Local Republican Leader Apparently Expresses Self Here
We have had a number of illustrious visitors to our blog, prominent members of the community, powerful people. Today it appears we had a comment from a prominent member of Montgomery County's Republican Party.
First, a little background. Last November the County Council voted unanimously to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Council members voted and left the room, leaving a room full of angry shower-nuts. According to news reports, County Republican Central Committee member Adol Owen-Williams II shouted "Heil Hitler! Wait until little girls start showing up dead all over the county because of freaks of nature."
This is in reference to a bill that says you can't discriminate against transgender people in certain situations.
I won't comment on the (in)appropriateness of shouting "Heil Hitler" in a County Council meeting, if that's the way the guy feels then I suppose he has the right to say so. You know the leader of one of the main American Nazi groups, Bill White, comes from right here in Montgomery County. Can't say we're proud of that, but they're here.
Shortly after that I blogged one of my Sunday morning self-indulgences, and Andrea posted a comment where she referred to Owen-Williams as a "moron" and talked about him shouting "Heil Hitler" and also about a fist-fight Owen-Williams had gotten into with another local (at the time) Republican.
Eight months later, it appears that Mr. Owen-Williams noticed her comment.
Let me say, I cannot confirm that the comment made on our blog was made by Mr. Owen-Williams. I do see that the same person just started a new blog today, called Adol Owen-Williams, II, with a picture of him, and one post so far, which was written today, titled "For America's sake, we must support John MaCain!!" You never know on the Internet, somebody could be impersonating him. It's his picture, sounds like him from the description, but it could be a fake.
Here is the comment that was left today, with his name, linked to his Blogger profile and blog:
If anyone has evidence that this quote is not authentic and was not posted here by Mr. Owen-William, please contact us immediately at the email address at the top right corner of this page and we'll do what we can to correct the error.
First, a little background. Last November the County Council voted unanimously to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Council members voted and left the room, leaving a room full of angry shower-nuts. According to news reports, County Republican Central Committee member Adol Owen-Williams II shouted "Heil Hitler! Wait until little girls start showing up dead all over the county because of freaks of nature."
This is in reference to a bill that says you can't discriminate against transgender people in certain situations.
I won't comment on the (in)appropriateness of shouting "Heil Hitler" in a County Council meeting, if that's the way the guy feels then I suppose he has the right to say so. You know the leader of one of the main American Nazi groups, Bill White, comes from right here in Montgomery County. Can't say we're proud of that, but they're here.
Shortly after that I blogged one of my Sunday morning self-indulgences, and Andrea posted a comment where she referred to Owen-Williams as a "moron" and talked about him shouting "Heil Hitler" and also about a fist-fight Owen-Williams had gotten into with another local (at the time) Republican.
Eight months later, it appears that Mr. Owen-Williams noticed her comment.
Let me say, I cannot confirm that the comment made on our blog was made by Mr. Owen-Williams. I do see that the same person just started a new blog today, called Adol Owen-Williams, II, with a picture of him, and one post so far, which was written today, titled "For America's sake, we must support John MaCain!!" You never know on the Internet, somebody could be impersonating him. It's his picture, sounds like him from the description, but it could be a fake.
Here is the comment that was left today, with his name, linked to his Blogger profile and blog:
I can't help but notice that when some of you so called "blogers" choose to post an insulting or derogatory comment about someone you've never met, you conveniently choose to do so anonymously; that is the true sign of a thoroughbred pusillanimous coward! Might I suggest that you 20, 30, and 40 something year olds stop behaving like a bunch of preteen social retards. Stop prancing around all day in your underware in you mom's basement attacking complete strangers from a secret and safe distance via the PC you use the remainder of the day to watch porn when you are not anonymously insulting complete strangers. Why not go out into the real world and get a life?
[Comment left HERE]
If anyone has evidence that this quote is not authentic and was not posted here by Mr. Owen-William, please contact us immediately at the email address at the top right corner of this page and we'll do what we can to correct the error.
posted by JimK at 8:53 PM
70 Comments:
What an interesting turn of events and an interesting message to Anon from one of his own.
I think these actions by a shower-nut make it pretty clear why there are no members of the local GOP in elective office here in Montgomery County.
Liberal columnist Richard Cohen with a preview of an issue we're sure to hear a lot more of this fall:
""Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire," I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.
On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions -- not speeches -- that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe. First, of course, is his decision as a Vietnam prisoner of war to refuse freedom out of concern that he would be exploited for propaganda purposes. To paraphrase what Kipling said about Gunga Din, John McCain is a better man than most.
But I would not stop there. I would include campaign finance reform, which infuriated so many in his own party; opposition to earmarks, which won him no friends; his politically imprudent opposition to the Medicare prescription drug bill (Medicare has about $35 trillion in unfunded obligations); and, last but not least, his very early call for additional troops in Iraq. His was a lonely position -- virtually suicidal for an all-but-certain presidential candidate and no help when his campaign nearly expired last summer. In all these cases, McCain stuck to his guns.
Obama argues that he himself stuck to the biggest gun of all: opposition to the war. He took that position when the war was enormously popular, the president who initiated it was even more popular and critics of both were slandered as unpatriotic. But at the time, Obama was a mere Illinois state senator, representing the (very) liberal Hyde Park area of Chicago. He either voiced his conscience or his district's leanings or (lucky fella) both. We will never know.
And we will never know, either, how Obama might have conducted himself had he served in Congress as long as McCain has. Possibly he would have earned a reputation for furious, maybe even sanctimonious, integrity of the sort that often drove McCain's colleagues to dark thoughts of senatorcide, but the record -- scant as it is -- suggests otherwise. Obama is not noted for sticking to a position or a person once that position or person becomes a political liability. (Names available upon request.)
All politicians change their positions, sometimes even because they have changed their minds. McCain must have suffered excruciating whiplash from totally reversing himself on George Bush's tax cuts. He has denounced preachers he later embraced and then, to his chagrin, has had to denounce them all over again. This plasticity has a label: pandering. McCain knows how it's done.
But Obama has shown that in this area, youth is no handicap. He has been for and against gun control, against and for the recent domestic surveillance legislation and, in almost a single day, for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control and then, when apprised of U.S. policy and Palestinian chagrin, against it. He is an accomplished pol -- a statement of both admiration and a bit of regret.
Obama is often likened to John F. Kennedy. The comparison makes sense. He has the requisite physical qualities -- handsome, lean, etc. -- plus wit, intelligence, awesome speaking abilities and a literary bent. He also might be compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt for many of those same qualities. Both FDR and JFK were disparaged early on by their contemporaries for, I think, doing the difficult and making it look easy. Eleanor Roosevelt, playing off the title of Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, airily dismissed him as more profile than courage. Similarly, it was Walter Lippmann's enduring misfortune to size up FDR and belittle him: Roosevelt, he wrote, was "a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for office, would very much like to be president." Lippmann later recognized that he had underestimated Roosevelt.
My guess is that Obama will make a fool of anyone who issues such a judgment about him. Still, the record now, while tissue thin, is troubling. The next president will have to be something of a political Superman, a man of steel who can tell the American people that they will have to pay more for less -- higher taxes, lower benefits of all kinds -- and deal in an ugly way when nuclear weapons seize the imagination of madmen.
The question I posed to that prominent Democrat was just my way of thinking out loud. I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm still not sure, though, what's in it."
To me, Obama seems less like JFK and FDR than Jimmy Carter. All you young whippersnappers won't remember but from the other side of 1976, Jimmy seemed like the sharpest guy we'd ever seen. I actually worked in his campaign. After LBJ, Nixon and Ford, he appeared to be change we could believe in.
I think you know how the story ended.
Nice change of subject, Anonymous. But then, it's exactly what we expect of you. Something that you don't want to talk about...that is embarrassing to you...and you divrt attention away from the subject. Coward!
Oh, that was Cohen's column from this morning. I put up thoughts to counter the media adulation of Obama as they become available.
Cohen's point is well taken. When we invaded Iraq, Obama was a state legislator in Illinois. He was against it but his point of view was irrelevant.
If Obama had been in the U.S. Senate, based on his three years of service, he doubtless would have followed his party's leadership and supported the invasion. He has voted with his party 99% of the time.
The question is whether he's a leader or a follower. McCain's a leader; Obama's slim record is not encouraging.
If you want me to comment on the issue in Jim's post, I really don't know enough about the incident to comment. If I had to guess, and assuming it actually happened as TTFers have described it, I'd say the guy was trying to compare the action of the Council to fascism.
Probably a little over the top but nothing TTF hasn't said about its opponents.
Of course, TTF's obsession with this incident is somewhat like their obsession with that fringe group that protests at gay funerals. An extreme case they can point to in trying to make themselves look normal by comparison.
That's a tall order so, on some level, one can sympathize.
"What an interesting turn of events and an interesting message to Anon from one of his own."
And how interesting that Bea doesn't realize the guy was talking about anon-bea.
AnonBigot, I have a question:
What if you accidently reveal your identity to us? What will happen then?
I think everyone would like to know the answer to that one. And, please, try to actually be smart this time instead of pretending to be smart.
Ah, those crazy opinion polls:
"In a surprising result, the latest Gallup/USA Today poll of likely voters in the presidential race shows Sen. John McCain leading Sen. Barack Obama by four percentage points, 49-45. The shift represents a swing of 10 points in favor of Sen. McCain from last month's poll, which showed the Republican trailing Obama by 6 points. The poll was conducted over the weekend, on the heels of Sen. Obama's foreign trip. That trip was designed to show Sen. Obama as a competent manager of foreign policy and national security matters. But controversies marred the ending of the trip and may have contributed to the results of this poll.
While the McCain campaign will certainly be delighted with the results of the survey, several caveats bear mentioning. First, the poll's results are at variance with Gallup's daily tracking poll, which shows a 9 point lead for Obama. Second, although it is a Gallup poll, considered the gold standard of presidential polling, it is only one result and will likely change several times throughout the summer. Third, in the same poll, Sen. McCain is shown as trailing Obama among the larger group of registered voters by 3 points. Not all registered voters vote, however, and a lead among likely voters is generally considered by pollsters to be more significant as an indicator of the eventual election outcome.
The Obama campaign can take comfort in some of those same caveats, but the poll's result has to be very troubling for the Illinois Senator's effort. The campaign has been talking openly of preparing for a presidential transition and has been chastised recently by reporters for acting too much like a White House in waiting. Besides serving as a dose of reality for a campaign that has perhaps been flying a little too high, the result should spur the Obama campaign to take a serious look at its message. Obama has been primarily basing his appeal on his personal judgment and potential. But voters tend to vote on specifics, and the Obama campaign has been short on the kinds of concrete plans that voters typically look for from presidential candidates. In other words, Obama will have to demonstrate to voters that he is more than just an eloquent speaker to win the election."
Well, if you take a look on www.cnn.com, Obama leads McCain by 5%... so don't toot that annoying horn too loudly there.
But, if you look at the trends of the most recent elections, the general pattern is for the Democrat to have a mid-summer lead which evaporates in the fall.
That this is already starting has to be a concern for the Democrats, especially when the electorate is clearly in a mood to "throw the bums out".
Why is this election so close at this point?
When we get down to brass tacks this fall, how will the Democrats answer the voters' concerns about a guy with no accomplishments and three years experience who has spent most of those three years running for President and writing his memoirs?
One is reminded of Joe Theisman who when he was still a third string quarterback with the Redskins wrote a book called "How to Quarterback in the NFL".
Problem is, the next President is going to have problems of much greater consequence than winning the Super Bowl.
But, if you look at the trends of the most recent elections, the general pattern is for the Democrat to have a mid-summer lead which evaporates in the fall.
Actually, that would be a trend of ONE ELECTION: 2004.
Let's look at 2000, shall we? That would also qualify as a "recent election."
In August, Bush led Gore 50-42 in the Washington Post poll, 50-34 in the CBS News poll, 43-40 in Reuters/Zogby, 55-39 in the Gallup/CNN poll, and 48-38 in the Newsweek poll. All of this data is collated here and took me about 30 seconds to find. Let's not even discuss who actually "won" the 2000 election, either.
So your "analysis" is based on one election, chumley: 2004. And that election involved an incumbent, which this year's does not, and the mood of the electorate was focused on the war, which is not the case this year. And on and on and on and on.
One more point: you also don't understand the difference between LV data and RV data. Any "likely voter" screen used this far out in a campaign where millions of new voters have been registered (almost exclusively on the Democratic side) is going to miss a substantial amount of votes that will in fact be cast. You'd know this if you actually tried to learn how to interpret this stuff.
McCain's not leading, and he's had trouble breaking 45% in any poll. That's a problem, and it remains to be if he can move the numbers. So far, it's not happening.
Andrea- not anon
My uncles and father fought for this country in WWII against the Nazis. They did so for freedom -I suppose even for the freedom of someone to yell "Heil Hitler". Being able to yell it does not make it decent or right. As I pointed out in the section when Adol commented- someone who screams "Heil Hitler" and uses the word "retard" as an insult is not someone who will get elected in Montgomery County. Adol- not us- needs the lessons in decency and maturity. Anon- you supported Adol before for his previous words- will you suport him now in his current use of words?
I didn't support anything you old bat. I said I didn't know about what happened but that it sounds like a misrepresentation.
Regardless of what it is, it's clear that TTF is beating an old dead horse because, well, they ain't got much else.
Your relatives fought against the Nazis. Great. My grandfather got a purple heart at Normandy.
All the more reasons to speak up when the local County Council starts acting like fascists.
Whether that was the point of this action by this guy or not, the truth is people should pay attention when a County Council starts flaunting their ability to ignore the wishes of their constituents and suppressing dissent by illegal means. It's how the Nazis got started.
Andrea- not anon
I think Anon and Adol are two peas in a pod- both sad, pathetic, lonely and wrong. You agree that he said Heil Hitler but it was a misrepresentation. I don't even want to know why you think saying that could be misrepresented. And since you are so dense- we aren't beating a dead horse, your buddy Adol sent us a message yesterday. Maybe you need reading glasses or the ability to comprehend what is written here. Suggesting the Council was acting like fascists shows that you, like Adol, have no understanding of facism or Nazism- I think your grandfather would be sorry for you.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2008/07/28/gallup-poll-shows-obama-mccain-gap-widening/
Presumptive Democratic nominee Obama seems to have gotten a bounce off last week’s tour of Europe and the Middle East, Gallup concludes.
Based on a three-day rolling average of national registered voters, Obama, D-Ill., was leading McCain, R-Ariz., by a 48%-to-40% margin for the July 25-27 polling period. The results show that Obama has steadily widened his lead since the middle of last week, when he was only ahead by a 45% to 43% margin.
Adol Owen-Williams you're a disgrace to all that is good and right and I happily attach my name to that.
"I can't help but notice that when some of you so called "blogers" [correction, "bloggers"] choose to post an insulting or derogatory comment about someone you've never met, you conveniently choose to do so anonymously; that is the true sign of a thoroughbred pusillanimous coward! Might I suggest that you 20, 30, and 40 something year olds stop behaving like a bunch of preteen social retards. Stop prancing around all day in your underware [correction, underwear] in you [correction, your] mom's basement attacking complete strangers from a secret and safe distance via the PC you use the remainder of the day to watch porn when you are not anonymously insulting complete strangers. Why not go out into the real world and get a life?!"
Oh yes, and one more correction, Adol. Andrea used her name so her comment was not posted anonymously. The blogger and commenters here are attacked almost daily by anonymous shower-nuts. Do you think those anonymous commenters "use the remainder of the day to watch porn when [they] are not anonymously insulting complete strangers" too?
MCPS Remedial English Teacher
words of wisdom from an anonymous remedial thinker
Presumptive Democratic nominee Obama seems to have gotten a bounce off last week’s tour of Europe and the Middle East, Gallup concludes.
"Based on a three-day rolling average of national registered voters, Obama, D-Ill., was leading McCain, R-Ariz., by a 48%-to-40% margin for the July 25-27 polling period. The results show that Obama has steadily widened his lead since the middle of last week, when he was only ahead by a 45% to 43% margin."
I think you missed our discussion a few days ago, Priya. Gallup has contradicted itself in the last week. First they said Obama was ahead nine points in daily tracking and then this weekend they found McCain ahead five.
The trip will ultimately do him more harm than good. The sight of Obama being adulated by Western Europeans who regularly express hatred and resentment of the U.S. is not a positive PR move for him. It may surprise you to know that Americans don't care what decadent Europeans think of them.
"Adol Owen-Williams you're a disgrace to all that is good and right and I happily attach my name to that."
Oh, good. Someone who knows what's going on.
Can you tell us what this guy did and why, Priya?
"My uncles and father fought for this country in WWII against the Nazis. They did so for freedom"
Can you tell us a little about that country that your relatives fought for, Andrea?
What were the attitudes about homosexuals in the scoiety they fought for?
Could homosexuals serve in the military?
Could they teach in public schools?
Could they adopt children?
Was sodomy illegal?
Was homosexuality considered a mental illness?
How was it treated?
What would the public have done if the local County Council passed a law saying that business owners had to let guys dressed like girls use the ladies' room?
How about if the Council tried to illegally harass those who petitioned to veto the law?
Isn't true that the views that you guys now claim are similar to Nazism is the same view held by the country that defeated Nazism?
Other than just sheer stupidity, do you have any other reason for your illogical viewpoint?
“Other than just sheer stupidity, do you have any other reason for your illogical viewpoint?”
Other than just sheer projection on your part, do you have any other reason to even ask that question?
Brilliant insight, slob. Don't how you come up with 'em.
Yet, we still await the defense of the connection Andrea has made between the Greatest Generation and the homosexual agenda.
This oughta be good.
the homosexual agenda
Ah yes, the number one focus of Jim Adkisson, Eric Rudolph, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and too many other religious right extremists.
County Council passed a law saying that business owners had to let guys dressed like girls use the ladies' room
Bull-oney. You got that completely wrong. The County Council passed an amendment that added "gender identity" to the existing non-discrimination law in MoCo, which already included "gender" among other categories. If bathrooms were a part of the non-discrimination law here, you already couldn't discriminate on the basis of gender, meaning either gender could use either restroom.
The language that did pertain specifically to bathrooms was deleted from Bill 23-07 before it was unanimously passed. Further Bill 23-07 states it "does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal."
the Council tried to illegally harass those who petitioned to veto the law
You keep saying that and you keep getting asked if that's true, why haven't charges been filed for that imagined illegal harassment? I've seen the video and Rhetta Brown, who's standing right there sure doesn't look intimidated as she tries looks down at the papers on the table. You have no answer to the question about charges being filed because you are wrong, again, nothing illegal happened. In a democracy, both sides are free to express their opinions in public.
You're slipping Anon, you missed some questions about America during WWII.
Could blacks and whites marry each other?
Did we have any Civil Rights legislation protecting minority rights?
Could Rosa Parks sit anywhere on the bus?
Did blacks and whites share the same foxholes and mess halls "over there?"
Thank God we've come a long way since segregation and discrimination against African Americans. This civil rights activist not rest until the same can be said for LGBT people.
Bea, alot of sound and fury to conceal an unpleasant fact:
If you consider CRG positions to be akin to Nazism, and that has been a regular theme here, then you are saying the generation of Americans who defeated Nazism are also akin to Nazis because virtually everyone in the 1940s would consider the positions of CRG to be common sense.
While there was segregation in those times, blacks at the time were not considered moral degenerates.
To quote the Reverend Martin Luther King, "I look forward to a time when my children will be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin".
He never said "I look forward to a time when no discrimination will be made between sexual deviance and normality".
Sorry if you don't get it but sexual deviance is a character issue. Color of skin is not.
Red Baron said "While there was segregation in those times, blacks at the time were not considered moral degenerates".
That's where you're wrong. Right wing conservatives indeed insisted blacks were moral degnerates particularly fearing black sexuality, claiming blacks were oversexed and wanted to prey on white women - much the same as right wing conservatives do today with gays, claiming they are sexual degenerates out to prey on children. If as you falsely claim blacks weren't seen as moral degenerates there would have been no excuse to make them second class citizens, the only distinction people would have had was that their skin was a different colour, clearly that was not how they looked at blacks.
Red Baron said "Sorry if you don't get it but sexual deviance is a character issue. Color of skin is not.".
Now you're sounding like the Nazis - way to go! Gayness is not a deviance, its a normal development for a minority of the population. If it was a character issue psychological testing could distingish between gays and straights. Studies done by Evelyn Hooker in the 1950's demonstrated that it was impossible to distinguish between gays and straights with normal tests of mental health and a flood of studies since then have replicated this. Now go away like a good little Christian Nazi.
Red Baron said "Isn't true that the views that you guys now claim are similar to Nazism is the same view held by the country that defeated Nazism?".
The Nazis hated gays, they considered gays to vermin worthy of extermination, just like that right wing Christian luminary and pro-"family" advocate Paul Cameron. The Nazi's hated gays just like you hate gays, you little Nazi you.
No, you don't get it Anon.
Publicly encouraging hatred of people who are different from you by calling them "sexual deviants" is definitely a character flaw. Racists have long used that tactic to denigrate people with a different color skin than their own just like you use it today to denigrate people with a different sexuality than your own.
History lesson time.
Since you don't seem capable of checking out websites yourself, I'll cut and paste from the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia at Ferris State University for you:
Black men were long characterized as brutes who are "innately savage, animalistic, destructive, and criminal -- deserving punishment, maybe death. This brute is a fiend, a sociopath, an anti-social menace. Black brutes are depicted as hideous, terrifying predators who target helpless victims, especially White women. Charles H. Smith, a writer at the end of the 1890s, claimed, "A bad negro is the most horrible creature upon the earth, the most brutal and merciless." Clifton R. Breckinridge, a contemporary of Smith's, said of the Black race, "when it produces a brute, he is the worst and most insatiate brute that exists in human form." George T. Winston, another "Negrophobic" writer, claimed:
When a knock is heard at the door [a White woman] shudders with nameless horror. The black brute is lurking in the dark, a monstrous beast, crazed with lust. His ferocity is almost demoniacal. A mad bull or tiger could scarcely be more brutal. A whole community is frenzied with horror, with the blind and furious rage for vengeance."
"The portrayal of Black women as lascivious by nature is an enduring stereotype. The descriptive words associated with this stereotype are singular in their focus: seductive, alluring, worldly, beguiling, tempting, and lewd. Historically, White women, as a category, were portrayed as models of self-respect, self-control, and modesty – even sexual purity, but Black women were often portrayed as innately promiscuous, even predatory."
It's talk like that above about brutes that lead to lynchings like 14 year old Emmett Till in 1955. You and your homophobic friends are continuing in the same tradition as the "Negrophobics" who came before you and now you have people like Adkisson and Rudolph and who-knows-who's-next worked up into a "fury" to do your dirty work for you. Your object of scorn is different, but your tactics are not.
Red Baron said "I think you missed our discussion a few days ago, Priya. Gallup has contradicted itself in the last week. First they said Obama was ahead nine points in daily tracking and then this weekend they found McCain ahead five."
No, you've got that wrong:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/dueling-gallup.html
...the day after a Gallup poll caused a stir by showing John McCain leading Barack Obama in a sample of likely voters nationwide, the separate daily tracking poll by the same outfit continued to show the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee ahead among registered voters.
The updated tracking poll, which averaged the results of surveys conducted Saturday, Sunday and Monday, gave Obama a 6-percentage-point advantage, 47% to 41%.
"That's where you're wrong. Right wing conservatives indeed insisted blacks were moral degnerates particularly fearing black sexuality,"
I wasn't talking about right-wing conservatives. I was referring to society in general. The idea that homosexuality is deviant was widespread then and now. Most people didn't consider blanks to be moral degenerates.
"If it was a character issue psychological testing could distingish between gays and straights."
Character and mental health are not the same thing.
"The Nazis hated gays, they considered gays to vermin worthy of extermination,.... The Nazi's hated gays just like you hate gays, you little Nazi you."
Actually, that's a simplistic understanding. The Nazis arose in the first society in Western civilization to be tolerant of open homosexuality. The early Nazi movement had many key figures who were gay and there is some evidence, although not conclusive, that Hitler was gay. The Nazis eventually instituted harsh measures against homosexuals, trying to exploit the public's natural aversion against homosexuality, because they wanted to use it as an excuse to eliminate the particular gay individuals who had become a hindrance to the Nazi party because their radical views had alienated the German business community.
All societies at the time, whether Allied, Axis or neutral, considered homosexuality to be deviant. This also applied to the atheist regime in Russia.
The Nazis were aberrant in their harsh treatment of gays, not in their view that homosexuality is immoral. No one today is even suggesting that homosexuality be illegal, much less, harshly persecuted.
"The updated tracking poll, which averaged the results of surveys conducted Saturday, Sunday and Monday, gave Obama a 6-percentage-point advantage, 47% to 41%"
Let me 'splain something to you, Hoser.
FDR won 53% of the vote in 1944.
Since then, we've had fifteen Presidential elections.
In seven of them, Republicans have received over fifty per cent of the vote, the most recent time being 2004.
It's only happened to Democrats once. That would be 1964, the year after JFK was shot.
Why do you think that is?
Why do you think that is?
First off, because it's not true. Jimmy Carter won 50.1% of the vote in 1976. And in 1960, John Kennedy won 49.72% of the vote, but there were also 286,359 votes (0.42% of the national vote) cast for "unpledged Democratic electors" in Mississippi and Alabama. Adding those votes to Kennedy's puts him at over 50%.
Second, because in several years, there were third parties that kept either side from winning a majority. 1948: Strom Thurmond on the Dixiecrat ticket. 1992 and 1996: Ross Perot. For the Republicans, Nixon in 1968 and Shrub in 2000 were years in which the winner had less than 50% of the popular vote. Those presidencies worked out real well, didn't they?
The wingnuts around here are displaying an unfortunate tendency to throw around untrue statements rather carelessly. Teh Google is your friend, y'know?
Red Baron said "No one today is even suggesting that gayness be illegal, much less, harshly persecuted.".
Wrong. As I demonstrated to you in the other thread that is not the case. A favourite "pro-family" advocate of the Christians (and Nazi admirer) is pushing for just that as are the Christian reconstructionist financial supporters and friends of Mike Huckabee, a favourite of right wing Christianists:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,020.htm
http://rainbowzine.com/media/does_huckabee_want_death_penalty_for_gaysl_0107.htm
You need to take your blinders off and read something besides your anti-gay religionist tracts. The prominent gay leader you're thinking of is Lincoln. As we discussed before, Hitler was demonstrably heterosexual and Christian as were all the Nazis. In fact you couldn't be a member of the SS unless you were Catholic. The idea that gays played any role in the Nazi party isn't taken seriously by any rational historian and has been thoroughly debunked. This lie was developed, once again by the Christian reconstructionists who, contrary to your idiocy, not only want to make gayness illegal but want to make it punishable with the death penalty.
Red Baron said " The idea that gayness is deviant was widespread then and now."
Nonsense. You have no public opinion polls to back up that baseless assertion. The majority of people nowadays do not think gays are deviants, the majority think its fine if people are gay and there are public opinion polls demonstrating that.
Red Baron said "Most people didn't consider blanks to be moral degenerates.".
Most white people did and their attitudes have already been demonstrated to you, the same sort of attacks on blacks as people like you perpetuate on innocent gays today.
Red Baron said "Character and mental health are not the same thing.".
They're overlapping concepts. Rational persons agree that those with good mental health are people of good character and those with poor mental health are people who are not of good character. Only in the topsy-turvey world of nutbars like you does character have nothing to do with mental health. Dozens, if not hundreds of scientific studies have demonstrated that gays are indistinguishable from straights in terms of character issues. Only barbarians living in the past such as yourself think there is anything wrong with gays.
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity". (The Guardian)
Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition:
The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification
of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf
“Brilliant insight, slob. Don't how you come up with 'em.”
He loves me. He reeely reeely LOVES me!
I'm going to be busy today so I won't waste time with Priya's denials of commonly accepted historical and sociological fact. As I said, Priya dwells in a dark well- and it apparently has no bottom.
I will adress this exchange briefly, however:
anon-deluxe said:
"FDR won 53% of the vote in 1944.
Since then, we've had fifteen Presidential elections.
In seven of them, Republicans have received over fifty per cent of the vote, the most recent time being 2004.
It's only happened to Democrats once. That would be 1964, the year after JFK was shot.
Why do you think that is?"
To which inane-anon replied:
"First off, because it's not true. Jimmy Carter won 50.1% of the vote in 1976. And in 1960, John Kennedy won 49.72% of the vote, but there were also 286,359 votes (0.42% of the national vote) cast for "unpledged Democratic electors" in Mississippi and Alabama. Adding those votes to Kennedy's puts him at over 50%."
I was using round numbers. As we know from 2000, election counting is not precise. You could count a dozen times and get a dozen different answers so a tenth of a percent isn't an unequivocal majority.
Republicans, on the other hand, had solid undeniable victories seven, count 'em, seven times. Here's their shares of the popular vote in those victories, in chronological order: 55,57,61,51,59,53,52.
Kennedy's election is considered dubious by most historians. Mayor Daley held up reporting Chicago's vote until the next day, giving Kenndy a suspicious victory allowing him to take Illinios by 9,000 votes and voter fraud by LBJ's machine in Texas is an accepted fact. Kennedy probably got substantially less than his official total, which wasn't above 50% anyway.
Bottom line: Democrats have a handful of wins when the country is closely divided. Republicans tend to unite the country.
Thanks for the chance to point this out again.
I love it. You make factual allegations which are not true. I point them out. Your response is hey, whatever, close enough for me and thanks for proving my point.
More of that non-reality based analysis, I guess.
You made factual statements which are not true. Don't try to spin out of it. If you want people to take your analysis seriously, you have to be accurate and correct. You were not, as is usually the case with wingnut knuckleheads like you.
And it's not as if accurate information is that hard to come by. Teh Google is your friend, remember? Try using it. The fact that you (1) didn't do so, and (2) now act as if it "didn't matter" that your allegations were wrong, makes you look like a complete tool, which at the very least appears to be an accurate description.
All the rest is just so much blah blah blah.
"All the rest is just so much blah blah blah."
Wow! You've got a lot of validation riding on a tenth of a per cent in one election in 64 years.
Let's just say you're completely correct for a second.
Why can't any Democrat, including Obama apparently, achieve a SOLID majority of votes in a presidential election?
Especially when registered Dems exceed Repubs by a solid margin and, in this year, when the voters clearly want an alternative to Repubs, why do so many Americans find it so hard to vote for a Dem for President?
Howza about that?
And, thanks for keeping the topic alive!
Andrea- not anon
Anon- do you have difficulty getting from point A to Point B? It appears so. My message had nothing to do with GBLT people. I was addressing the actions of a person(a person who wanted to be elected to office, in fact- not a random Stormfronter) who yelled out "Heil Hitler" at a council meeting. If he had yelled out "shame on you", "Go to Hell" or even "F- k you"- I would not have talked about my family's defense of freedom against the Nazis. I pointed out that their fight was to protect our freedoms, including freedom of speech but that does not make screaming out "Heil Hitler" good or right.
Is this possibly clear to you now? I will not bother explaining again- so you just spin out whatever in that synapse challenged head of yours.
Andrea "young bat" kline
Red Baron said "I'm going to be busy today so I won't waste time with Priya's denials of commonly accepted historical and sociological fact.".
Now you're projecting your own actions on others Remember this?:
"No one today is even suggesting that gayness be illegal, much less, harshly persecuted.".
I demonstrated to you twice already that is a lie, that its you in denial of the facts:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,020.htm
http://rainbowzine.com/media/does_huckabee_want_death_penalty_for_gaysl_0107.htm
You really are a joke. And for good measure here's another fact you've repeatedly been in denial of, the devout Christianity of Hitler and the Nazis:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
Ah, Priya, you dwell in a deep, dark well.
Take a look at Richard Weikart's book, "From Darwin to Hitler", which documents quite well that the Nazis were Darwinists not Christians.
They were just like you!
A lot of the early ones were gay too. They were aroused by that whole "survival of the fittest" idea. Until the "fittest" turned on them.
Well, that's history.
We'll throw you down a flashlight.
"I pointed out that their fight was to protect our freedoms, including freedom of speech but that does not make screaming out "Heil Hitler" good or right."
OK, Batgirl, you're obviously just misunderstood.
Slowly now, can you tell us when and why this guy said this? What happened that precipitated the incident? What did he mean by it?
Just explain it. We'll try to understand.
"Slowly now, can you tell us when and why this guy said this? What happened that precipitated the incident? What did he mean by it?
Just explain it. We'll try to understand."
My my, now that's quite stunning, you're actually asking a third party for clarification of what the first party said?
quote from third party:
"Adol Owen-Williams you're a disgrace to all that is good and right and I happily attach my name to that."
assessment of emslob:
idiot
“quote from third party:”
Which isn’t a quote from the first party.
Case closed.
the case sure is closed
every TTFer has been egging on the post and not one has any idea what they're talking about
Red Baron, you moron, Hitler rejected Darwin but he never renounced his catholicism nor did his friend the pope ever excommunicate him. Later I might dig out the link showing you Hitler's rejection of evolution, although there would seem to be little point with you as you repeatedly deny reality when it is served up to you on a cold platter.
Well, I'd love to see that quote although it's a little pointless since Htiler's policies were clearly Darwinist. He even used "survival of the fittest" as a recruiting slogan for his military. As Hitler wrote in his book, Mein Kampf, he believed lying to manipulate the masses was a legitimate political tactic. At one point or another, you can find him saying just about anything. Actions, however, speak louder than words.
Belief in evolution and Darwinism aren't synonymous, btw.
Just so you know, since you keep bringing up the Pope, I'm not a Catholic. Most Protestants agree that the Pope should have taken a stronger stand against Nazism.
So should the secularists who promoted eugenics before WWII as a means to utopia and provided much inspiration for Hitler along with Darwinists and Nietzche.
Do use that flashlight we dropped down to read up on the Darwinist underpinning of Nazi ideology. Also, read up on those nice gays who ran Hitler's military until the night of the long knives.
You've got a lot of history to catch up on!
The "gays" didn't run the military. "They" didn't run anything. The head of the SA, the predecessor police organization to the SS, was Ernst Rohm, who was killed in November 1934 in what you correctly refer to as the Night of the Long Knives. However, Rohm was killed for two reasons: first and more primarily, because he was, even by the standards of the early Nazis, completely unstable, irrational and out of control. Second, Rohm was a known homosexual, and that contributed to his demise as well. Many others were killed in the Night of the Long Knives as well, not all of them homosexual, and the incident was primarily a means of Hitler's consolidating his power in a smaller, more loyal group of henchmen, including Goering, Goebbels and Himmler.
The suggestion that "gays controlled the German military" is just ridiculous and stupid, in accord with your usual standards. The leadership of the German military was largely Prussian and extraordinarily conservative, both politically and culturally. Moreover, Hitler did not consolidate his authority over the military until much later, after the Rhineland reoccupation in 1936. Even then, there remained significant pockets of resistance and opposition to Hitler in the military, up to 1944, when a group of military officers tried to kill Hitler and make peace with the Allies.
You really are a dumbass, you know. The first step in overcoming such obstacles is recognition. Repeat after me, "I'm a dumbass, I'm a dumbass, but I can get help for this. Facts are my friend, facts are my friend."
Repeat as necessary.
Very good, Priya. There is some truth to your version and I can see you've been looking things up. I do think Hitler might have been gay, though, and Rohm may have been his gay lover from prison. I also think the some of the gay culture of the time contributed to the fascist tactics that were pioneered by the SA. See, that's hard to say because, who can read minds? It's not a hard case to make though.
I don't think I said gays ran the "German" military. I believe I said gays ran the "Nazi" wing of the military.
Now, how about that denunciation of evolution made by Mr Secular himself, Adolf Hitler? We all would like to see it.
In the US, "Darwinism" is about political power. Evolution is not.
Creationists insist on calling [evolution] "Darwinism." If they can get enough people to think that science is a religion, then they can argue that their religion ought to get as much time in the science classroom as "our" religion does
"Darwinism," AKA Darwinian, aka, Darwinist/Darwinists/Darwinistic, etc.
Miller: "Evolution has been tested continuously for almost 150 years and not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution."
IOW, to claim that evolution as "Darwinsim" is to attempt to devalue it as cultish and religious (in the atheist sense), without appearing to do so.
(1) I'm not Priya. So ask her (?) for the evolution stuff, not me.
(2) I didn't look any of that stuff up, I just know my history.
(3) The idea that the "fascist tactics of the SA" were influenced by the "gay culture of the time" is simply ludicrous. The SA dates back to the brownshirts who helped Hitler with the ill-fated putsch in 1923 -- they were thugs, they were brutal criminals in many cases. Yes, I'm sure you can find a gay or two in that group, but the "gay culture" of Weimar Germany was not about thuggish criminality or even particularly political, it was about flamboyance, art, theater, music and culture. You're twisting a pretty clear history to suit your current political biases.
“for the evolution stuff […] I didn't look any of that stuff up, I just know my history.”
All several thousand years of it I gather.
""Evolution has been tested continuously for almost 150 years and not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution.""
Actually, many observations contradict evolution. The sudden outburst of complex life-forms in the PreColumbian explosion, the observed rate of mutations in the general population, complicated systems in living things made up of interdependent parts which weren't likely to evolved seperately because alone they don't confer any advantage, et al. Of course, when you point these things out, you get called ignorant for not realizing that these are just unanswered mysteries of an obvious truth.
Obvious truths that contradict evidence are not science. They are metaphysics.
"IOW, to claim that evolution as "Darwinsim" is to attempt to devalue it as cultish and religious (in the atheist sense), without appearing to do so."
Evolution is the theory that living things adapt to their environment by natural selection. This is testable.
Darwinism is the belief that this process is proof that God doesn't exist. Darwinists generally extrapolate from the theory of evolution and make wild claims about the origin and purpose of life which have no evidentiary basis.
Darwinism is, indeed, cultish and religious.
"PreColumbian explosion"
oops!
substitute Cambrian for Columbian
"(1) I'm not Priya. So ask her (?) for the evolution stuff, not me.
(2) I didn't look any of that stuff up, I just know my history."
My bad. I wasn't paying attention.
I consider understand your discomfort at being associated with Priya. My apologies.
"(3) The idea that the "fascist tactics of the SA" were influenced by the "gay culture of the time" is simply ludicrous."
Not really. The "anything goes" mentality of decadent Berlin had a sado-masochistic component that informed early Nazism.
"The SA dates back to the brownshirts who helped Hitler with the ill-fated putsch in 1923 -- they were thugs, they were brutal criminals in many cases. Yes, I'm sure you can find a gay or two in that group,"
Rohm was there in the early days and influenced the mentality. As he became more powerful, he placed more and more gay friends in the power structure.
"but the "gay culture" of Weimar Germany was not about thuggish criminality or even particularly political, it was about flamboyance, art, theater, music and culture."
Culture can have violent tendencies, you may have noticed. Hitler had an early career as an artist in Vienna. He roomed with a homosexual and was once charged with homosexual solicitation.
"You're twisting a pretty clear history to suit your current political biases."
Not clear at all except it was decadent. The Weimar Republic featured all types of depravity, including homosexuality. It was not the Golden Age of Athens that you describe.
For that matter, neither was the Golden Age of Athens.
"The SA dates back to the brownshirts who helped Hitler with the ill-fated putsch in 1923 -- they were thugs, they were brutal criminals in many cases. Yes, I'm sure you can find a gay or two in that group"
Rohm was arrested with Hitler at the putsch and they were jailed together. Rohm was Hitler's closest buddy in prison while Hitler was writing 'Mein Kampf'. Later, Rohm was the only Nazi offical who referred to Hitler as "du", a familiar term, rather than "Fuerher". The SA were known for drunkenness, street-fighting and homosexual carousing.
Maybe, despite your familiarity with history, you could do a little more research.
Red Baron, still trying to peddle that laughable lie that Hitler and the Nazis were gay. You truly are evil. No reputable historian believes that while the evidence that Hitler and the Nazis were Christian is overwhelming and undeniable. The Nazis didn't have "Gott Mit Uns" (God with us) on their belt buckles for nothing.
And contrary to what your right wing religionist kook "author" says Hitler rejected Darwin and Darwin's Origin of Species was on the Nazis' banned book list:
From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'
I shall translate Hitler's words, which were recored by the stenographer.
'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.
A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)
And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'
Hitler was a creationist....
Now of course as you've done so often in the past now that you've been served up reality on a cold platter you'll cover your eyes and ears and go "la la la la la, can't hear you". Accept reality Red Baron, right wing religionists are well practiced liars and you'll never be acquainted with reality as long as you cloister yourself in their delusional world.
Red Baron said "Htiler's policies were clearly Darwinist. He even used "survival of the fittest" as a recruiting slogan for his military...Hitler was once charged with homosexual solicitation.".
More pathetic lies from a delusional mind desperate to avoid reality. The Nazi party declared gays their enemy from its inception. Hitler and the Nazis were heterosexual Christians. The Church aided and abetted Hitler and the Nazi regime and millions of supportive Christians brought the Nazis to power.
Top Christian sci-fi writer calls for criminalization of gayness and overthrow of government if move to ban equal marriage in California is voted down:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/08/01/2478#comments
Yet again Red Baron's claim that "No one today is even suggesting that gayness be illegal, much less, harshly persecuted" is demonstrated to be a lie. How about it Red Baron, the facts are obvious, admit you lied on that one and promise you'll never repeat that lie.
One more point: if the gays were so powerful in Nazi Germany, why was it that beginning in 1934, the first groups sent to the concentration camps were Communists, Jews and . . . . . drum roll, please . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . homosexuals?
And any reputable historian would be laughing his or her ass off at your description of Weimar Germany. It was the Nazis, not the gays, who brought about the violence and political confrontation that marked the later Weimar period. Talk about blaming the victim. Morons.
--still not priya
Red Baron said "Just so you know, since you keep bringing up the Pope, I'm not a Catholic.".
In the same sense that you think the U.S. president is the leader of the free world the pope is the leader of all Christianity.
To further shred Red Baron's ludicrous assertions here is the Nazi's list of banned books 1932-1939:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
Note this list includes:
6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)
as well as:
All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.
Once again, the Nazis were obviously and undeniably ( to sane people anyway) Christian and rejected the writings of Darwin.
substitute Cambrian for Columbian
OK and while we're at it, let's substitute fact for fiction too.
The theory of evolution is well established. More complex creatures develop from simpler creatures. Mutation is one way that new traits are generated. Adaptive traits are favored by natural selection over maladaptive traits. The theory of evolution says nothing one way or the other about the supernatural. Many people of faith also believe in the theory of evolution as they are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is a testable theory, and every test of it over the past 150 has validated it. The fossil record is clear.
There were other "explosions" or "radiations" in addition to the pre-Cambrian. There were periods of "die-offs" over the billions of years of Earth's history too. When there were abrupt severe environmental changes, there were consequential effects on living creatures. Some species were killed off and others adapted to fill available niches.
When man's activities have finally depleted the ozone layer and melted the ice caps in Anarctica and the Arctic completely, there will be resultant changes to Earth's flora and fauna. We've all seen the pictures of polar bears stranded on their shrinking habitat. Other changes have already begun too. Honeybees, frogs and salamanders, coral reefs, and even entire sections of the ocean are dying off.
Some on the religious right insist on sticking their heads in the sand and doing nothing about these problems, but there's hope that together we can turn this situation around and save our planet from total degradation. Many in the evangelical movement are turning away from wedge issues and embracing creation care.
We hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one.
I almost forgot to check back on this thread from last week. I see Priya and some imbecile-anon are still denying that homosexuals were a big part of Weimar republic and the early Nazi movement.
Here's some reading:
"Homosexuality and Male Bonding in Pre-Nazi Germany"
Written by a gay researcher, Hubert Kennedy, at San Francisco State University, the first line of this well-documented book says "Before the Second World War, homosexual emancipation was largely a German phenomena."
"The Hidden Hitler"
Written by a professor of modern and current history at the University of Bremen, Germany, and the author of several scholarly books on 19th-century Germany. Contrary to Priya's characterization of this professor as a "right-wing religionist", here's an assessment of the book by Library Journal:
"Machtan here presents a documented study of Hitler's homosexuality and its impact upon his life and career. Machtan asserts that Hitler's homosexuality was known to some of his associates by the beginning of World War I and later in Vienna. As he became prominent, some of his associates in homoerotic circles of the Nazi movement attempted to blackmail him. These homoerotic undercurrents and Hitler's response to blackmail provide a hitherto neglected perspective on the questions surrounding the origins and development of Nazism. Although documenting homosexuality is a difficult task for historians of periods in which gays were oppressed and repressed, Machtan is able to provide evidence for his assertions as well as a nuanced and readable study of Hitler's sexuality."
Here's Booklist on the book:
"Machtan argues, with persuasive power, that to fully understand the Third Reich, one must realize that Hitler was homosexual and understand the homoerotic nature of the Nazi movement."
Sorry, Priya and idiot-anon, you are misinformed.
Get back to us when you've caught up on your reading.
“Anonymous said...
I see Priya and some imbecile-anon are still denying that homosexuals were a big part of Weimar republic and the early Nazi movement.”
So what you’re saying is that same-sex attraction is synonymous with the desire to kill Jews?
Do go on.
I don't need to go on, slob. I've provided two sources of books by academicians who document their case that there was significant gay influence in the formation of the Nazi party in Germany and that Hitler was probably gay.
Read the books and let us know if you can refute their points. If so, you'll have to scrap with a bunch of historians.
Most historians do not report a link between homosexuality and the formation of the Nazi party. Your two books represent far less than 1% of the books written that cover this part of humanity's history.
Are you saying we should read and believe your minority view of this history?
When you lump in the Weimar Republic and the Nazi movement as if they were one and the same, clearly not recognizing that the Weimar Republic was a target of the Nazis' ire and resentment, it shows what a complete moron you are.
And let's be clear -- you started with an opinion and then set out to find academic support for it. You found one book that says Hitler was gay -- it represents the opinions of one author, and goes against the considered opinions of the entire academic establishment. Having found what you wanted, you stopped looking and said "Aha! Look what I found! See?"
Great intellectual exercise there, Einstein. Here's a better idea. Start with an open mind. Then try reading Ian Kershaw or any one of a half dozen other authors on Hitler who actually knows something about the subject. Then reach a conclusion based on what you read. Then come back and tell us what it is. Until then, go away.
It is incredibly and astonishingly toxic to equate a whole group of people with the Nazis.
Stop.
Sybil said…
“I don't need to go on, slob. I've provided two sources of books by academicians who document their case that there was significant gay influence in the formation of the Nazi party in Germany and that Hitler was probably gay.
Read the books and let us know if you can refute their points. If so, you'll have to scrap with a bunch of historians.”
None of which answers my question: “So what you’re saying is that same-sex attraction is synonymous with the desire to kill Jews?”
Even if Hitler and all Nazi’s were gay (a dubious assertion at best), that still doesn’t establish a connection between same-gender attraction, and the desire to commit mass murder - WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE IMPLYING.
If you want to assert that this is the case, then do so, I’m just saying back it up.
Post a Comment
<< Home