": A decorated army war veteran, this man is an avowed
nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public health
interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication to
eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals in conducting such
research. He has supported restrictions on the use of
asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors government determined
occupational health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such
foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. He is an advocate of government
gun-control measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported
increased restrictions on both the use of and advertising for tobacco
products. Such advertising restrictions include: [1] not allowing tobacco
use to be portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity; [2] not allowing
such advertising to be directed to women; [3] not drawing attention to the
low nicotine content of tobacco products; and, [4] limitations as to where
such advertisements may be made. This man is a champion of environmental
and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending
troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein.

PLEASE SELECT THE CANDIDATE FOR WHICH YOU WOULD VOTE:

CANDIDATE "A" ------------ _______

CANDIDATE "B" ------------ _______

The combined vote total for these two years (4 classes) is as follows:
Candidate "A" 47 votes, Candidate "B” 141 votes. A percentage of 25% for
"A,” 75% for "B."

After collecting all the ballots, the professor inform the students that
Candidate "A" is a composite of the "founding fathers" (e.g., Sam Adams,
John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Patrick Henry, etc.,
etc.) while Candidate "B" is Adolph Hitler (see Robert Proctor's book, THE
NAZI WAR ON CANCER).

An interesting follow-up occurred in one of these classes last year. In
the "commerce clause" segment of constitutional law, the students were
discussing the Schechter case - in which the Supreme Court struck down the
New Deal's National Industrial Recovery Act. After describing this Act in
some detail, the professor went on to inform his students just how popular
state collectivism was throughout the world: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini,
and Franco and Roosevelt being the better known examples; and of how
Hitler and Mussolini had been revered by many renowned people throughout
the world, including Gandhi, Churchill, etc., etc. At this point, one
student interrupted: "I don't see how you can say that. How could a man
like Adolph Hitler have been popular with so many people?"

The professor leaned over the podium and responded:

"You tell me: just two weeks ago 78% of you in this class voted for him!"

loveableteddybear
01-09-2013, 03:15 PM
It'd be a more fair vote if Candidate B had added to it "He is known for his racist tirades and pompous public demeanor."

Zippyjuan
01-09-2013, 03:24 PM
The test is not completely unbiased. The description of Candidate A includes lots of negatives

A well-known critic of government,


has openly advocated secession,
armed rebellion against the existing national government


He is a known member of a militia group that
was involved in a shootout with law enforcement authorities.


earned his fortune from such businesses as alcohol, tobacco,
retailing, and smuggling."



While the virtues of candidate B are all positives.


A decorated army war veteran


dedication to
eliminating cancer.


opposes the use of animals in conducting such
research


This man is a champion of environmental
and conservationist programs,

It is set up to encourage people to vote for "B" over "A". The results should not be a surprise at all. Line up the best of one candidate against the worst of the other and people will choose the best.

torchbearer
01-09-2013, 06:39 PM
The test is not completely unbiased. The description of Candidate A includes lots of negatives









While the virtues of candidate B are all positives.









It is set up to encourage people to vote for "B" over "A". The results should not be a surprise at all. Line up the best of one candidate against the worst of the other and people will choose the best.

how does the media present our dear leaders, and how do they present us to the public?
candidate a - us
candidate b - the statist.


this is an accurate representation of how voting people are manipulated by media. garbage in, garbage out.

itshappening
01-09-2013, 06:55 PM
The professor has a sense of humor.

I think he's trying to illustrate to his students that a fascist can sound popular.

Hitler's party won many seats on the back of the depression and the president was talked into making him Chancellor in a coalition government.

2young2vote
01-09-2013, 07:29 PM
He's basically saying: Just because someone sounds good, it doesn't mean they are. I wish people had this same thought when listening to the typical politician of today.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-09-2013, 07:53 PM
Hitler Wins Again

Posted by Butler Shaffer on January 8, 2013 07:42 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/130255.html

It has been some 3-4 years since I last held my classic "election" on the first day of class in our law school. (The students - 2nd and 3rd year - don't know who I am, and I hand out the ballots before doing or saying anything.) The candidates for office are Candidate A and Candidate B, each of whom is identified not by name, but by description of behavior and/or policies advocated.

In the past, Candidate B receives - on the average - about 75% of the vote. Today - with 22 students voting - Candidate B received 20 votes [just under 91% of the vote] while Candidate A got 2 votes [just over 9%].

Oh, yes, for those who haven't followed this exercise before - of which I have reported herein in the past - Candidate A is a composite of such Revolutionary War heroes as George Washington, John Hancock, Sam Adams, Paul Revere, etc.. Candidate B is Adolf Hitler.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For Whom Would You Vote?

In each of the past two years, and on the first day of class, Law
Professor Butler Shaffer, Southwestern University School of Law, presented
his students with the following voting exercise. Bear in mind that these
students knew nothing about the Professor nor had he said anything to them
before opening up the class with this exercise.


VOTING EXERCISE

"It is time to elect the leader of a great nation, and you have been
presented with the following candidates:

CANDIDATE "A": A well-known critic of government, this man has been
involved in tax protest movements, and has openly advocated secession,
armed rebellion against the existing national government, and even the
overthrow of that government. He is a known member of a militia group that
was involved in a shootout with law enforcement authorities. He opposes
gun control efforts of the present national government, as well as
restrictions on open immigration into this country. He is a businessman
who as earned his fortune from such businesses as alcohol, tobacco,
retailing, and smuggling."

CANDIDATE "B": A decorated army war veteran, this man is an avowed
nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public health
interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication to
eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals in conducting such
research. He has supported restrictions on the use of
asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors government determined
occupational health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such
foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. He is an advocate of government
gun-control measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported
increased restrictions on both the use of and advertising for tobacco
products. Such advertising restrictions include: [1] not allowing tobacco
use to be portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity; [2] not allowing
such advertising to be directed to women; [3] not drawing attention to the
low nicotine content of tobacco products; and, [4] limitations as to where
such advertisements may be made. This man is a champion of environmental
and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending
troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein.

PLEASE SELECT THE CANDIDATE FOR WHICH YOU WOULD VOTE:

CANDIDATE "A" ------------ _______

CANDIDATE "B" ------------ _______

The combined vote total for these two years (4 classes) is as follows:
Candidate "A" 47 votes, Candidate "B” 141 votes. A percentage of 25% for
"A,” 75% for "B."

After collecting all the ballots, the professor inform the students that
Candidate "A" is a composite of the "founding fathers" (e.g., Sam Adams,
John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Patrick Henry, etc.,
etc.) while Candidate "B" is Adolph Hitler (see Robert Proctor's book, THE
NAZI WAR ON CANCER).

An interesting follow-up occurred in one of these classes last year. In
the "commerce clause" segment of constitutional law, the students were
discussing the Schechter case - in which the Supreme Court struck down the
New Deal's National Industrial Recovery Act. After describing this Act in
some detail, the professor went on to inform his students just how popular
state collectivism was throughout the world: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini,
and Franco and Roosevelt being the better known examples; and of how
Hitler and Mussolini had been revered by many renowned people throughout
the world, including Gandhi, Churchill, etc., etc. At this point, one
student interrupted: "I don't see how you can say that. How could a man
like Adolph Hitler have been popular with so many people?"

The professor leaned over the podium and responded:

"You tell me: just two weeks ago 78% of you in this class voted for him!"

As my philosophy professors would often claim, lawyers are irrational by nature as the endeavor of law is by nature irrational. Regarding getting things turned around in this nation, we need to establish that fact.

sofia
01-09-2013, 07:57 PM
ya might want to add that Candidate B brought unemployment down from 33% to just 2% in only three years. He did this by slashing taxes, ending government waste, abolishing "The Fed" , and issuing interest free currency. Candidate B was also the ONLY world leader of the 20th century to successfully defy the New World Order mafia (at least for 12 years)

just sayin

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-09-2013, 08:04 PM
He's basically saying: Just because someone sounds good, it doesn't mean they are. I wish people had this same thought when listening to the typical politician of today.

Indeed, this is why the majority never benefits from the electoral process, but by way of the American Movement. We have never benefitted from those who are better than us, but from those converted over to our side who are better than us.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-09-2013, 08:09 PM
The professor has a sense of humor.

I think he's trying to illustrate to his students that a fascist can sound popular.

Hitler's party won many seats on the back of the depression and the president was talked into making him Chancellor in a coalition government.

Indeed, during that time in Germany, it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. So one would assume it took a tractor trailer load to buy a wheelbarrow and a ship load to but a tractor trailer. It is so bad today . . . (how bad is it?), well, at times, I actually think the wrong sides won World War II. Seems afterwards all the bad guys were the ones who made good products while all the good guys made bad.

Confederate
01-09-2013, 08:23 PM
Hitler Wins Again

http://img.izismile.com/img/img2/20090728/hitler_06.gif

Danke
01-09-2013, 08:25 PM
http://img.izismile.com/img/img2/20090728/hitler_06.gif

Old family movies?

acptulsa
01-09-2013, 08:27 PM
Well, in spite of our resident Hitler-lover giving him praise above, we all know Hitler was a royal pain in the ass, and we're better off for having squashed his regime before it bugged us any more.

That said, there's some useful stuff in this thread. Whenever someone poses the 'should government do ____?' question this is good stuff to toss into the conversation. You'll hear, 'But so-and-so isn't Hitler.' Your response should be, 'But (Dick Cheney or Nancy Pelosi, depending on your audience) could be elected to replace that person. Can he/she be trusted not to abuse that power?'

We have principles to sell. This is how to sell them.

RonPaulFanInGA
01-09-2013, 08:29 PM
Fails to mention "Candidate B" spent time in jail.

Confederate
01-09-2013, 08:47 PM
Old family movies?

http://killthehydra.com/wp-content/uploads/nazi-jokes-hitler-meme.jpg

Aratus
01-09-2013, 10:45 PM
the ability of slick PR to convert negatives into positives is at the core of the question posed to those law students in the professor's class.

the increasing marginalization of dissenters and critics by today's mass media further drives home how much of a risk the sons of liberty took.

Aratus
01-09-2013, 10:48 PM
what if FDR wore all his emotions on his sleave but the Nazi dictator was very good
at hiding his Mr. Hyde given that his Dr. Jeckyl was often very good at being trendy

Aratus
01-09-2013, 10:56 PM
i do feel i must apologize to "sofia" for the ban that lasted about a year
that kept threads like this away from the press contingent that followed
about the major candidates. even a hardcore slam on a nazi sometimes
gives nazism more press than the movement deserves. stalin also was
very well organized, yet had this regrettable tendency to have people
genocidally murdered. the forums had to "tidy up" even when the odds
were one in ten or one in five on Dr. Ron Paul getting his 1145 delegates.
admin + the mods tried to maximize the good doctor's chances. sofia had
to sit this one out on the sidelines while we all hashed over the campaign.

heavenlyboy34
01-09-2013, 10:58 PM
Well, in spite of our resident Hitler-lover giving him praise above, we all know Hitler was a royal pain in the ass, and we're better off for having squashed his regime before it bugged us any more.

That said, there's some useful stuff in this thread. Whenever someone poses the 'should government do ____?' question this is good stuff to toss into the conversation. You'll hear, 'But so-and-so isn't Hitler.' Your response should be, 'But (Dick Cheney or Nancy Pelosi, depending on your audience) could be elected to replace that person. Can he/she be trusted not to abuse that power?'

We have principles to sell. This is how to sell them.
Uh, no. It was stupid and unnecessary for Americans to get involved. The Soviets did the hard part and deserve the vast majority of credit for defeating the German forces. Another thing-if the US and Britain hadn't gotten into that mess, the Soviets and Germans would've fought to the end (Hitler was obsessed with "Judeo-Bolshevism"). It's highly unlikely that the German forces would've won considering the poor decisions by Hitler on down the command chain and the devastating terrain in East Europe. (the Germans failed to learn the lessons of Napoleon's epic fail in Russia).

pcosmar
01-09-2013, 11:01 PM
It is set up to encourage people to vote for "B" over "A". The results should not be a surprise at all. Line up the best of one candidate against the worst of the other and people will choose the best.

Hitler was elected. And was hugely popular.

And have you observed elections in this country lately?

heavenlyboy34
01-09-2013, 11:10 PM
Hitler was elected. And was hugely popular.

And have you observed elections in this country lately?
He was in fact a popular speaker in German bars and such gathering places before he got into politics.

Aratus
01-09-2013, 11:13 PM
the ability of the nazi dictator to reach out to people and project a positive image is at the core of the point the law professor was indeed making!

today we look at and listen to old newsreel footage but this only gives us all a loose idea of what went down in germany then. perhaps FDR was

more cerebral & detached due to his polio, and distant from people, but able to communicate effectively. if i had to choose between a very rabid

New Dealer or "Candidate B" i hope i'd vote for the new dealer, if "Candidate A" was not an option. did we survive because we chose the lesser of

two evils? are we inside today's debilitating economic malaise because we strayed away from the libertarian philosophy of our founding fathers?

Grubb556
01-09-2013, 11:20 PM
I'm surprised the "sends soldiers to foreign countries" wasn't a turn-off for candidate B.

Aratus
01-09-2013, 11:21 PM
james polk was our able potus during a war few questioned at the time...

Grubb556
01-09-2013, 11:22 PM
james polk was our able potus during a war few questioned at the time...

True, but to be fair people didn't have internet back then.

Aratus
01-09-2013, 11:23 PM
they could read newspapers...

tod evans
01-10-2013, 04:43 AM
I was immediately drawn to "A" due to his real world experience.

compromise
01-10-2013, 05:08 AM
ya might want to add that Candidate B brought unemployment down from 33% to just 2% in only three years. He did this by slashing taxes, ending government waste, abolishing "The Fed" , and issuing interest free currency. Candidate B was also the ONLY world leader of the 20th century to successfully defy the New World Order mafia (at least for 12 years)

just sayin

LOL...this place is teeming with fake libertarian nuts...

I agree the test was a little biased, but it could also shed light on why so many people back Obama. His Hitler description is much like many of the Obama descriptions in the liberal media.

Demigod
01-10-2013, 05:35 AM
ya might want to add that Candidate B brought unemployment down from 33% to just 2% in only three years. He did this by slashing taxes, ending government waste, abolishing "The Fed" , and issuing interest free currency. Candidate B was also the ONLY world leader of the 20th century to successfully defy the New World Order mafia (at least for 12 years)

just sayin

I think it was Hayek who said "If you send everyone to the army there would be no unemployment and nothing to eat" .The entire German nation was employed into the Army and various government agencies.And contrary to popular belief the German army was the worst equipped army in the war.Only their generals brilliance and crazy luck won them the the early success after which it was all downhill.
.

Demigod
01-10-2013, 05:44 AM
Uh, no. It was stupid and unnecessary for Americans to get involved. The Soviets did the hard part and deserve the vast majority of credit for defeating the German forces. Another thing-if the US and Britain hadn't gotten into that mess, the Soviets and Germans would've fought to the end (Hitler was obsessed with "Judeo-Bolshevism"). It's highly unlikely that the German forces would've won considering the poor decisions by Hitler on down the command chain and the devastating terrain in East Europe. (the Germans failed to learn the lessons of Napoleon's epic fail in Russia).

The USA and the UK invaded mainland Europe only to stop the Soviets from creating what would have been Euroasia. The Soviets would have went all the way to Spain and Sicily with no problem.There was ample communists in both France,Italy and Spain to create puppets.Then the cold war would have been a totally different game.

Aratus
01-10-2013, 03:15 PM
important point! 100,ooo thanx Demigod! ole harry s. truman was not a total idiot in his day...

heavenlyboy34
01-10-2013, 03:20 PM
The professor has a sense of humor.

I think he's trying to illustrate to his students that a fascist can sound popular.

Hitler's party won many seats on the back of the depression and the president was talked into making him Chancellor in a coalition government.
Keiser(sp?) von Bismarck, not president.

Aratus
01-10-2013, 03:25 PM
von hindenburg was the president of the ill fated weimar republic before
the nazi party triggered a false flag crisis that became a political coup...

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-10-2013, 07:47 PM
Uh, no. It was stupid and unnecessary for Americans to get involved. The Soviets did the hard part and deserve the vast majority of credit for defeating the German forces. Another thing-if the US and Britain hadn't gotten into that mess, the Soviets and Germans would've fought to the end (Hitler was obsessed with "Judeo-Bolshevism"). It's highly unlikely that the German forces would've won considering the poor decisions by Hitler on down the command chain and the devastating terrain in East Europe. (the Germans failed to learn the lessons of Napoleon's epic fail in Russia).

Uh. What about all those computer things? You know, Great Britain had a little computer going ding ding ding breaking the German codes. Backing that up was a much larger computer in the United States buried a lot deeper into the wood work so much so that it wasn't even revealed to exist until here recently. It was the real thing.
Significance?
Well, unbeknownst to the Germans, their planned invasion of Moscow got intercepted by the British and Americans and then passed along to the Russians well in advance of the offensive. And did Russia obliterate the Germans as a result? Hell no. The Germans still came close to winning.
You know, the Germans weren't the master race, but they sure did have a hell of a good argument.

Philhelm
01-10-2013, 07:59 PM
Keiser(sp?) von Bismarck, not president.

It was President Hindenburg. There was no Kaiser (i.e. King) after Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated following WWI and the Weimar Republic was created. Otto von Bismarck had been the "Iron Chancellor" under Kaiser Wilhelm I when the German nation was created and was dead before WWI had begun.

Confederate
01-10-2013, 08:16 PM
Keiser(sp?) von Bismarck, not president.

Kaiser = Emperor

Otto von Bismarck was Minister President of Prussia and then Chancellor of the German Empire under Kaisers Wilhelm I, Friedrich III, and Wilhelm II until 1890.

The President of the Weimar Republic when Hitler came into power was Paul von Hindenburg until his death in 1934.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-10-2013, 08:46 PM
Kaiser = Emperor

Otto von Bismarck was Minister President of Prussia and then Chancellor of the German Empire under Kaisers Wilhelm I, Friedrich III, and Wilhelm II until 1890.

The President of the Weimar Republic when Hitler came into power was Paul von Hindenburg until his death in 1934.

An emperor is a ruler over a "world" of many kings and kingdoms.

squarepusher
01-10-2013, 08:54 PM
ya might want to add that Candidate B brought unemployment down from 33% to just 2% in only three years. He did this by slashing taxes, ending government waste, abolishing "The Fed" , and issuing interest free currency. Candidate B was also the ONLY world leader of the 20th century to successfully defy the New World Order mafia (at least for 12 years)

just sayin

I knew this thread would attract the Stormfronters

TheGrinch
01-10-2013, 09:01 PM
Fails to mention "Candidate B" spent time in jail.

You clearly missed that the point of the exercise was not reality, but perception

John F Kennedy III
01-10-2013, 09:40 PM
Sad but not surprising. You'd get the same results if you could somehow have a real US Presidential election in this manner.

heavenlyboy34
01-10-2013, 10:03 PM
Kaiser = Emperor

Otto von Bismarck was Minister President of Prussia and then Chancellor of the German Empire under Kaisers Wilhelm I, Friedrich III, and Wilhelm II until 1890.

The President of the Weimar Republic when Hitler came into power was Paul von Hindenburg until his death in 1934.
That is exactly correct. Thanks for correcting me. :)

heavenlyboy34
01-10-2013, 10:08 PM
Uh. What about all those computer things? You know, Great Britain had a little computer going ding ding ding breaking the German codes. Backing that up was a much larger computer in the United States buried a lot deeper into the wood work so much so that it wasn't even revealed to exist until here recently. It was the real thing.
Significance?
Well, unbeknownst to the Germans, their planned invasion of Moscow got intercepted by the British and Americans and then passed along to the Russians well in advance of the offensive. And did Russia obliterate the Germans as a result? Hell no. The Germans still came close to winning.
You know, the Germans weren't the master race, but they sure did have a hell of a good argument.
I didn't say the Soviets obliterated the Germans. The Germans had superior weaponry and training. They lost for similar reasons Napoleon and others attempting to invade Russia lost-bad planning and the Russian winters. Hitler was kind of insane too, which didn't help.

acptulsa
01-11-2013, 09:03 AM
That is exactly correct. Thanks for correcting me. :)

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to help the powers that be lead us down the garden path.


I didn't say the Soviets obliterated the Germans. The Germans had superior weaponry and training. They lost for similar reasons Napoleon and others attempting to invade Russia lost-bad planning and the Russian winters. Hitler was kind of insane too, which didn't help.

Um, they almost obliterated each other. Sort of the slow version of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Demigod
01-11-2013, 09:44 AM
I didn't say the Soviets obliterated the Germans. The Germans had superior weaponry and training. They lost for similar reasons Napoleon and others attempting to invade Russia lost-bad planning and the Russian winters. Hitler was kind of insane too, which didn't help.

The Germans most certainly did not have better equipment then the Russians,what the Germans at the start of operation Barbarosa had was generals that were heads above their Russian politically positioned counterparts and new tactics that were far superior.The most important thing that the Germans did had was LUCK.

Stalin and the Red Army were preparing to invade Germany as soon as the Germans defeated the UK.This was their plan and why they signed a NAP with Nazi Germany.They wanted to let the Germans and France/UK go to war for a few years like they did in WW I and then when they were weak attack them both and take entire Europe in one sweep.This is also the reason why the Red Army sustained such casualties in the beginning of the war,they were preparing for an attack not for defense,without any defense the Germans with their blitzkrieg managed to encircle enormous Red Army units and capture them.Their entire force was preparing for a war that would come 2-3 years in the future and which would be an offensive one.This is also way Stalin was so stubborn that the Germans were not going to attack and that was because he had a plan in his head and he could not see what was happening before his eyes.( the same thing was planned for Japan where the SU had the same plan to wait for Japan to stretch it self to thin and then take everything in one sweep.If Japan had not surrendered to the USA in just more than a month the Red Army was preparing to invade from their Northern Islands ).

After the initial losses in tanks,aircraft and artillery were replaced and the politically positioned Generals were replaced with competent ones the German army could not win a single battle.At the end of the war the Red Army was the best trained,best lead and best equipped army.If Paton would have tried to go to Moscow it would have been a bloodbath but for his man.

.

Voluntary Man
01-11-2013, 09:47 AM
The test is not completely unbiased. The description of Candidate A includes lots of negatives









While the virtues of candidate B are all positives.









It is set up to encourage people to vote for "B" over "A". The results should not be a surprise at all. Line up the best of one candidate against the worst of the other and people will choose the best.

Nothing is unbiased. If you can't recognize bias, though, you probably shouldn't be a lawyer....or a voter.

Voluntary Man
01-11-2013, 10:08 AM
Line up the best of one candidate against the worst of the other and people will choose the best.

What planet do you live on? I'm packing my gear. All I need is an address.

Confederate
01-11-2013, 10:35 AM
An emperor is a ruler over a "world" of many kings and kingdoms.

Yes and that' what the Kaiser (Emporer) of Germany did. The Kaiser was also King of Prussia, but there were 26 other rulers who ruled over different sovereign territories under the German Empire.

For example, the King of Bavaria, Kingdom of Saxony, Kingdom of Württemberg, the Grand Duchy of Baden, the Principality of Lippe, and the Principality of Waldeck-Pyrmont among others. Each had its own ruler.

Aratus
01-11-2013, 03:02 PM
I knew this thread would attract the St#rmfr#nt#rs

the poster in question did have a ban placed on their opines for basically the full extent of 2012
due to the intense volatility of the election year. anything positive or negative about the head nazi
is definately predestined to go on someone's belated radar in more ways than one! the OP delves
into what good PR verses bad or lousy PR does for one's public image, and how the devil is in the
very details, how if you look at George Washington's participation in the French and Indian War as
well as how he demanded that the Constitution comes into being in the manner it does, he almost
looks like he was a driven as Napoleon was, even though he had an ego that was healthy and not
given to an egotistical meglomania equal to the French tinhorn & tyrant. the professor hit the class
square on how superficial perceptions can be, and how voting for precisely the wrong person dooms
a democracy or a republic. someone who is amoral tries to tailor a pitch to the crowd of the moment.

alucard13mmfmj
01-11-2013, 03:36 PM
kids are taught to share and to obey.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-11-2013, 04:39 PM
Yes and that' what the Kaiser (Emporer) of Germany did. The Kaiser was also King of Prussia, but there were 26 other rulers who ruled over different sovereign territories under the German Empire.

For example, the King of Bavaria, Kingdom of Saxony, Kingdom of Württemberg, the Grand Duchy of Baden, the Principality of Lippe, and the Principality of Waldeck-Pyrmont among others. Each had its own ruler.

I wasn't arguing. Most people think an emperor is the same as a king. When Jesus was being crucified, He acknowledged the authority of a king and a governor with these two being about equal in power. He abolished the position of emperor, which would have done away with the pope, replacing that higher authority with twelve apostles.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-11-2013, 04:49 PM
I didn't say the Soviets obliterated the Germans. The Germans had superior weaponry and training. They lost for similar reasons Napoleon and others attempting to invade Russia lost-bad planning and the Russian winters. Hitler was kind of insane too, which didn't help.

How many thousands of years are we going to allow ourselves to be suppressed into thinking Hitler was Satan? When people look back to this time, they are going to think of us as backwards believing in a primitive Godhood.

Hitler = God of evil.
Santa Clause = God of giving.
Obama = God
William F. Buckley = God of brain
Hilliary = goddess of man haters
Martin Luther King = God of one day off from school
Madonna = goddess of blonde slut

Aratus
01-11-2013, 04:57 PM
UEW--- some ten threads with Hitler videos or photos in 'em could bring any earnest campaign close to a swansong moment
despite the vast number of posters here in sincere ASCII again slamming into herr hister & his egomania as a response to
the same. after our poor "sofia" accused someone on the campaign of being totally "wus" soft on mr. mitt the year ban then
happened until we all saw how mitt's EGO flipflopped over and around mr. newt's bigger EGO. having tooooooooo many old
photos of "herr hister" onsite here has the RPF forums feeling almost comfy for crypto~fascists. it creates the very wrong vibe.

heavenlyboy34
01-11-2013, 05:09 PM
How many thousands of years are we going to allow ourselves to be suppressed into thinking Hitler was Satan? When people look back to this time, they are going to think of us as backwards believing in a primitive Godhood.

Hitler = God of evil.
Santa Clause = God of giving.
Obama = God
William F. Buckley = God of brain
Hilliary = goddess of man haters
Martin Luther King = God of one day off from school
Madonna = goddess of blonde slut
That's an amusing way to put it. Now that I think about it though, you're quite right. People in Western societies in particular have a way of deifying politicians. Even on this forum people worship the founding fathers without realizing the cultish nature of it.

heavenlyboy34
01-11-2013, 05:11 PM
Um, they almost obliterated each other. Sort of the slow version of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Never thought of it quite that way, and it strikes me as funny somehow. :D

TheTexan
01-11-2013, 05:17 PM
The test is not completely unbiased. The description of Candidate A includes lots of negatives

I stopped reading your post when you bolded "advocated secession" as a "negative."

You basically lost all credibility for this thread right there, sorry

Danke
01-11-2013, 05:20 PM
I stopped reading your post when you bolded "advocated secession" as a "negative."

You basically lost all credibility for this thread right there, sorry

"This thread?"

Zippy nearly always takes the mainstream/establishment position.

TheTexan
01-11-2013, 05:23 PM
"This thread?"

Zippy nearly always takes the mainstream/establishment position.

Ya I'm not sure exactly why he visits these boards. Unless he's DHS

Zippyjuan
01-11-2013, 06:58 PM
FEMA.

torchbearer
01-11-2013, 07:01 PM
FEMA.

Super Shelter.
I've been in it.

gwax23
01-11-2013, 07:30 PM
Hitler declared war on us. We had every just reason to go in. And as others have said at least we prevented a soviet takeover of the world as a indirect consequence of our intervention.

The soviets would not have been able to win without us. Without lend lease and the western front the soviets would of been forced to sign some sort of german favored peace agreement and loose most of its territory.

Same goes for the UK and other minor allies. They all would of been defeated eventually had we not intervened.

Also to that neonazi posing as a libertarian if you are trying to pretend that Hitlers economic policies were free market in nature you truly are delusional. The entire economy was in the hands of the state especially by the end of the war. It was corporatism meets socialism at its best.

Also I liked A immediately. Someone said A's description highlighted the worst qualities of the candidate. That cant be farther from the truth it highlighted their BEST qualities. It would of been an easy vote for me and I hope for most ppl on this forum save for the neonazi.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-11-2013, 07:43 PM
That's an amusing way to put it. Now that I think about it though, you're quite right. People in Western societies in particular have a way of deifying politicians. Even on this forum people worship the founding fathers without realizing the cultish nature of it.

That was a swipe and it hurt. I am from the south and revere and understand those Founders better than people who actually live up there in those little original thirteen colonies. My argument about Hitler is how similar he was to our present day president Obama. But he was more than just a pretty voice. Hitler wrote a book. He painted. According to General Rommel, Hitler had no fear for his own life. He was always complaining to him about exposing himself to enemy fire at the front and I'm not talking about anything having to do with his penis.
Oh, I'm sure one day president Obama will write a book. I do see a lot of similarities between both as I've often mentioned to my liberal friends while enjoying with them a cup of tea and a bit of marmalade on some dry toast. Both of them could be considered tyrants I guess you could say. You know, Obama was black and Hitler was white. So there is that. Ahem.

Zippyjuan
01-11-2013, 07:52 PM
Obama has written a book. Ron Paul has written books too. Ron Paul was white like Hitler too. And there are people who worship him too. (All of which means absolutely nothing).

Danke
01-11-2013, 07:58 PM
Obama has written a book. Ron Paul has written books too. Ron Paul was white like Hitler too. And there are people who worship him too. (All of which means absolutely nothing).

Content?

bolil
01-11-2013, 08:58 PM
As my philosophy professors would often claim, lawyers are irrational by nature as the endeavor of law is by nature irrational. Regarding getting things turned around in this nation, we need to establish that fact.

Or is language itself, while necessary for meaningful communication, vague and easily manipulated.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-11-2013, 09:05 PM
Or is language itself, while necessary for meaningful communication, vague and easily manipulated.

Indeed, like a tyrant king who decides to just misinterpret, misconstrue, and misunderstand everything written within your declaration of independence. During the times of our Founders, natural law was the system of science in use. That system reduced to absolute truths that were incomprehensible. Therefore, it was necessary to include an analysis along with that natural law truth that could be comprehended in a way that wasn't misinterpreted, misconstrued, or misunderstood. That is where the field of linguistics came from.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-11-2013, 09:11 PM
Obama has written a book. Ron Paul has written books too. Ron Paul was white like Hitler too. And there are people who worship him too. (All of which means absolutely nothing).

Our Founders set up the office of the president to be a part of a more perfect union. That means he or she is expected to serve as a necessary tyrant. The emphasis shouldn't be placed on the government, which is just as corrupt as it has always been, but on the people. The word tyranny and tyrant should never usher forth out of the mouth of president Obama or any president. Now, such shallowness should be expected of his speech writers.
What is Obama's book entitled? My struggle?

heavenlyboy34
01-11-2013, 09:24 PM
Indeed, like a tyrant king who decides to just misinterpret, misconstrue, and misunderstand everything written within your declaration of independence. During the times of our Founders, natural law was the system of science in use. That system reduced to absolute truths that were incomprehensible. Therefore, it was necessary to include an analysis along with that natural law truth that could be comprehended in a way that wasn't misinterpreted, misconstrued, or misunderstood. That is where the field of linguistics came from.
No. The field of linguistics developed as an attempt to scientifically understand the nature of language in the general sense. For example, linguists developed language families-Indo- European, Niger-Congo, etc. Linguistics does not even attempt to deal with abstract philosophical concepts. That is something translators and philosophers do.

gwax23
01-11-2013, 09:30 PM
It just happens that some Linguistics such as Noam Chomsky decide they are also qualified economists and political scientists. But this is a problem through out the left wing controlled academia.

bolil
01-11-2013, 09:45 PM
I would not call language the tyrant, but the oppressed. I do not think absolute truths are incomprehensible, I believe they are the simple soil (composed of many basic elements) from which complex organisms can grow. There are not many absolute truths and the ones I believe are: I exist, you exist, it exists. From that absolute, and may I say, existential truth natural law and the rights ordained by it grow. I can defend my existence, you can defend your existence, it can defend its existence. We have our brains, they have their claws/thorns/poisons/fangs et al that providence or nature prescribed. Do all rights rest on sacred self defense? I believe it so.