PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Delegates Forced out of Republican Convention



Laisrean
April 27th, 2008, 12:13 AM
Link (http://www.restoretherepublic.com/content/view/1061/71/)


At the Nueces County Republican party convention, March 29th, in Corpus Christ Texas, Ron Paul supporters walked out in protest and held their own emergency convention in the parking lot. Republican party Chairperson Mike Bertuzzi grossly violated party rules by announcing new delegates to the morning's roll call who were never elected as precinct delegates on the night of the Republican primary, then again by ignoring repeated objections by party delegates, which he is required to recognize..

Mr. Bertuzzi claims that he avoided a 'party takeover' by unruly Ron Paul supporters, but a recently released audio tape of the event clearly shows otherwise. As a blatant violation of convention rules is underway by the Chairperson, many delegates can be heard rising to voice objections with no avail until a local man, Paul Hunt , is escorted out by the Sergeant at Arms..

If anyone has any doubt that we're in a dictatorship, please watch this video.

Philosophia
April 27th, 2008, 12:34 AM
Okay, I'm going to show my stupidity but why is Ron Paul a republican? To me, republicans and democrats are the same type (but with different names).

Laisrean
April 27th, 2008, 12:39 AM
Okay, I'm going to show my stupidity but why is Ron Paul a republican? To me, republicans and democrats are the same type (but with different names).

Because he believes in small, limited, constitutional government just like the G.O.P. used to before Dicks like Dick Cheney and Dick Nixon seized control of it. In short, Ron Paul is a conservative, but not a neo-conservative. His kind isn't welcome in the G.O.P. anymore, so most of them have went to third parties, but he's like the last hold-out or something.

Nox_Mortus
April 27th, 2008, 12:41 AM
Okay, I'm going to show my stupidity but why is Ron Paul a republican? To me, republicans and democrats are the same type (but with different names).

He's a traditional conservative, and the Reuplicans represent the majority of conservatives in the US (or it did before it was hijacked by neo-cons) the reason he's running as a Republican instead of a Libertarian (which he ran as before) is because it's almost impossible for a third party candidate to get any attention at all (Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are the only ones in recent history that have gotten any media attention)

WokeUpDead
April 27th, 2008, 02:47 PM
That's not very nice of them.

AmericanMe
April 27th, 2008, 03:54 PM
In all fairness, Ron Paul doesn't even turn Reagan Republicans on. So it ain't his non-neocon-ness, but the more Libertarian Party stands he holds. Concervatives across the board don't want to retreat, nor are they for open borders or for radical legalization of drugs.

Plus you have to admit, Paul's supporters can be a little obnoxious.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
April 27th, 2008, 04:25 PM
Concervatives across the board don't want to retreat, nor are they for open borders or for radical legalization of drugs. .

Ron Paul is not for open borders.

Jeremy Westenn
April 27th, 2008, 06:11 PM
Ron Paul is a nut and you all don't realize half the things that he actually supports.

Moving on from that... As being someone who is involved in the state democratic party, as someone who was a district level delegate for Senator Clinton and was at the district level convention I can tell you some things I know.

For one, if you have a motion or point of order is HAS to be heard. And if it's a motion and there is discussion on the floor that discussion lasts until there is NO MORE DISCUSSION. It's not a matter of bringing it to a close, as long as discussion is there it goes on. Eventually everyone will agree to bring it to a close and no one else will say anything, etc. We had a very bad motion being presented at our convention that was very one sided and it caused a little drama for us.

Secondly, I really have to wonder at the ability of the Ron Paul delegation to actually vote out the selected delegates by the state Nevada party and vote in ones they approve. At the convention in Kansas here we elect delegates to the national convention, the state party does not choose them. But from what I understand the state party choosing them is the norm among Republicans. I know it's how we do it here in Kansas, the Leavenworth Party Chair is one of my proffesor's and friends and he explained their process to me.

This is interesting though. Really interesting. I have to wonder at the validity of the motion they presented and voted upon to begin with. For those of you not aware they presented a motion to remove the selected delegates and vote to elect delegates.

There is a process to that though. For one you must be a registered Republican, so those Ron Paul supporters cannot be registered as anything else. There is a submission application process that exists here in the state democratic party and other parties that has a date you can no longer send in declarations of candidacy, and they have to verify that declaration of candidacy, etc. etc.

So.... Yeah. Rant off.

This will be interesting to play out. It's possible the national Republican party may refuse to seat those delegates, if they do so there will be a lawsuit. Without reading and analyzing the rules here though I have no idea who's right or wrong, but it looks like convention shenanigans took place.

And, to agree with others, although Ron Paul stands for things I do NOT agree with he is not a typical conservative. Think Barry Goldwater. That's a man this Democrat would consider voting for.

- Jeremy

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
April 27th, 2008, 06:22 PM
I thought that guy was banned.:yayah:

Jeremy Westenn
April 27th, 2008, 06:22 PM
Ok seriously, after having listened to that I am PISSED. I will call the Nevada Republican state party tomorrow and I will raise a riot as a Democrat standing up for Ron Paul supporters.

This is the BULLSHIT. Curse them, hex them, raise hell I say!!

Jeremy Westenn
April 27th, 2008, 06:23 PM
I thought that guy was banned.:yayah:

For two days for non sense actually. I'll message you later if you wish.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
April 27th, 2008, 06:27 PM
Ok seriously, after having listened to that I am PISSED. I will call the Nevada Republican state party tomorrow and I will raise a riot as a Democrat standing up for Ron Paul supporters.

This is the BULLSHIT. Curse them, hex them, raise hell I say!!


Ugh I thought you said Ron Paul was a nut?

Jeremy Westenn
April 27th, 2008, 06:29 PM
Democracy is democracy, and democratic. I will stand up for the rights of the people I don't agree with. The state party, mine and theirs, needs to abide by the rules they lay out.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
April 27th, 2008, 06:42 PM
Democracy is democracy, and democratic. I will stand up for the rights of the people I don't agree with. The state party, mine and theirs, needs to abide by the rules they lay out.

Thank you very much but democracy does not equal freedom:http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html


....The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0451528816/lewrockwell/) and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?...
Theres more...

Jeremy Westenn
April 27th, 2008, 06:45 PM
I disagree.

Yes, majority rules, but we also have checks and balances. 2/3'd majority for instance. Ontop of that we have a state, federal, and supreme court system to administer checks and balances.

Let me give you an example. The state of Massachusetts did not legalize same sex marriage like they and all states should do through the legislature. Instead there was a case called Goodman vs. department of public health and it went to the state supreme court and the state supreme court decided with Goodman, thus ensuring people treated equally in the Commonwealth.

No system is perfect, but ours is as close as you get.

Jeremy Westenn
April 27th, 2008, 06:50 PM
What do you want to change then? :/ Really? Whats your suggestion to make it better? I'd like to know.

Phoenix Blue
April 27th, 2008, 07:42 PM
I thought that guy was banned.:yayah:
ADMIN MODE

Moderations and administrative actions will not be discussed in public.

Laisrean
April 27th, 2008, 08:12 PM
In all fairness, Ron Paul doesn't even turn Reagan Republicans on. So it ain't his non-neocon-ness, but the more Libertarian Party stands he holds. Concervatives across the board don't want to retreat, nor are they for open borders or for radical legalization of drugs.

Plus you have to admit, Paul's supporters can be a little obnoxious.

As DT pointed out, Ron Paul is against open borders and is personally against abortion and gay marriage. He's not a complete Libertarian, but more like a hybrid between them and a Republican. I don't agree with him on some things, but I am able to support him because I do agree with the majority of what he stands for. But what I don't get is why a lot of conservative folks can't get past his position on foreign policy, even though they do agree with him on most or all of his domestic policies. Should a candidate be rejected from a party for disagreeing on just a few issues; even though he supports 90% of the rest?

David19
April 27th, 2008, 08:27 PM
As DT pointed out, Ron Paul is against open borders and is personally against abortion and gay marriage.

Then that's all I need to know, I hope he never gets power. He'd just set LGBT rights back decades, if not centuries and same for women's rights, and probably the rights of immigrants.

In terms of how he feels about LGBT people, he's probably just like Bush, maybe they'd get on great (who knows, they could be the best of friends).

Jeremy Westenn
April 27th, 2008, 08:34 PM
The issue about me with Ron Paul is that he is NOT a Republican.

He is a Libertarian and if you need any more proof it's that he RAN as their Presidential candidate previously. Not to far back.

This is a joke. Just a joke. If he wants to do this stuff that's fine, the state party shouldn't pull shennanigans like they are doing, however he really should do the right thing and join the party he's allready identified previously with.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
April 27th, 2008, 08:41 PM
Then that's all I need to know, I hope he never gets power. He'd just set LGBT rights back decades, if not centuries and same for women's rights, and probably the rights of immigrants.

In terms of how he feels about LGBT people, he's probably just like Bush, maybe they'd get on great (who knows, they could be the best of friends).

Are you damn serious!? He was one of the few Republicans to vote against the amendment banning gay marriage. He has criticized Bush and the Neocons countless times, is against the patriot act, and whole bunch of other things completely against Bushism. Hes against the national id, against the war.

I dont think I should really take your posts seriously anymore.

Laisrean
April 27th, 2008, 08:52 PM
Then that's all I need to know, I hope he never gets power. He'd just set LGBT rights back decades, if not centuries and same for women's rights, and probably the rights of immigrants.

In terms of how he feels about LGBT people, he's probably just like Bush, maybe they'd get on great (who knows, they could be the best of friends).

If you read my post carefully, I said he is against those things "personally". He isn't against them "politically". He's an advocate for state's rights, so he wouldn't interfere one way or the other.

Laisrean
April 27th, 2008, 08:57 PM
Are you damn serious!? He was one of the few Republicans to vote against the amendment banning gay marriage. He has criticized Bush and the Neocons countless times, is against the patriot act, and whole bunch of other things completely against Bushism. Hes against the national id, against the war.

I dont think I should really take your posts seriously anymore.

Exactly. Ron voted against banning Gay Marriage. It's just, he won't vote to legalize it either. He thinks it should be up to the states, so he doesn't want the federal government to ban it or legalize it, but just let the states decide.

That's a good thing if you support gay marriage, because only 1 or 2 states have gay marriage legalized right now, and a majority is against it. So if it came down to the federal government deciding this issue, they would most likely ban it entirely. So it's better that the federal government doesn't get to decide this issue, so that states like Massachusetts can keep it legal.

David19
April 27th, 2008, 09:18 PM
Are you damn serious!? He was one of the few Republicans to vote against the amendment banning gay marriage. He has criticized Bush and the Neocons countless times, is against the patriot act, and whole bunch of other things completely against Bushism. Hes against the national id, against the war.

I dont think I should really take your posts seriously anymore.

Well, then I must have misread Laisrean's post, he said Ron Paul was against gays and abortion, I assumed he must be quite bigoted then.

Jeremy Westenn
April 27th, 2008, 09:21 PM
He's still no herald for equal treatment.

David19
April 27th, 2008, 09:22 PM
If you read my post carefully, I said he is against those things "personally". He isn't against them "politically". He's an advocate for state's rights, so he wouldn't interfere one way or the other.


Exactly. Ron voted against banning Gay Marriage. It's just, he won't vote to legalize it either. He thinks it should be up to the states, so he doesn't want the federal government to ban it or legalize it, but just let the states decide.

That's a good thing if you support gay marriage, because only 1 or 2 states have gay marriage legalized right now, and a majority is against it. So if it came down to the federal government deciding this issue, they would most likely ban it entirely. So it's better that the federal government doesn't get to decide this issue, so that states like Massachusetts can keep it legal.

Why should it be up the States, can't the President create a law saying it is legal, and should be legal?. IMO, it's just an excuse for him to say "I didn't vote against it, it's the States that did it", that way, he can say he's not homophobic (although since he doesn't agree with it, we all know he is and obvously, doesn't think women should have true equality if he doesn't think they should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies).

Here's something I don't get, with the civil rights movement, when black people fought for equality, the government didn't make any BS excuses, as far as I'm aware, about letting individual States decide whether to give black people equality, they made it legal in every State, why can't they do that for LGBT people and our rights?, don't we matter?. I think it just the dominance of homophobia in our world, and in politics.

Jeremy Westenn
April 27th, 2008, 09:24 PM
No, the President can't create a law, we have a governing body, he's the executive branch.

That's a really ignorant thing to say. <_<

Trust me, you want the federal government out of this.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
April 27th, 2008, 09:30 PM
Well, then I must have misread Laisrean's post, he said Ron Paul was against gays and abortion, I assumed he must be quite bigoted then.

I assumed you already knew... http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=179625

Afterall you created a whole thread on some of it. Ron Paul and Gay rights?

Laisrean
April 27th, 2008, 09:53 PM
Why should it be up the States, can't the President create a law saying it is legal, and should be legal?.

No. The President can't create laws; that's the role of the Legislature. Ron Paul is a member of the Legislature, and as a member of the legislature he voted against an amendment to ban gay marriage. So you can say he is homophobic, but he took a stand that went against most of his party and he voted against making it illegal. So I'm sure he's not perfect in your opinion, but wouldn't you agree he's at least better than Bush and most others who wanted it banned?


Here's something I don't get, with the civil rights movement, when black people fought for equality, the government didn't make any BS excuses, as far as I'm aware, about letting individual States decide whether to give black people equality, they made it legal in every State, why can't they do that for LGBT people and our rights?, don't we matter?. I think it just the dominance of homophobia in our world, and in politics.

I'm sure they did make excuses. Many people fought it tooth and nail, but they lost and eventually there was racial equality. But as for why LGBT marriage hasn't been adopted, my guess is because people don't see the right to marry as a big of a deal as the rights blacks were deprived of. Could you imagine if LGBTs were denied entry to places that were "straight only", and you couldn't use the same water fountains or restrooms as straight people? That's the sort of thing blacks had to go through, and it was much more of a problem than just marriage rights.

AmericanMe
April 28th, 2008, 04:11 AM
Ron Paul is not for open borders.

My bad.

AmericanMe
April 28th, 2008, 04:14 AM
The thing about Paul now is that he's at the point where he's wasting people's time and money. He isn't going to get the nomination, but he won't concede and bow out gracefully. I don't know if he's trying to make a point or what, but it borders on the childish.

I actually agree with many of Paul's stances, but at this time, he's doing more harm than good. There's a time to take a stand and there's a time to accept reality and move on.

RoseKitten
April 28th, 2008, 04:38 AM
Then that's all I need to know, I hope he never gets power. He'd just set LGBT rights back decades, if not centuries and same for women's rights, and probably the rights of immigrants.

In terms of how he feels about LGBT people, he's probably just like Bush, maybe they'd get on great (who knows, they could be the best of friends).

I'd actually like to disagree here. Being personally against something does not mean that you would prevent legislation on something. Example: I am personally against abortion, but that does not mean that I'd want to see it banned completely. Ron Paul has made it very clear that he is for states rights, and defending the Constitution, that does not mean he isn't entitled to his own personal values.

Laisrean
April 28th, 2008, 05:37 AM
In all fairness, Ron Paul doesn't even turn Reagan Republicans on.

I forgot to mention earlier that Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul seemed to have a mutual respect for one another. In fact, here's a quote by Reagan himself:


Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defence. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.

Pulled it from here (http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/saying.html).

And for the heck of it, here's a quote by Joe Scarborough:


Let me tell you Ron, there are a lot of people out there in the Republican primaries, trying to seize the mantle of Ronald Reagan...but when it comes to economic issues, you are the only guy out there that really is delivering the same message that Ronald Reagan delivered for 30 years.

* Joe Scarborough, August 22, 2007


So it would seem that Ron Paul and Ron Reagan may not be all that dissimilar. Plus, I'd like to point out that it is a common misconception that Paul is an isolationist or a pacifist. While he voted against the Iraq war, he did vote for the Afghan war, and he does support going after Al Qaeda (but not in the way Bush is going about it).

David19
April 28th, 2008, 04:49 PM
No. The President can't create laws; that's the role of the Legislature. Ron Paul is a member of the Legislature, and as a member of the legislature he voted against an amendment to ban gay marriage. So you can say he is homophobic, but he took a stand that went against most of his party and he voted against making it illegal. So I'm sure he's not perfect in your opinion, but wouldn't you agree he's at least better than Bush and most others who wanted it banned?

I'll admit I was wrong to say he was just like Bush, but I do get passionate when it comes to LGBT rights and I react quite strongly as you can see.



I'm sure they did make excuses. Many people fought it tooth and nail, but they lost and eventually there was racial equality. But as for why LGBT marriage hasn't been adopted, my guess is because people don't see the right to marry as a big of a deal as the rights blacks were deprived of. Could you imagine if LGBTs were denied entry to places that were "straight only", and you couldn't use the same water fountains or restrooms as straight people? That's the sort of thing blacks had to go through, and it was much more of a problem than just marriage rights.

LGBT people are banned from going into places that are straight only - marriage, and other things too.

But, just 'cause there may not be the same type of discrimination that black's went through, doesn't mean there isn't discrimination (look at the number of LGBT teens who are kicked out of their home or forced to run away just for being L, G, B or T, the abuse they get - physical, psychological, emotional, even spiritual, etc, homophobic attacks and violence against LGBT people (which are on the rise in some areas, like around where my uni is, etc), etc).

Also, factor in the persecution that LGBT people have suffered throughout history, even in Africa, and also the Holocaust, I think we have suffered quite a lot.

If we're going to play the game of which group has suffered "the most", then I guess Jews beat blacks, afterall, they've been one of the worst persecuted groups in history, in "pagan" times and Christian, etc.

David19
April 28th, 2008, 05:00 PM
So it would seem that Ron Paul and Ron Reagan may not be all that dissimilar. Plus, I'd like to point out that it is a common misconception that Paul is an isolationist or a pacifist. While he voted against the Iraq war, he did vote for the Afghan war, and he does support going after Al Qaeda (but not in the way Bush is going about it).

How would he go about it?, and I'm generally curious about that.

Also, from what I've learned about Reagan, getting compared to him isn't so great, Reagan, from what I learned about him last year, was very right wing, wanted a "Star Wars" program, divided the world into "good" and "evil", by labelling the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire", and other things (for a big project last year, it was a Film Studies one, and I looked at how Hollywood and the Pentagon influence each other, and one of the sections included movies in the 1980s and early 1990s and how they reflected Reagan and his policies (or vice-versa). Really, if you take a look at some of the movies, like Star Wars, the Rambo movies, and others, it seems like either Reagan was getting his ideas from the movies or the movies were reflecting Reagan's policies, in order to further influence the public to support him. He wanted to look really strong, and tough, and compared himself to Rambo, used the language of Star Wars, etc (and Bush has followed in some of his footsteps, by talking about creating the "Star Wars" program, etc).

If you want to read more about that, one of the books I used (from my uni library) was 'Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity in the Reagan Era' by Susan Jeffords (http://www.amazon.com/Hard-Bodies-Hollywood-Masculinity-Reagan/dp/0813520037), it's really good, IMO, especially if you want to learn more about this topic. It also shows how film and the Pentagon or politics can mix and create propaganda for the public (this was one of my favourite subjects, as I loved doing Film Studies, and do consider it an art).

banondraig
April 29th, 2008, 12:14 AM
How would he go about it?, and I'm generally curious about that.

Also, from what I've learned about Reagan, getting compared to him isn't so great, Reagan, from what I learned about him last year, was very right wing, wanted a "Star Wars" program, divided the world into "good" and "evil", by labelling the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire"

(snipped)


Just to play devil's advocate, what exactly is *good* about the regime that slaughtered several times as many people as Hitler ever did? Mass murder in the tens of millions sounds pretty evil to me.

Laisrean
April 29th, 2008, 12:46 AM
Just to play devil's advocate, what exactly is *good* about the regime that slaughtered several times as many people as Hitler ever did? Mass murder in the tens of millions sounds pretty evil to me.

I agree. Reagan was right that the Soviet Union was governed by an evil ideology which enslaved and killed millions of people for the good of the collective hive. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler, but we let him off the hook for some reason.

Laisrean
April 29th, 2008, 12:50 AM
I actually agree with many of Paul's stances, but at this time, he's doing more harm than good. There's a time to take a stand and there's a time to accept reality and move on.

How exactly is he doing any harm? He's conceded in a video on his site that it is impossible for him to win, and everyone realizes that. He's not siphoning support away from McCain the way Obama and Hillary are doing to one another. I think he's doing good by staying in the race, actually, because he is making points and bringing up issues that wouldn't be discussed otherwise, and he is also bringing new members to the G.O.P. (even though apparently they aren't really welcomed).

David19
April 29th, 2008, 09:11 AM
Just to play devil's advocate, what exactly is *good* about the regime that slaughtered several times as many people as Hitler ever did? Mass murder in the tens of millions sounds pretty evil to me.


I agree. Reagan was right that the Soviet Union was governed by an evil ideology which enslaved and killed millions of people for the good of the collective hive. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler, but we let him off the hook for some reason.

Yes, it is, but I was just showing how Reagan seemed to just pursue an almost militant, very aggressive foreign policy (and domestic policy, from what I remember when I learned about him). Also, the book I mentioned, and my essay, showed how he seemed to get influenced by Hollywood (or vice-versa, and him and the Pentagon influenced Hollywood to create propaganda for them and their policies, and the military).

Edit: Just to play devil's advocate again, while I'm not defending Stalin or the murders he and his regime committed, one difference between him and Hitler is this - Stalin didn't target out of hatred of other "races" or cultures, at least not to the extent Hitler did, he was more politically motivated and didn't discriminate between who he killed (you could be Jewish, Russian, Eastern European, LGBT, whatever, etc and you'd be killed, but it wouldn't be 'cause you were those things, entirely anyway). Hitler wanted to wipe out whole peoples (well, actually only 2 or 3 peoples - the Jews, LGBT people and Gypsies), he wanted to completely exterminate them from the earth. Stalin may have allowed those who were of Jewish ancestry but good Communist's a position of power (I'm just guessing, I haven't studied Stalin, his regime and policies in great deal, but we did do the Purges in my Mass Murder module), although I know he did seem to have some kind of anti-Semitism, it didn't seem as strong as Hitler's, or maybe he just hid it well (anyone know different, as I would really love to know?), Hitler wanted to wipe out every Jew, regardless of whether they considred themselves religious Jews, whether they considered themselves German or even if they wanted to join the Nazi party (for whatever reason, although they'd probably have some wierd reasons for it).

Laisrean
April 29th, 2008, 09:30 AM
What difference does it make if the groups Hitler and Stalin targeted were different? The fact is they both kill millions of people, and that makes them evil no matter how you slice it. Now, maybe Stalin wasn't as Anti-Semetic or against LGBT people as Hitler was, but he killed like 4 times as many Ukrainians and Russians and other groups. Why should Anti-Semetism or LGBT be considered worse than killing other groups? Everyone is human and it is equally wrong to target any group.

And BTW, I heard Stalin did kill Jews and he was planning on killing many more of them right before he died. Maybe he didn't kill as many as Hitler, but you can't say Stalin was a friend to Jews or LGBT. And what about all the Ukrainians and dissidents and other groups? Their deaths should be considered equally horrific as the deaths of anyone else.

And while we're on the subject of genocide, I also think the Armenians don't get as much recognition as they should for what they endured. In Turkey it is actually a crime to say the Armenian genocide occured and you can be imprisoned for it. But most of the world recognizes that it did happen.

pawnman
April 29th, 2008, 10:48 AM
What, both of them?

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
April 29th, 2008, 11:57 AM
Hitler wanted to wipe out whole peoples (well, actually only 2 or 3 peoples - the Jews, LGBT people and Gypsies), he wanted to completely exterminate them from the earth. .

You are incorrect. He only deemed Aryans worthy. The primary targets were Jews, followed by "mongrels"- Mixed race people, while gays, gypsies, blacks, and others followed (not in any specific orders). Although he did consider people such as Spaniards and Italians inferior, he still let them live, but he also talked about having slaves....

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
April 29th, 2008, 12:04 PM
Stalin may have allowed those who were of Jewish ancestry but good Communist's a position of power (I'm just guessing, I haven't studied Stalin, his regime and policies in great deal, but we did do the Purges in my Mass Murder module), although I know he did seem to have some kind of anti-Semitism, it didn't seem as strong as Hitler's, or maybe he just hid it well (anyone know different, as I would really love to know?), Hitler wanted to wipe out every Jew, regardless of whether they considred themselves religious Jews, whether they considered themselves German or even if they wanted to join the Nazi party (for whatever reason, although they'd probably have some wierd reasons for it).

That isnt entirely true. http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righit.html

Apperently Hitler made exemptions himself, fully knowing. There were generals, admirals, even. And there were Jewish Nazis working in concentration camps of course...

Silverfire Darkmoon
April 29th, 2008, 12:17 PM
And there were Jewish Nazis working in concentration camps of course...

I guess that those guys would be the textbook example of the self-hating Jew?
Woody Allen, eat your heart out!

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
April 29th, 2008, 12:38 PM
I guess that those guys would be the textbook example of the self-hating Jew?
Woody Allen, eat your heart out!

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6082/605/200/Gay%20KKK.jpg

Laisrean
April 29th, 2008, 12:51 PM
The funny thing is, Hitler's father was half Jewish, so this meant Hitler himself was a quarter Jewish. He had his soldier's fire artillery rounds into this cemetery in his hometown in Austria so that all of the tombstones were destroyed beyond recognition, and that way no one could prove that his father (who was buried there) was Jewish.

David19
April 29th, 2008, 08:22 PM
The funny thing is, Hitler's father was half Jewish, so this meant Hitler himself was a quarter Jewish. He had his soldier's fire artillery rounds into this cemetery in his hometown in Austria so that all of the tombstones were destroyed beyond recognition, and that way no one could prove that his father (who was buried there) was Jewish.

Ok, that's actually totally made up, when I did the Holocaust in my 2nd year, my lecturer, who was actually German, and knew a great deal about it, as he's been studying it for ages (and I think, at the time, he was working on a PHD in it), he was asked if Hitler was 1/2 Jewish, and he said he wasn't, it's just a lie that got spread around.

I think that people only like to say he was 1/2 Jewish or whatever, 'cause they feel it makes him slightly "less anti-Semitic" or that it somehow doesn't make the Holocaust as bad if it was perputrated by someone who was from a Jewish background.

So, it is definitely false. He was not 1/2 Jewish at all. I saw a programme, I think it was a year ago or something, so I can't remember exactly what it said, but I think his mother had an affair with someone (not a Jew, I don't think) and he was born illegitimate or something like that, I think, he basically had some kind of screwed up family (I've even heard there was some kind of incest in his family, although I may be remembering the documentary wrongly).

Some people say when his mother died, she was being treated by a Jewish doctor and Hitler blamed the doctor (and therefore all Jews) for his mum's death, but I'm not sure how true that is.

It's funny, but I've also read and heard that, in Vienna, while he was an artist, most of the people who supported him and brought his works were Jews, so it's quite ironic, that he turned against his main supporters of his art. Although I'm not sure how true that is.

He definitely isn't Jewish or 1/2 Jewish anyway, from what I was told.

David19
April 29th, 2008, 08:29 PM
What difference does it make if the groups Hitler and Stalin targeted were different? The fact is they both kill millions of people, and that makes them evil no matter how you slice it. Now, maybe Stalin wasn't as Anti-Semetic or against LGBT people as Hitler was, but he killed like 4 times as many Ukrainians and Russians and other groups. Why should Anti-Semetism or LGBT be considered worse than killing other groups? Everyone is human and it is equally wrong to target any group.

And BTW, I heard Stalin did kill Jews and he was planning on killing many more of them right before he died. Maybe he didn't kill as many as Hitler, but you can't say Stalin was a friend to Jews or LGBT. And what about all the Ukrainians and dissidents and other groups? Their deaths should be considered equally horrific as the deaths of anyone else.

And while we're on the subject of genocide, I also think the Armenians don't get as much recognition as they should for what they endured. In Turkey it is actually a crime to say the Armenian genocide occured and you can be imprisoned for it. But most of the world recognizes that it did happen.

It doesn't make a difference, as they are both evil acts, but I just wanted to point out that Stalin, at first, didn't kill 'cause of "race" or culture (at first), it more political. Hitler targeted purely on "race" and culture.

Although, if killing millions or even thousands makes someone or a group evil, then wouldn't that make the Founding Fathers and even Bush evil, afterall, the Native American's were massacred, and enslaved, due to Bush's war, thousands of innocent Iraqi's have been killed, etc?.

Personally, I would call the killing, enslavement, oppression and massacres of Native American's and innocent Iraqi's "evil" acts, in the same way as the killing & oppression of Jews, the killing & oppression of black Africans in Darfur, the killings & oppression of LGBT people, killings ?& oppression of women, etc as evil acts, IMO.

David19
April 29th, 2008, 08:56 PM
You are incorrect. He only deemed Aryans worthy. The primary targets were Jews, followed by "mongrels"- Mixed race people, while gays, gypsies, blacks, and others followed (not in any specific orders). Although he did consider people such as Spaniards and Italians inferior, he still let them live, but he also talked about having slaves....


That isnt entirely true. http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righit.html

Apperently Hitler made exemptions himself, fully knowing. There were generals, admirals, even. And there were Jewish Nazis working in concentration camps of course...

Thanks for correcting me, and thanks for that interesting link and that book does sound really interesting (I might actually see if they have it in my uni library or local library near my home or, when I have some extra money, I might buy it). I do know that some Jews did help the Nazi's, like the Nazi's would recruit Jewish kids to help them find and track down other Jews. I remember in Secondary School/High School, we watched a movie on the Holocaust, and it featured a Jewish child helping the Nazi's find Jews, and one person asked why they were helping the Nazis, and my teacher said, something like, given the choice of likely death for them and their families, it was "better" to work for the Nazi's, to help save themselves and their families (and maybe friends, if they could).

I just wonder, what torment those Jews who helped the Nazi's went through, or if they did, I'm sure some Jews might not have cared and maybe would have even wanted to do it or enjoyed it (particularly if some or a few of them were sociopathic or psychopathic, etc).

In my local library, there is or was a book called 'Hanussen: Hitler's Jewish Clairvoyant' by Mel Gordon (http://www.amazon.com/Hanussen-Hitlers-Clairvoyant-Mel-Gordon/dp/0922915687), I haven't read it yet, but I might do (I can't yet, as my local library is being done up, so it's not open yet, but it should be open soon). It sounds quite interesting, and I'm interested in Nazi's and the occult, and this sounds very interesting.

Personally, I think Hitler was just using anyone who could help him and the Nazi's and if using Jews, for whatever purpose, whether it was their strength, their youth, their supernatural abilities, etc, he'd use them, and, most likely, once they fulfilled their use and he had no further use for them, he would have eliminated them, due to the fact they were Jews, and he wanted to wipe them all out, every last one of them (I've also heard that he intended to go into the Middle East, to wipe out the Jews there, and one of the reasons why he didn't want Jews fleeing Nazi Germany and Europe to Palestine, was so they wouldn't become too powerful and a threat to him or Nazi Geramny. I wonder what life would've been like if Hitler had won, I know I wouldn't be here, or my mum or grandma, etc. It's kind of interesting to think about (I'm also interested in fiction that explores that theme, and creates a realistic view of what life may have been like 'In the Presence of Mine Enemies' by Harry Turtledove (http://www.amazon.com/Presence-Mine-Enemies-Harry-Turtledove/dp/0451529022), I haven't read this yet, but I really want to, it sounds very cool (actually, so do a lot of his books, he sounds like a great author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Turtledove) and here's his official site (http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/turtledove.html)).

Anway, I just think it's quite interesting to think about what life would've been like if Hitler and the Nazi's had won (actually, I like doing that about a lot of things, like what've happened in if the Christianity had remained a mystery religion and didn't become very powerful, what've happened if the ancient religions, like Roman, Greek, Sumerian and/or other Mesopotamian religion, Kemetic, Aztec, Mayan, Canaanite, Norse, Celtic, etc had come down to us, intact, etc.

David19
April 29th, 2008, 08:58 PM
I guess that those guys would be the textbook example of the self-hating Jew?
Woody Allen, eat your heart out!

Very true, I bet a lot of psychologists would love to sit down with them and find out what makes them tick!.

David19
April 29th, 2008, 08:59 PM
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6082/605/200/Gay%20KKK.jpg

:lol:.

Dark_Tezcatlipoca
April 29th, 2008, 11:23 PM
:lol:.

I know thats hilarious. From Chappelle's show I don't know if it is shown in the UK but its really funny. In addition to having the "gay KKK" they also had a black klansman skit.:giggle: