Do most people secretly admire Adolf Hitler?

[Winston]

Ok let's do a poll to see how many forum members here secretly admire Hitler. I just added a poll to this thread. Cast your vote above about whether you secretly admire Hitler or not. Remember that this poll is ANONYMOUS so no one will know how you voted. That way, you can vote honestly without fearing taboo.

[fschmidt]

Why is he evil and she isn't?

They are both evil.

[MrPeabody]

Bill Ayers, who was Obama's mentor? Small world!

Yes, that is the same Bill Ayers, friend of the president. And yes they were that bad. The terrorists of the 1960s who bombed buildings and killed people are now in power in the United States. And not just Dohrn but thousands of them. Can you believe Dohrn who joked and mocked murder victims is now a Law Professor? Doesn't that make your jaw drop? And these people will also gleefully populate the ObamaCare Death Panels that will ration your medical care when you need a life saving operation. One of the key architects of Obamacare was Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. His father was a member of the terrorist group Irgun.

"Betsy McCaughey described Ezekiel Emanuel as a "Deadly Doctor" in a New York Post opinion article. The article, which accused Emanuel of advocating healthcare rationing by age and disability, was quoted from on the floor of the House of Representatives by Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Sarah Palin cited the Bachmann speech and said that Emanuel's philosophy was "Orwellian" and "downright evil", and tied it to a health care reform end of life counseling provision she claimed would create a "death panel".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezekiel_Emanuel

[Jackal]

Ok let's do a poll to see how many forum members here secretly admire Hitler.

Why did you only put the two extremes as options in the poll?
I don't admire Hitler, but I can still see him as a human being and not simply as a "monster" or as a stereotype. I have sympathy for how he suffered as a child, although I don't approve of most of his actions as an adult.

I don't think most Americans secretly admire Hitler, but I do think that most Americans are secretly interested in him because he was an eccentric, powerful, and famous person.

But at the end of the day, most Americans don't really have any ethical principles and just worship money. If Hitler all of a sudden came to their town and opened a big new business and was hiring, most Americans would be like "Eh, f**k it, money is money" and apply for a job there anyway! lol

An American friend of mine used to have no interest in foreigners whatsoever, but now he works for a company run by a German guy (i.e. a German is giving him money each month) and now he acts all interested in European culture! lol

[Jester]

Also, among historians and religious scholars, there is debate about whether Jesus even existed, since there are no historical records about him at the time he supposedly lived.

All the remaining eleven apostles continued preaching the Good News. They suffered torture, imprisonment, and in some cases gruesome death. If Jesus never existed, why would they do it?

Or maybe they didn't exist either?

Having to prove a historical figure existed is pretty lame. I mean can you prove that Alexander the Great existed?

Like Alexander, Jesus's birthplace and the place of his death are known.

We know similar information about Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as "Buddha", but with much less precision than we do about Jesus. Maybe Buddha never existed too?

Who else never existed?

Jesus's maternal ancestry is precisely known. His stepfather's ancestry is precisely known. (1st chapter of the Gospel of Matthew). Jews and atheists generally have claimed that Jesus was Joseph's natural son, or at least Mary's. But that he never existed? Not even atheists and jews have ever been that mixed up.

We know more about Jesus's family, friends, and enemies than we do about yours, Winston.

So maybe YOU don't exist. Can you prove that you exist?

Pretending someone didn't exist, so you don't have to face the question of who He really is -- is ostrich-like.

[MrPeabody]

I can't say that I admire Hitler or any other politician. For me it is really a matter of what is the truth. If he even killed a few hundred innocent people, then I can't say that I admire him. The problem is we don't know because we are still too close to the events and this is still a political football and the official sources are untrustworthy. In many parts of the world it is a crime to challenge the official view of Hitler. This shows you how important the thugs in power consider this issue. When it is a crime to do historical research then you just have to punt and say you don't know. When Napoleon was alive, many people considered him evil. Now, he is considered one of the greatest heroes of the French nation. The historians will have the final verdict and we will not be alive to hear it. From my own research, I think Bismarck was still the greatest leader of Germany.

[Cornfed]

Some say Hitler was a Jew and British agent, Rothschild bastard etc. This may well be true, in which case he is not admirable. Just to take things at face value though, he rose from humble origins to be a genuine war hero, gifted public speaker, best selling author, was adored by millions - including the poor who he seemed to care deeply about, and did an awful lot of good for his people. A lot of what he talked about, such as the unsustainability of European empires of the time and the Fuhrer Princip (or its conscious avoidance) is accepted common sense now. Clearly a perceptive, intelligent and public spirited guy. If he was working for the scum, perhaps that was the point. To present and then discredit a great guy, so that white people would no longer aspire to greatness. But if he was on the level then I don't see how it is reasonable to withhold admiration. One might say that he brought his country to ruin by standing up to the Jews/banksters, but then not doing so would have ruined the country anyway. Look at what is happening to white South Africa today.

[Jester]

Just to take things at face value though, he rose from humble origins to be a genuine war hero, gifted public speaker, best selling author, was adored by millions - including the poor who he seemed to care deeply about, and did an awful lot of good for his people.

Certainly. freeways, affordable cars, freedom from Communism, ocean cruises for workers, 6 week vacations, spas and homeopathy paid for by health insurance...

A lot of what he talked about, such as the unsustainability of European empires of the time and the Fuhrer Princip (or its conscious avoidance) is accepted common sense now.

In what way? I thought he SUPPORTED the British Empire, no?

And what is the FuhrerPrinzip? Thats the part of National Socialism that scares me, as a father and as an American. His name on sleeves, loyalty oaths, Hitler Youth...I am curious what he said about the FuhrerPrinzip!

Clearly a perceptive, intelligent and public spirited guy.
If he was working for the scum, perhaps that was the point. To present and then discredit a great guy, so that white people would no longer aspire to greatness. But if he was on the level then I don't see how it is reasonable to withhold admiration.

This is like when people say Alex Jones is a traitor, this guy is a traitor, that guy is a traitor, blah blah. We are ALL human, but the enemy is not powerful enough to concoct all the schemes we give them credit for. Did the Rothschilds slip some dough to Hitler to promote him over his rivals - judging him the one they could bait into war? Sure. But no way he knew the game.

One might say that he brought his country to ruin by standing up to the Jews/banksters, but then not doing so would have ruined the country anyway. Look at what is happening to white South Africa today.

Good point. And to be fair, to Blacks in South Africa as well. Gangs, crime, AIDS, rapes, undermining of local leaders...

Still I judge Hitler a military-adventuristwho invaded Poland when he could have waited 10 years, and got what was truly German through peaceful means, with a fleet of nuclear-armed jets overhead. Time was on his side. He was rash.

[Winston]

Also, among historians and religious scholars, there is debate about whether Jesus even existed, since there are no historical records about him at the time he supposedly lived.

All the remaining eleven apostles continued preaching the Good News. They suffered torture, imprisonment, and in some cases gruesome death. If Jesus never existed, why would they do it?

Or maybe they didn't exist either?

Having to prove a historical figure existed is pretty lame. I mean can you prove that Alexander the Great existed?

That's a lame argument debunked long ago. You can't use fiction to support fiction. I can say that Superman must have powers because lots of people in Metropolis saw him fly and lift heavy objects.

The fact is, there is no historical record of Jesus or the Apostles outside the Bible. Certainly not from 0 to 30AD.

See those links I posted above. There are many other arguments that scholars have that Jesus probably didn't exist.

I don't know if he existed or not. But the evidence isn't as strong as you think. Non-religious historians, such as those in the Jesus Seminar, maintain that Jesus probably existed but the historical Jesus and the Jesus in the Gospels aren't the same.

You can't compare Alexander the Great. There are many historical records of his existence at the time of his existence. But you can't say the same for Jesus. All writings that mention him start at around 70AD.

[Jester]

Also, among historians and religious scholars, there is debate about whether Jesus even existed, since there are no historical records about him at the time he supposedly lived.

All the remaining eleven apostles continued preaching the Good News. They suffered torture, imprisonment, and in some cases gruesome death. If Jesus never existed, why would they do it?

Or maybe they didn't exist either?

Having to prove a historical figure existed is pretty lame. I mean can you prove that Alexander the Great existed?

That's a lame argument debunked long ago. You can't use fiction to support fiction. I can say that Superman must have powers because lots of people in Metropolis saw him fly and lift heavy objects.

This makes no sense. I referred to Alexander, not Superman. Can you prove that Alexander existed, yes or no?

If you doubt the existence of the eleven Apostles and Paul, then where did all the churches across Hellenic Asia and in Rome come from? Did people just wake up one morning and DECIDE it would be a good idea to abandon accepted religion, get ostracized, get tortured to death?

The fact is, there is no historical record of Jesus or the Apostles outside the Bible. Certainly not from 0 to 30AD.

The Bible IS the historical record. There is LOTS of family history about episodes in his youth - the Nativity, the Flight to Egypt, Presentation at the Temple, the Finding at the Temple, reading Scripture in the Synagogue, the Wedding at Canae.

How many youths under 30 in ancient Israel have ANY of their activities written down?

Winston, noone was keeping a blog of daily activities back then. What we have written down was only what was first recounted orally, and it was recounted orally only because the teller thought it important or worthy or even amusing.

See those links I posted above. There are many other arguments that scholars have that Jesus probably didn't exist.

I don't know if he existed or not. But the evidence isn't as strong as you think. Non-religious historians, such as those in the Jesus Seminar, maintain that Jesus probably existed but the historical Jesus and the Jesus in the Gospels aren't the same.

So they have no agenda, no axe to grind? Read some normal historians, THEN comment. You are relying on people with the "debunking" mentality that you have yourself criticized in the past.

You can't compare Alexander the Great. There are many historical records of his existence at the time of his existence. But you can't say the same for Jesus.

I believe I DID compare him, actually. In fact, if you do a search, you will find a lot MORE records of Jesus than of Alexander. Go ahead, and tell me what you find.

All writings that mention him start at around 70AD.

You go by the U.S. copyright date on those parchments, do you?

[Cornfed]

A lot of what he talked about, such as the unsustainability of European empires of the time and the Fuhrer Princip (or its conscious avoidance) is accepted common sense now.

In what way? I thought he SUPPORTED the British Empire, no?

Yes, but he said that far flung empires were like a pyramids balanced on their points and would ultimately fail as the difficulty of maintaining them would out way the rewards, and that most European countries that tried to maintain their empires would ultimately bleed themselves to death, which proved prophetic. He advocated land-based empires spreading out from their source.

I am curious what he said about the FuhrerPrinzip!

Basically he was ridiculing the then relatively new notion of collective/parliamentary responsibility and stating that the very concept of responsibly was intrinsically connected with the individual and personality. He wanted each decision by an authority to be made by an official who was then held accountable for the results of that decision. Fairly obvious now, but this principle or its deliberate avoidance is now standard management practice as far as I know. He also came up with other visionary ideas of course, like on the nature of propaganda and such.

[Jester]

A lot of what he talked about, such as the unsustainability of European empires of the time and the Fuhrer Princip (or its conscious avoidance) is accepted common sense now.

In what way? I thought he SUPPORTED the British Empire, no?

Yes, but he said that far flung empires were like a pyramids balanced on their points and would ultimately fail as the difficulty of maintaining them would out way the rewards, and that most European countries that tried to maintain their empires would ultimately bleed themselves to death, which proved prophetic. He advocated land-based empires spreading out from their source.

I am curious what he said about the FuhrerPrinzip!

Basically he was ridiculing the then relatively new notion of collective/parliamentary responsibility and stating that the very concept of responsibly was intrinsically connected with the individual and personality. He wanted each decision by an authority to be made by an official who was then held accountable for the results of that decision. Fairly obvious now, but this principle or its deliberate avoidance is now standard management practice as far as I know. He also came up with other visionary ideas of course, like on the nature of propaganda and such.

Interesting. Thanks.

[Winston]

That's a lame argument debunked long ago. You can't use fiction to support fiction. I can say that Superman must have powers because lots of people in Metropolis saw him fly and lift heavy objects.

This makes no sense. I referred to Alexander, not Superman. Can you prove that Alexander existed, yes or no?

Yes. Historians during his time document his existence and conquests. Also, Persian records refer to his existence too.

If you doubt the existence of the eleven Apostles and Paul, then where did all the churches across Hellenic Asia and in Rome come from? Did people just wake up one morning and DECIDE it would be a good idea to abandon accepted religion, get ostracized, get tortured to death?

That's a long discussion. Go to the links I posted above for more info. Yes people are easily deluded. Look at all the cults today. Christianity was a cult back then. It was probably created to control and pacify the Jews, who were becoming aggressive and militarialistic back then. See the film "Caesar's Messiah" that I posted about in another thread.

The Bible IS the historical record. There is LOTS of family history about episodes in his youth - the Nativity, the Flight to Egypt, Presentation at the Temple, the Finding at the Temple, reading Scripture in the Synagogue, the Wedding at Canae.

How many youths under 30 in ancient Israel have ANY of their activities written down?

Why is the Bible historical record to you? No historian thinks that unless he's a Christian. Sorry but there's nothing about Jesus outside the Bible, which was written many years after he supposedly lived. It's funny that Jesus wrote down nothing himself.

Winston, no one was keeping a blog of daily activities back then. What we have written down was only what was first recounted orally, and it was recounted orally only because the teller thought it important or worthy or even amusing.

There were 40 historians in the Roman Empire during 0 to 30AD. None of them mention Jesus or his resurrection. If the resurrection occurred, surely someone would have reported it in the news back then?

See those links I posted above. There are many other arguments that scholars have that Jesus probably didn't exist.

I don't know if he existed or not. But the evidence isn't as strong as you think. Non-religious historians, such as those in the Jesus Seminar, maintain that Jesus probably existed but the historical Jesus and the Jesus in the Gospels aren't the same.

So they have no agenda, no axe to grind? Read some normal historians, THEN comment. You are relying on people with the "debunking" mentality that you have yourself criticized in the past.

What are "normal historians"? Christian historians with no bias? LOL

Man I thought you were smart and intellectual. Wtf? Your basic logic is totally biased.

No historian considers the Bible to be an accurate historical record, unless he's a Christian himself.

You can't compare Alexander the Great. There are many historical records of his existence at the time of his existence. But you can't say the same for Jesus.

I believe I DID compare him, actually. In fact, if you do a search, you will find a lot MORE records of Jesus than of Alexander. Go ahead, and tell me what you find.

That's a HORRIBLE argument. Just because there are many copies of the Bible, doesn't mean there are more historical records for Jesus than Alexander the Great. Terrible argument. Terrible. I can't believe you fell for such weak propaganda from Evangelists like Josh McDowell.

I could use the same argument and say that because there are so many copies of Star Wars in the world, that there are more records of Star Wars being real, than there are for you being real. lol

See how bad of an argument that is?

All writings that mention him start at around 70AD.

You go by the U.S. copyright date on those parchments, do you?

What? The US didn't even exist in 70AD. Again, bad argument.

The Gospels have been dated by all historians at 70-90AD. These people did years of scholarly work. All you do is listen to propaganda of Christian apologists.

Sorry but there is no evidence that they existed before then. Deal with it.

Again, please see these links. Do some actual research.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunk ... Page10.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... _live.html
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ojfaq.html
http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... city.shtml
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

There is new evidence that the Romans probably invented Jesus. See the thread about the new documentary "Caesar's Messiah":

viewtopic.php?t=19287

[Winston]

[Winston]

Btw, I guess on this forum, I'm the "Fuhrer" and Zboy1 is my SS Gestapo. LOLOLOL ROTFL!!!

Sorry couldn't resist. LOL