Dammit... I dont know where I stand anymore ><

[Tamacracker]

Well today I was doing some research and after reading this I kinda fealt backstabbed... well here it is:

How the Patriot Act Compares to Hitler's Ermächtigungsgesetz
1) How the Patriot Act Compares to Hitler's Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act)

On March 23, 1933, the newly elected members of the Reichstag met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's "Ermächtigungsgesetz". The "Enabling Act" was officially called the 'Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.'

Opponents to the bill argued that if it was passed, it would end democracy in Germany and establish a legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. To soften resistance to the passing of the Enabling Act, the Nazis secretly caused confusion in order to create an atmosphere in which the law seem necessary to restore order.

On February 27, 1933, Nazis burned the Reichstag building, and a seat of the German government, causing frenzy and outrage. They successfully blamed the fire on the Communists, and claimed it marked the beginning of a widespread terrorism and unrest threatening the safety of the German "Homeland." On the day of the vote, Nazi storm troopers gathered around the opera house chanting, "Full powers - or else! We want the bill - or fire and murder!"

The Nazis used the opportunity to arrest 4,000 communists. Not only did the Nazis use the incident as a propaganda against communists but they also arrested additional 40,000 members of the opposition. Consequently, the Nazis had achieved their objective of eliminating democracy and ensuring their majority in the parliament.

After the fire on February 28, 1933, president Hindenburg and Hitler invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permitted the suspension of civil liberties during national emergencies. Some examples of this Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State abrogated the following constitutional protections: Freedom of the press, free expression of opinion, individual property rights, right of assembly and association, right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, states´ rights of self-government, and protection against unlawful searches and seizures.

Before the vote, Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint. He also promised to end unemployment and promote multilateral peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union.

In order to accomplish all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act. Since this act would alter the German constitution, a two-thirds majority was necessary. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. The Center Party provided these votes after Hitler made a false promise to them. Four hundred and forty votes were registered for the Enabling Act, while a mere 84 votes were opposed – the social Democrats. In glory the Nazi Party stood to their feet and sang the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song. The German Democratic party had finally been eliminated, and Hitler’s dream for Nazi command became closer to reality.

The Enabling Act granted Hitler the power he craved and could use without objection from the Reichstag. Shortly after the passing of The Enabling Act all other political parties were dissolved. Trade unions were liquidated and opposition clergy were arrested. The Nazi party had, as Hitler said, become the state. By August 1934, Hitler became commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This was in addition to being President and Führer of the German Reich, to whom every individual in the armed forces pledged unconditional obedience. The Reichstag was no longer a place for debate, but rather a cheering squad in favor of whatever Hitler might say.

2) A 21st Century Comparison of The Enabling Act and The Patriot Act

Last September, German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin pointed out that George Bush is using Iraq to distract the American public from his failed domestic policies. She capped her statement by reminding her audience: "That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that." What was lost in the reactions to Ms. Daeubler-Gmelin's comments was that she wasn't comparing Bush to the Hitler of the late 1930s and early 1940s; but to the Hitler of the late 1920s and early 1930s.

Most Americans have forgotten that Hitler came to power legally. He and the Nazi Party were elected democratically in a time of great national turmoil and crisis. They themselves had done much to cause the turmoil, of course, but that's what makes the Bush comparison so compelling.

Similar to the Bush administration, the Nazis were funded and ultimately ushered into power by wealthy industrialists looking for government favors in the form of tax breaks, big subsidies, and laws to weaken the rights of workers. When the Reichstag (Germany's Parliament building) was set ablaze in 1933 (probably by Nazis), the Nazis framed their political rivals for it. In the general panic that followed, the German Parliament was purged of all left-wing representatives who might be soft on communists and foreigners, and the few who remained then VOTED to grant Chancellor Hitler dictatorial powers. A long, hideous nightmare had begun.

History teaches us that it is shockingly easy to separate reasonable and intelligent people from their rights. A legally elected leader and party can easily manipulate national events to whip up fear, crucify scapegoats, gag dissenters, and convince the masses that their liberties must be suspended (temporarily, of course) in the name of restoring order. Consider the following two statements, and see if you can identify the authors.

Statement Number One: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Statement Number Two: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."

The first statement is a quote from Hitler's right hand man, Hermann Goering, explaining at his war crimes trial how easily he and his fellow Nazis hijacked Germany's democratic government. The second statement is a quote from Bush's right hand man, John Ashcroft, defending the Patriot Act and explaining why dissent will no longer be tolerated in the age of terrorism. If that doesn't send chills down your spine, nothing will.

When the shooting started at Lexington Green in 1775, those calling themselves patriots were the men and women who refused to yield their rights to an increasingly oppressive government. Today, according to John Ashcroft and his Patriot Act of 2001, a patriot is someone who kneels down in fear, and hands over his or her rights to the government in the name of fighting terrorism. Isn't the hypocrisy of this all too obvious? The Bush administration wants us to fight in Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq, and to fight wherever terrorists may be hiding. And what, pray tell, are we fighting for? Well, according to the White House, we're fighting for freedom. Yet freedom is exactly what the White House is demanding that we now SURRENDER in the name of fighting terrorism.

So what's really going on? Well, it's all a lie, of course. The Bush administration isn't any more interested in protecting our freedom from terrorists than Hitler was in protecting Germans from communists, Jews, and all the other groups he scapegoated. The Bush administration is fighting only to protect itself and its corporate sponsors. It hides behind a veil of national security and behind non-stop war headlines of its own creation. And behind that smokescreen, Bush, Inc. is pursuing Hitler’s old agenda from the 1920s and 1930s: serving the interests of the corporate industrialists who brought it to power.

There is a name for governments that serve the interests of Big Business at the expense of their own citizens: fascist. Here's a short list of the rights we've already surrendered since the September 11 attacks. Most of these abuses are from a single piece of legislation called the Patriot Act of 2001, which was rushed through Congress with no debate in the aftermath of the attacks. Many of the Congressmen who voted for it later admitted that they hadn't even read it at the time.

I'll admit it... Bush does lie and so does Kerry and he's given horrible low blows against Bush. Now I just dont know what the hell... This was the best comparison that made the best proof of what's really going on. I used to be all for Bush but as election day comes closer I keep findin more and more reasons why I shouldnt trust Bush with his tactics.

[Tamacracker]

This is my source:
http://www.furnitureforthepeople.com/actpat.htm

[honeybbqgrundle]

Even though it's funny to compare Bush to Hitler, it's not really fair. I hate Bush, but even that comparison is stretching it. The funny thing is that while people who say they're similar think it'll open people's eyes and get their attention it does just the opposite; people immediately ignore them and label them as conspiracy theorists.

What IS fair to say though is that Bush has misled the country for his own personal and political gain. He knew that people automatically trust their leaders and go along with them if persuaded enough. People always say not to trust anyone and be cautious of their motives, but if that person is the president he's immediately trusted. Heads of oil companies are obviously greedy and only care about money, but once they become president they change lol.

[Deadgame]

Originally Posted by honeybbqgrundle

Even though it's funny to compare Bush to Hitler, it's not really fair. I hate Bush, but even that comparison is stretching it. The funny thing is that while people who say they're similar think it'll open people's eyes and get their attention it does just the opposite; people immediately ignore them and label them as conspiracy theorists.

What IS fair to say though is that Bush has misled the country for his own personal and political gain. He knew that people automatically trust their leaders and go along with them if persuaded enough. People always say not to trust anyone and be cautious of their motives, but if that person is the president he's immediately trusted. Heads of oil companies are obviously greedy and only care about money, but once they become president they change lol.

Political gain? You think he went to war to win a easy election?

[Tamacracker]

Yeah but you know what I also see in this article.. what if.. Bush/CIA/FBI new what exactly was gonna happen on 9/11 and used that to distract us while he did his sneaky deeds, then to keep doing his sneaky deeds, he would claim war on terrorism. Ack **** man... see what I mean? I dont even know what the hell to trust in, but this article caught my attention damn well.

[Deadgame]

Originally Posted by Tamacracker

Yeah but you know what I also see in this article.. what if.. Bush/CIA/FBI new what exactly was gonna happen on 9/11 and used that to distract us while he did his sneaky deeds, then to keep doing his sneaky deeds, he would claim war on terrorism. Ack **** man... see what I mean? I dont even know what the hell to trust in, but this article caught my attention damn well.

For what gain? Another 4 years in office?

[Tamacracker]

Originally Posted by Deadgame

For what gain? Another 4 years in office?

Bro that's what I'm saying man, I dont know what it is he's really doing.
I'm going to do more research of course, maybe figure out what his motives really are.

[milo34]

Originally Posted by Tamacracker

Well today I was doing some research and after reading this I kinda fealt backstabbed... well here it is:

at least you're thinking for yourself.
you'll find that the more you know about your leaders, the less you want to know what they do. (if that makes sense lol).
'trust' is not a word synonymous with political office. all you can do is pray that your officials do what they are supposed to do: i.e. serve the public. (not themselves, or corporations, or pressure groups etc...)

[honeybbqgrundle]

Originally Posted by Deadgame

For what gain? Another 4 years in office?

For oil and a strategic position in the area? He doesn't still have to be in office to benefit from it.

[Tamacracker]

Originally Posted by milo34

at least you're thinking for yourself.
you'll find that the more you know about your leaders, the less you want to know what they do. (if that makes sense lol).
'trust' is not a word synonymous with political office. all you can do is pray that your officials do what they are supposed to do: i.e. serve the public. (not themselves, or corporations, or pressure groups etc...)

Exactly >< I dont know who's telling the truth I swear just this once I wish I can see into the future.. or get a hint on who not to trust.. but it isn't that easy.

[mariners216]

Good post.

[Deadgame]

Originally Posted by honeybbqgrundle

For oil and a strategic position in the area? He doesn't still have to be in office to benefit from it.

Then I think for those reason the Us as a whole benefits.

[Snoopis]

I agreed with a lot of it, but I drew the line here:

Originally Posted by Tamacracker

So what's really going on? Well, it's all a lie, of course. The Bush administration isn't any more interested in protecting our freedom from terrorists than Hitler was in protecting Germans from communists, Jews, and all the other groups he scapegoated. The Bush administration is fighting only to protect itself and its corporate sponsors. It hides behind a veil of national security and behind non-stop war headlines of its own creation. And behind that smokescreen, Bush, Inc. is pursuing Hitler’s old agenda from the 1920s and 1930s: serving the interests of the corporate industrialists who brought it to power.

There is a name for governments that serve the interests of Big Business at the expense of their own citizens: fascist. Here's a short list of the rights we've already surrendered since the September 11 attacks. Most of these abuses are from a single piece of legislation called the Patriot Act of 2001, which was rushed through Congress with no debate in the aftermath of the attacks. Many of the Congressmen who voted for it later admitted that they hadn't even read it at the time.

All politicians serve interests of corporate industrialists(or Unions, or what have you). I would probably be more likely to believe them if they just said "Bush wants to take over the world."

Further, I doubt most of the people congress read half the bills they vote for/against. They all have staffers that read it, and most of them probably just skim through it for general ideas, without paying close attention to how things are worded. The current federal educational curriculum was passed in a similar way. Everyone was told it was "optional," but the fine print says the schools will lose all their federal funds if they don't follow it. Now how many schools are going to say "no" to that money?

Also, most of these rights were given up long before the Patriot Act(which I agree was horribly named). A lot of the wire taps and arrests and that sort of thing have been used for years in the War on Drugs. It just has a new label now- which not only gains some votes by people who want the PA to protect them from terrorism, but also keeps us busy arguing over it while the government goes on about it's (dirty) business.

A current example of something like this is how they want to kill the 527 adds. Free speech? Sure, but we're gonna tax you into the stone age for it!


This thread is just one more reason that I support the 2nd Amendment. A lot of people think we are immune to events like Nazi Germany or Red China, but history does repeat itself, especially when people are ignorant of that history. And you have to admit most of us don't know JACK about history. In school they teach you a few names and dates, tell you who was good or evil, and that's about it. I don't expect us to turn into Nazi Germany any time soon, but that doens't mean it can't happen 50 or 100 years from now. The PA may or may not have opened the door, but you know about the frog in the pan: You can't put a frog in a pan of boiling water because he'll jump out, but put him in a pan of cool water and slowly turn up the heat...

[Kane Fan]

Originally Posted by Tamacracker

This is my source:
http://www.furnitureforthepeople.com/actpat.htm

it would seem the author was somewhat biased
there really are no comparisions that I saw...
I don't hear Bush asking the Democratic party to disolve
or asking to be elected to more then 2 terms in office
etc
there is really nothing remotly similar that did not already exist under American law

may I also mention that Hitler didn't think individual citizens should be able to own guns...
just saying
the left and right both have some things in common with Hitler, but not what the article has outlined
at least not that I caught

[Kane Fan]

Originally Posted by Tamacracker

Bro that's what I'm saying man, I dont know what it is he's really doing.
I'm going to do more research of course, maybe figure out what his motives really are.

it's good that you want to think for yourself but it dosn't appear to be working...
I mean that not as an insult but as a fact
you read a biased article and decide to start looking into Bush, but you have already decided he's out for some type of gain, you wanna know what his 'motives' are...
ok find out kerry's to...and make sure not to just go to websites that are antibush when you 'decide' if Bush is a good guy or not

[Diesel66]

There is only two people in the world that can be compared to hitler with some kind of logic Stalin and Mao. They are the only people that have murdered at least 15 million people.

Plus the millions more that died from wars they started and starvation from idiotic control of the food supply.

[Tamacracker]

Well yeah I'll do research on both. And this isn't the only thing I've looked up as to what made think twice about Bush.. there's more... alot more. But I dont find it true really. Anyways tonight's the debate @ University of Miami.
I also saw some channel that's basically county wise and they were there watching Bush and Kerry rehearsing.. I think that's how it's spelled ><
Anyways, I thought in debates they have their notes and would be ready to answer questions... any questions. Ah well lets see what happens tonight.

[rottie]

gotta watch it comparing Bush to Hitler around here. there are people that say its ridiculous because Hitler was a dictator, and Bush isn't. And the good ol standby " that wont happen in America."

They learn not from History. Hitler wasn't a dictator from the beginning either, but he turned into one..

[Tamacracker]

Originally Posted by rottie

gotta watch it comparing Bush to Hitler around here. there are people that say its ridiculous because Hitler was a dictator, and Bush isn't. And the good ol standby " that wont happen in America."

They learn not from History. Hitler wasn't a dictator from the beginning either, but he turned into one..

<----

Exactly, soo many people think oh this is the U.S. this and that will never happen, we'll never stand for it. Yeah well check things to make sure what you read is worded the right way, too many slick mother you know whats in this world. By me saying that is we might be tricked, or not even care to read thoroughly what the president's future plans are.

[philhill4]

Anyone who compares or tries to imply some moral or factual equality between the patriot act and/or Bush and Hitler/Nazis is out of their minds.

[rottie]

Originally Posted by philhill4

Anyone who compares or tries to imply some moral or factual equality between the patriot act and/or Bush and Hitler/Nazis is out of their minds.

See what I mean Tamacracker?


History and facts don't mean anything. you are just out of your mind, and thats the end of it.

And you wonder which side to vote for? they say your out of your mind for even daring to question Bush, yet you still may vote for him?

People that dont see the parallels between the two, are either not looking at the evidence objectively, or don't want to see what they are seeing.

[rottie]

check this out Tamacracker. If this were you in history class, and at the end of the lesson you were asked what the leaders name was, what would you write down?

Some time soon, in a month or two, students in a history class will crack open their books and read about a leader who came into power with a minority of the vote, installed by a special group in the political establishment. They will learn that shortly after he took office, a well-known national symbol was attacked and destroyed, and they will find out that the leader responded harshly: rounding up thousands of people, detaining them without trial, and torturing them. They will be taught how, with the intimidated cooperation of the nation's legislature, he repealed long-standing liberties, and how he used special laws and measures against one minority group in particular, claiming it was justified by their actions against the nation and their alleged international connections, and even implying that it was for their own protection. They will learn that too many "good people" did nothing and they will study the intellectuals who made a few objections around the edges, while overall echoing the leader that "yes, steps must be taken."

They will study how the leader fabricated threats to his country as a justification for unprovoked wars, and how his handlers produced militaristic spectaculars to invest him with an aura of greatness. The students will read his speeches, full of great hopes for his people and great optimism for their future--while subtly signalling his much more repressive, restrictive program to his closest core followers.

[aserecuba2]

down with bush

[philhill4]

Originally Posted by rottie

See what I mean Tamacracker?


History and facts don't mean anything. you are just out of your mind, and thats the end of it.

And you wonder which side to vote for? they say your out of your mind for even daring to question Bush, yet you still may vote for him?

People that dont see the parallels between the two, are either not looking at the evidence objectively, or don't want to see what they are seeing.

Rottie enough with this crap. There are no parallels between them at all.

As for questioning the president go ahead. It doesn't bother me when people have a different opinion or want to question policy. Please do but DO NOT COMPARE THIS PRESIDENT OR THE PATRIOT ACT TO HITLER/NAZI.

[philhill4]

Originally Posted by rottie

check this out Tamacracker. If this were you in history class, and at the end of the lesson you were asked what the leaders name was, what would you write down?

Some time soon, in a month or two, students in a history class will crack open their books and read about a leader who came into power with a minority of the vote, installed by a special group in the political establishment. They will learn that shortly after he took office, a well-known national symbol was attacked and destroyed, and they will find out that the leader responded harshly: rounding up thousands of people, detaining them without trial, and torturing them. They will be taught how, with the intimidated cooperation of the nation's legislature, he repealed long-standing liberties, and how he used special laws and measures against one minority group in particular, claiming it was justified by their actions against the nation and their alleged international connections, and even implying that it was for their own protection. They will learn that too many "good people" did nothing and they will study the intellectuals who made a few objections around the edges, while overall echoing the leader that "yes, steps must be taken."

They will study how the leader fabricated threats to his country as a justification for unprovoked wars, and how his handlers produced militaristic spectaculars to invest him with an aura of greatness. The students will read his speeches, full of great hopes for his people and great optimism for their future--while subtly signalling his much more repressive, restrictive program to his closest core followers.

They will also learn that if the president before him named Bill Clinton had done his job properly we probably wouldn't have been attacked at all. They will learn how Clinton sat on his fat f*cking ass for 8 years and did nothing but look at polls, kiss hollywoods ass and get his d*ck sucked by a fat whore.

THAT IS THE ****ING TRUTH. WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. THE TERRORISTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN F*CKING DESTROYED YEARS AGO.

Seriously when the hell did people become such god dam p*ssies.

[philhill4]

Clinton Had 8 F*cking Years And 6 Direct Attacks On American Interests And He Didn't Do A Thing About It. Why Does This Not Piss People Off More?

[rottie]

Originally Posted by philhill4

They will also learn that if the president before him named Bill Clinton had done his job properly we probably wouldn't have been attacked at all. They will learn how Clinton sat on his fat f*cking ass for 8 years and did nothing but look at polls, kiss hollywoods ass and get his d*ck sucked by a fat whore.

THAT IS THE ****ING TRUTH. WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. THE TERRORISTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN F*CKING DESTROYED YEARS AGO.

Seriously when the hell did people become such god dam p*ssies.

actually, if Reagan had done HIS job when the marine barracks were blown up in Lebanon in 1983, then none of this would have started.

Hell even Osama Bin Laden pointed to Reagans response to the attack as proof of American cowardice.

[rottie]

Originally Posted by philhill4

Clinton Had 8 F*cking Years And 6 Direct Attacks On American Interests And He Didn't Do A Thing About It. Why Does This Not Piss People Off More?

Yeah, and Reagan and Bush Sr. glad handed to the Taliban, and Saddam during thier years in power, pissing off multiple chances to take BOTH regimes out.

What your point son? got a hard on for ol' Billy Clinton?

[Snoopis]

Originally Posted by philhill4

Clinton Had 8 F*cking Years And 6 Direct Attacks On American Interests And He Didn't Do A Thing About It. Why Does This Not Piss People Off More?

I won't say that Bush is taking away our rights or compare him to Hitler, I'll leave that choice up to you. But in most cases I think I'd rather have a president who does nothing, then a president who takes away my rights.

[rottie]

Originally Posted by philhill4

Rottie enough with this crap. There are no parallels between them at all.

As for questioning the president go ahead. It doesn't bother me when people have a different opinion or want to question policy. Please do but DO NOT COMPARE THIS PRESIDENT OR THE PATRIOT ACT TO HITLER/NAZI.

No, not enough of this crap at all. The proof is in the pudding.

there are certainly parallels between the two, and if there weren't i'd be the first to defend him even though i dont like him.