Predictably, this leads to many confrontations over the inter-webs as it appears this unbelievably irrational and stupid argument is also my Achilles heel so to speak. I cannot simply walk away from this argument. This is one I have to have whenever it is presented to me. Therefore, it is not unusual nor unpredictable that I would comment upon one of the many "Obama is Hitler" articles floating in cyberspace. Honestly, it seems to be a fairly restrained comment upon said ridiculous argument. Here it is:
Son of a...really. I
am so tired of this argument. It is stupid and pointless and does a disservice
to anyone who was effected by Hitler and Stalin. If Obama were anything like
Hitler and Stalin we would not be having this conversation...because the e-mails
would have never made it out, the articles would never go to press and those
who spouted such would mysteriously disappear. Since the tea party still exists
and has this little thing called freedom of speech it goes to follow that Obama
is NOT Hitler. Grow up and read a history book. http://wp.me/p33Zln-5h
See. Short, sweet and not too terribly snarky. I even linked to a full article upon the subject. That was 7 months ago. Flash forward to today, when I receive a horrid reply to my comment. First, it is not that someone disagreed with me (I love to debate). Nor is it really the fact that the comment came 7 months after the fact. Know what, I will just show you the comments and let y'all figure out why I was perturbed (the poor persons intelligence level is not high enough to elicit anger).
your retarded. he is
still restrained by the constitution but he is workling on erasing that for the
next elitsist scumbag to take office.. and i have read plenty of history
books,.im a phi alpha theta historian.. you def are clueless because hitler
worked for the same family obama does, the rothschilds.. your the one who needs
ot go back and read history .. and stop posting misinformation as it makes u
look like a hasbara troll. say hello to lord rothschild for me, k?
Red pen itching to attack said statement aside, I had fully planned on ignoring such a statement. I felt, that it was out of place and inaccurate. That and the author seemed to display a tendency towards paranoia and delusions along with a significant lack of grammar skills, despite claiming to be educated. That is until this little nugget showed up shortly afterwards.
and obama has signed
several exectutive orders including the NDAA and yes, gun control that are in
direct violation of the constitution..thats called being a criminal.. shall not
be infringed is not written there to be glossed over,.. duh.. NO,YOU!! GO BACK
TO HISTORY CLASS!! AND TRY READING THE CONSTITUTION NEXT TIME BEFORE ADOLF
NIGLER DECIDES TO WIPE HIS ASS WITH IT WITH ONE OF HIS JEW CENTRAL BANKERS
LOBBY MONEY.. IDIOT !!!
Annddd there I go. I still pity the poor being because he is now very obviously a paranoid and racist idiot, but now I am pissed. For future reference, unfettered racism will also send me into a tailspin of pissy. So, inaccurate comparisons to Hitler and racism piss me off...a lot...and this poor bastard manages to hit both buttons. Response is definitely required at this point, but I do try to keep it calm and collected...except here, here is where I get to say whatever the fuck I want. Anyway, here is my response to the above described asshole.
Wow, were to
start. Ok, Rothschild's. History tells a different story,
having your bank taken over by the Nazi party and having to flee your country
does not really equate to working for Hitler, now does it. Yes, they are
a large banking family with lots of influence. They are also a large
family and members of families don't necessarily hold the same views as
others. I am sure the Rothschild's that fled to the states to escape the
Holocaust didn't hold the same views as Lord Victor Rothschild, whose only
crime, it seems is to oppose granting asylum to Jewish refugees...an ass,
granted, but hardly representative of such a large family. My point still
stands, if Obama were like Hitler or Stalin those who spoke against his actions
would mysteriously disappear.
My grandmother grew
up in the Ukraine under Stalin's thumb, when Hitler invaded she was captured
and forced into slavery. She survived what millions did not through
nothing more than tenacity and luck. To equate Obama with men who
slaughtered millions and demanded, through use of force, unwavering loyalty is
an unconscionable exaggeration. It diminishes the suffering of those,
like my grandmother, who were forced to endure actual tyranny. To even
begin to think that you can equate the two shows not only a lack of
understanding as to what tyranny is but also a disgusting example of
egocentrism.
So, on to
Obama. First the NDAA is a federal law, written by Congress, every
year. This is the bill that funds our military. If the President had not
signed the bill our military would have gone unfunded. If you have issues
with certain aspects of the most recent versions of NDAA I suggest you take it
up with the Republicans in congress who authored these most contested
sections. Obama is not the only President to sign Executive Orders.
Every President save one (W.H. Harrison, only served 30 days) has had numerous
EO's. Last I counted Obama has had fewer in the same amount of time as
Reagan, Clinton and G.W.Bush. Furthermore, none of his EO's are any more
radical than previous EO's. In fact, compared to some of his predecessors
Obama's EO's are fairly minor. They also in no way, violate the
constitution. Even if they did, and he were a criminal, you cannot equate
him to Hitler. Hitler was a criminal but not all criminals are Hitler,
got it. Until someone kills millions of people attempting to wipe an
entire group of people of the planet you cannot equate them to Hitler.
Furthermore, not
only does the grammatical and historical inaccuracies lead me to doubt your
educational level, the language of your final sentence brands you as a racist
with more then a hint of paranoia. I suggest, you sir, go back and take a
look at history. The Constitution may say "shall not be infringed" (course it also mentions a well-regulated militia) but the
Constitution also gives the Supreme Court the ability to interpret the
law. As of 2008, the court has seen the 2nd amendment thusly, "Like
most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to
keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the
Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and
the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts
of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the
historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual
weapons."
So, according to the
ruling in DC v. Heller, 2008, written by conservative justice Antonin Scalia,
the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. Hence, restrictions as to the types of
weapons owned and who can own them are, in fact, constitutional. Before
you scream at someone, spout racial epithets, and call people names you should
at least know what you are talking about. You sir, clearly, know very
little about history, our constitution and the way our government works.
Good day.
Anyway, hope you enjoyed my little 'sound off' and thanks for listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment