User talk:Liberals want to destroy our morals by legalizing marijuana

I never got what was immoral about marijuana. Can't see how it is really any more immoral than alcohol and tobacco. Both the later are at least as bad as it is. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberals hate tobacco and love marijuana. If liberals support something, it almost always means God opposes it. If marijuana were not immoral, liberals would not want it legalized. Liberals want to destroy our morals by legalizing marijuana (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your pain my friend. I personally loved the passage in Deuteronomy where God comes out against weed. SJ ^Debaser 11:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

On the wild assumption that you're not a troll, if you're worried that the legalization of a drug that you probably haven't tried and probably never will try is going to corrupt your morals, then I'd say the biggest problem lies with your lack of moral fiber, if that's all it takes to corrupt you. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What is going on?

World	Blogs	Clogs	Elections	The Bar
(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(hic)

Welcome to RationalWiki, Liberals want to destroy our morals by legalizing marijuana!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Read what our articles are intended to be
Check out the to-do list
See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet
If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft
And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Greetings, bunchofwords! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And who wouldn't trade their morals for some sweet, sweet marijuana? :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi...er...what was I gonna say? heh. heh heh... hehhh aahahaaa. Is the supermarket open yet? Rennie McGreet (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I've never done it more than occasionally, but I really don't see a moral issue in occasional use of marijuana. If you are doing it everyday, well that's a different story. But once in a blue moon never hurt anybody. So I can have my pot and my morals too. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm showing this at the Saloon. This is hilarious. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, somebody finally caught us all out. Ok, we are all Hitler. Sorry about that. --Brendiggg (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you liberal cowards explain the similarities between liberalism and National Socialism? Liberals want to destroy our morals by legalizing marijuana (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservatives hate Communism. So did Hitler.

Conservatives persecute homosexuals. So did Hitler.

Conservatives promote "family values". So did Hitler.

Conservatives are warmongers. So was Hitler.

etc. and so forth...--Brendiggg (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You crack me up[edit]

Saying Nazis were gay is about as factually accurate as saying that the Nazis were a pro-Jewish lot. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 11:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, everyone knows the Nazis were fabulous.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You spelt it wrong Stabby. It's faaaaaaaaaaaabulous. SJ ^Debaser 11:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Fourth Battalion Transvestite Brigade... parachuting behind enemy lines... with fantastic make-up... --PsyGremlinFale! 11:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the small element of truth in it all could be Ernst Röhm and some parts of the SA leadership. Then again, given the fact that Hitler had them killed, that's scarcely an argument that the Nazis as a whole were anything but virulently and murderously homophobic. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As mass murderers go, the nazis were very well dressed, so they must have been gay AMassiveGay (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a refutation request. Considering how many times the far-right has tried to Godwin liberals in the past, I can't believe we haven't broadly addressed this yet. Osaka Sun (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

RobertTurkel's rebuttal[edit]

I think the discussion below illustrates rather well what happens when people don't sign their posts.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 11:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a facepalm emoticon around here? Osaka Sun (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

liberals support redistribution of wealth. So did Hitler. - not really true on either count
- Taxing the rich = redistribution of wealth. It is liberal and un-American. Hitler supported taking money from the Jewish bankers who worked hard and giving it to unemployed "Aryans".
  - So your argument is that only the poor should be taxed. Brilliant.
    - If the rich should be taxed, the poor should be taxed equally. Most of the poor aren't paying taxes, since the bleeding hearts say that wouldn't be fair to them. Yeah right. What a load of Marxist nonsense.
      - So people who make barely enough (or less than enough) to survive should pay as much a proportion of their income in taxes as people making millions? I guess we have to disagree on that one. Still has nothing to do with Hitler.
        Most "poor" people get plenty of money from welfare, but unlike hard-working citizens, they do not pay taxes in return. Many "poor" people in America obtain money from drug dealing and prostitution. The same is true with illegal aliens - the most prestigious class in the liberal universe. That's why the "Jesus was a socialist" crap doesn't work. Jesus cared about the TRULY poor. Not the lazy leeches in America. Welfare was supported, very strongly, by Hitler.
        So you think poor people should not get any money from welfare, but should instead pay money they can't afford to the government. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Liberals want to grab your guns. So did Hitler. - most liberals don't want to grab guns, and Hitler put more guns into German hands than anyone.
- Liberals do support gun control, and the extreme ones want to ban guns completely. Hitler also tried to diasrm all civilians.
  - So only extreme liberals are like Hitler then?
    - All liberals are somewhat Hitlerian in their views.
      - Because you say so. What a good debater you are.
        Coming from someone who, faced with the facts about Hitler's liberalism, resorts to ad hominem attacks?
        Considering your entire argument is one ad hominem, you have little basis for criticism. But back to the issue: most liberals don't want to ban guns, but want some policy in place to keep them out of certain hands. I imagine you do, or are you comfortable with the idea of gangs of militant muslims hoarding assault weapons?
Liberals want to abort "unfit" children. So did Hitler. - liberals don't want to abort "unfit" children, they believe the government shouldn't interfere with what woman does with her body.
- Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenicist/racist, and still targets minorities, the poor and the disabled today. The underlying agenda behind abortion is eugenics.
  - The United States was founded by racists, I guess the US is a racist nation then? Planned Parenthood doesn't "target" anyone. Minorities do make up a disproportionate percentgae of their clientele, but that's because that's where the demand is for various reasons, notably poverty.
    - There are more poor whites in America than poor blacks, yet most abortions are black. The purpose of the United States was never to eliminate "undesirables". The purpose of Planned Parenthood was and still is. How about you actually read about the subject?
      - I know more about it than you do. How many abortions has PP forced on unwilling minorities? (Hint: none)
        They deliberately set up their clinics in minority districts. Undercover operations have exposed their racism numerous times.
        Like any true capitalists, they go where the demand is, which happens to be poor/minority areas. Blame the minorities for demanding their services.
Liberals support euthanasia. So did Hitler. - many liberals believe people who are terminally ill should have the right to die if they choose. Hitler just killed loads of people.
- The real agenda behind liberal promotion of euthanasia is Hitlerian eugenics.
  - No it isn't. You're an idiot.
    - What a useful response.
      - But undeniably true.
        And you say I'm a bad debater?
        But you are. You make ridiculous statements with no basis in fact and no citations and expect us to accept them as true.
Liberals want to ban circumcision. So did Hitler. - few want to ban circumcision. This is irrelevant in any case.
- San Francisco liberals did attempt to ban it. Conservative Christians opposed them strongly.
  - A few liberals in one city wanted to ban circumcision, therefore it's part of the liberal agenda? Whatever. Nothing to do with Hitler anyway.
    - But NO conservatives want it banned. The reason liberals tried to ban it was to offend Christians and Jews. They dropped the measure when they realized it would hurt their best friends, the Muslims, too. It does have to do with Hitler. He called it a barbaric Jewish practice.
      - I don't know much about the circumcision issue, as it's esoteric and a red herring. Some people view it as somewhat abusive. We wouldn't cut off any other part of a person's body at birth (umbilical cord excepted). in any case, it's hardly an issue significant to either liberalism or Nazism.
        But it is related to an important similarity between liberals and Nazis - being Big Brother socialist control freaks.
        It's not an important facet of neither liberalism nor Nazism. It's a blatant case of grasping at straws.
Liberals are anti-Israel. So was Hitler. - some liberals do not support many of Israel's policies. There was no Israel when Hitler was alive.
- But there was a Zionist movement, and Hitler allied with the Arabs against it.
  - Still, liberals aren't anti-Israel (though many, even many Jewish liberals, are critical of many of their policies). Still nothing to do with Hitler.
    - And some conservatives are anti-Israel too. I guess they're Nazis as well.
    - Many liberals openly hate Israel. And this has nothing to do with Hitler, a virulent opponent of Zionism, how?
Liberals hate the American government. So did Hitler. - This is just retarded. If anyone hates the American government it's the TEA Party.
- Because the Tea Party are the ones who burn American flags and make death threats against Bush. Right.
  - No, they're making the threats against Obama, and speak out quite boldly against the government. They even want to drown it in the bathtub. I suppose Tim McVeigh was a liberal too?
    - Let's see...McVeigh smoked pot, was an atheist, was a criminal...sounds like a liberal to me. Obama is not "the American government", he is a communist usurper. Bush was a true American. Big difference.
      - Ah. So Obama is not the American government but Bush was? Your racism is showing, my friend. McVeigh wasn't an atheist, he was a member of the NRA, so couldn't have been a liberal since apparently liberals want to ban guns.
        The race card: the last refuge of a liberal who has lost an argument. It has nothing to do with Obama's color, it has everything to do with him being a Marxist, anti-American, non-citizen Islamist sympathizer (I'm actually not one who believes he himself is a Muslim - he is an anti-Christian atheist who sees Islam as a useful tool against America, Israel and Christianity). I would gladly vote for a conservative pro-American black man like Cain, but unfortunately he was lynched by the racist left. If you want to see racism, what about the libs who support funding Planned Parenthood with has killed more blacks then the KKK ever did?
        So a guy whose thesis is "liberals are Hitler" balks at the race card, eh? Your cartoonish depiction of Obama just shows you have no understanding of anything beyond your ignorant, simple minded views fed to you by propagandists on the far right.
Liberals love paganism. So did Hitler. - a few liberals are pagan. This has nothing to do with Hitler.
- Hitler was a pagan. A few liberals are pagan, but all support the "rights" of pagans. No conservatives are pagan.
  - Yes, liberals support the rights of pagans, and all other religions. It's conservatives like Hitler who want to suppress religious minorities (and Hitler wasn'y a pagan, though he may have had views in common with some of them)
    - Liberals want to suppress the majority instead. Just like Hitler. He only like the Aryan "ideal", not all those "scum" he sent to the camps.
      - Hitler did not want to suppress the majority. He had the widespread support of them. Like you, he wanted to suppress religious and ethnic minorities.
        The majority of Germans at that time were Christians. Hitler persecuted Christians and wanted to return to Wodan worship. And most Germans were not the blue-eyed blonde "ideal".
        Hitler didn't persecute Christians. You might be thinking of the Jews. Christians really need to get over their mindless persecution complex.
Liberals are pro-occult and anti-Christian. So was Hitler. - no they aren't
- Hitler believed in the occult. Hitler hated Christianity. It is conservatives who (rightly) want to censor the occult. Liberals think it is "freedom".
  - Yes, conservatives are against freedom. You express that quite well. I guess we agree there.
    - I can't speak for all "conservatives". I know there are liberal-tarian Paultard idiots who claim to be "conservative" yet support a lot of culturally destructive liberal nonsense. But true conservatives, the ones usually called "neo-cons" and "religious right" by the liberal bigots, realize that "separation of church and state" does not meann you should be able to practive any degenerate, anti-Christian belief you want. It means you should not be forced to be part of a certain Judeo-Christian denomination, not that you should be allowed to be non-Judeo-Christian as the liberals think. You can not control someone's beliefs, but I think all mosques should be bulldozed and all other non-Judeo-Christian religions (and liberal "Christian" denominations like the United "Church of Christ") should be barred from building new worship places.
      - So you're a fascist then. Good to know.
        I'm a fascist, huh? What part of Fascism do I subscribe to? The part about destroying religion, the part about destroying capitalism or the part about women's "rights"? No, no, I'm no fascist, I'm a conservative. Fascists were leftist-progressive-liberals, and vice versa.
        Of course they were. You just want to suppress all religious minorities. After you bulldoze all the mosques you'll have plenty of Zyklon B ready for all those Muslims, pagans, occultists, and members of Eastern religions you express so much disdain for. Not at al like the Nazis and fascists.
Liberals hate Judaism and Christianity but support Islam. So did Hitler. - nope.
- The ACLU is always trying to ban Jewish and Christian displays, yet always sticks up for Muslims. This is similar to Hitler, who persecuted Jews and Christians but respected "the bold Mohammedan faith".
  - The ACLU is against publicly financed displays of religion, including Muslim ones. The fact is that in a country with 1% Muslims, no one's trying to promote government sponsored Muslim displays, so there's nothing to oppose. Likewise we haven't seen much opposition to Zoroastrian displays.
    - Of course. Zoroastrians, like Muslims, are "multicultural" and "cool". They are also an "Aryan" religion and I bet Hitler would have liked them. And all the ACLU ever does is stand up FOR Muslims. The only time they stand up FOR "Christians" is when they defend the WBC...I rest my case.
      - The ACLU stands up for persecuted minorities. In this country, they are 1000x more likely to be Muslims than Christians.
        Why don't they stand up for the persecuted Christian MAJORITY? Why only the Muslims who are a protected class under Obama's regime?
        Because, incessant whining aside, Christians are not persecuted. Deal with it.
Liberals support Arab nationalism. So did Hitler. - liberals usually support Democracy (most conservatives do too), even in Arab nations. Hitler didn't.
- Liberals have always supported Arab nationalist groups such as the PLO and Hezbollah. Just like old Addie.
  - No they haven't. They have often supported a Palestinian state, but so have most of our recent presidents. Support for terrorist organizations is very rare.
Liberals want to ban smoking. So did Hitler. - liberals don't want to ban smoking. Many of them smoke.
- Some liberals do. These same liberals are fine with pot.
  - Some want to ban smoking in certain places, because cigarette smoke is harmful. No one is pushing for a cigarette ban in restaurants but in favor of allowing pot smoking there.
    - And Hitler was the first to try to ban smoking anywhere. So are you admitting liberals are at least somewhat like Hitler?
      - Yes, some liberals are somewhat like Hitler; they have two arms and two legs and a head. No liberals want to ban smoking everywhere.
        But liberal "scientists" do promote the "tobacco bad, weed good" nonsense.
        Nope. Both are harmful. No one denies this. But tobacco kills many more people than pot. Having alcohol and tobacco legal but not pot makes little sense. There is no movement to make pot acceptable where tobacco is not.
Liberals think marriage is "oppressive" and should be eliminated. So did Hitler. - No one thinks this.
- Hitler did. He believed marriage should be replaced with breeding programs. He saw it as a Semitic, Judeo-Christian institution as do many of today's far-left, anarchist liberals.
  - Fine, but no liberals think that.
    - You must not have read some of the radical feminist garbage out there.
      - So weird beliefs held by .01% of the population are indicative of liberalism as a whole? You fail logic forever.
        The fact that Hitler did have those ultra-liberal beliefs prove he was BEYOND liberal, but a far-left hyper-Marxist COMMUNIST.
        No, it shows he was a nutcase. We knew that already. That wacko feminists are opposed to marriage for entirely different reasons in insignificant. Also, Hitler got married right before he died, so he couldn't have opposed it that much.
Liberals support teen pregnancy. So did Hitler. - Are you completely stupid?
- See above, about the breeding programs. Hitler tried to get many teen girls impregnated out of wedlock as part of his "Aryan" breeding program. This is similar to liberals who always excuse out of wedlock births.
  - Not murdering Bristol Palin for getting knocked up is the same as instituting breeding programs? My god you're an idiot. If liberals want to get teens pregnant why do they support birth control? You should get your conservative talking points right and argue that liberals are in favor of teens having lots and lots of sex, not getting pregnant.
    - But when teens DO get pregant, liberals excuse it. They say that the whores should not be thrown out of the house for disobeying the Bible. What politically correct nonsense. And the fact is liberals DO support teen sex, just like Hitler.
      - And all those conservatives demanded Bristol Palin should be crucified for her screw up, right? Oh, wait, they practically canonized her.
        Which is why I don't agree with most conservatives about everything.
        Most intelligent thing you've said all day.
Liberals like Eastern religions as an alternative to "oppressive" Christianity. So did Hitler. - Liberals, unlike you apparently, believe in freedom of religion, even "eastern" ones.
- Many liberals actually convert to Eastern religions. Hitler, like many liberals, was obsessed with Buddhism.
  - Hitler was a Christian. Are you trying to argue that Buddhists are Nazis now? And some (not many) liberals have converted to Buddhism. Hitler didn't. Therefore liberals are like Hitler?
    - But Hitler was very fascinated with Buddhism, as are the trendy liberals who think it is a "cool" alternative to "boring old white male Christians".
      - Who the fuck cares? Buddhists are still something 1% of the population here. If liberals like Buddhism so much they be Buddhists. They aren't. Neither was Hitler, so maybe that's a similarity?
        The similarity is that both hate Judaism and Christianity and love Islam and any non-Abrahamic religion.
        Considering most liberals are Christians your point is utterly stupid. If liberals love Islam and other religions so much they'd join those religions. The large majority of them haven't.
        Evidence please that Hitler was obsessed with Buddhism. I've read a reasonable amount about him, I've never heard any mention of him personally in conjunction with Buddhism. (Some Nazis were interested in Buddhism, e.g. the German expedition to Tibet; but the Nazis were not all Hitler clones, many of them had their own agendas which Hitler did not personally share.) Citation needed. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Liberals support universal health care. So did Hitler. - And that makes universal healthcare bad?
- The fact that both liberals and Hitler support it means it is probably pretty bad.
  - What a fucking moron. Hitler liked roads. If you use a road you're a Nazi. Also, Hitler didn't support universal health care. His health care program for Jews was lacking, to say the least.
    - He supported universal health care for "Aryans". The fact is that universal health care has long been an important part of the agenda of socialist dictators, such as Hitler, Stalin and Obama.
      - Socialized medicine existed in Germany before Hitler. It wasn't exactly one of his bid ideas, and it wasn't universal under him as well. Universal healthcare has actually been a big part of most western Democracies, except the US.
        Which is why most have failed.
        Most countries have failed? What planet do you live on?
Liberals support universal education. So did Hitler. - ditto
- Ditto.
  - Jesus Fucking Christ. I guess we should go back to them time when only rich kids got an education. So much for the American dream.
    - Only those who are willing to work hard should get an education. As it is, we have to let LaQuisha from south Detroit into college to be "nice", and liberals are saying that's not good enough for them. Liberals are such whiners.
      - So 5 year olds need to go to work before they can go to Kindergarten? You're a terrible parodist and/or an utter fucking moron.
        No, but they can't fail all their grades and then get into college because of "compassion". Educatin should NOT be free as the libs want.
        Are you talking about higher education or public education? Every successful country has universal education, and no one except far right wackos wants to end that. I guess you're among them?
Liberals try to censor opposing viewpoints. So did Hitler. - no true.
- Ever heard of the Fairness Doctine.
  - Yep, and its irrelevant, because it doesn't exist, it wasn't about censorship, and it only dealt with public media. You're the one who admits to wanting to censor non-Judeo/Christian religions.
    - Democrats in Congress are now planning to censor conservative websites. Liberal censorship has a long history.
      - No, they're not. Again, you're a fucking idiot.
        You say they're not, so it must be true. Facts be damned.
        You haven't backed up a single "fact" yet.
Liberals attack Christmas and want to replace it with pagan celebrations. So did Hitler. - now you're just making shit up.
- Actually, Hitler tried to replace Christmas with Yule. Liberals prefer Ramadan, though a little Kwanzaa and Solstice works in to their anti-Christian agenda as well.
  - Liberals don't want to ban Christmas, and Ramadan has nothing to do with it (it rarely falls around the same time) and is practiced by a tiny minority of the population. Comapre the amount of Christmas celebrations you see with those of Kwanzaa and solstice.
    - Liberals do try to undermine Christmas. The war on Christmas is 100% real and most Americans know that. The liberal whackos will tell you "no" as they continue to attack ANYTHING Christian.
      - And that's why it's illegal to celebrate Christmas. Oh wait. It isn't. It's celebrated more and more every year, earlier and earlier.
        And liberals work harder to push it out of the public square.
        Yes. The public square. Liberals want to keep religion and government separate. Private practice of any religion is fine with liberal belief. You're the one who admittedly wants to use government to suppress private religious practices.
        Evidence that Hitler personally had any interest in replacing Hitler with Yule? Some Nazis may have had the idea, but just because some Nazis were interested in it does not mean Hitler personally was. Citation needed. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Liberals are socialist. So was Hitler. - "National Socialism" does not equal socialism. Hitler was about the most anti-communist politician in the world.
- Aren't you liberals always saying socialism does not equal communism? Communist or not, Hitler was anti-capitalist and a proud socialist, collectivist and hater of the rich.
  - Communism is a form of socialism, but socialism isn't necessarily communism. Anyway, Nazism wasn't 100% capitalist, but it was mostly.Hitler was rich and was in bed with the biggest industrialists of his day.
    - Warren Buffet is rich yet he is a socialist. Many liberal hypocrites are rich. How was Nazism "mostly capitalist"? It was not as far left as Communism, but it was still a left-wing, socialist ideology.
      - "Warren Buffet is a socialist". Congratulations, you're idiocy has now reached a new height.
        Raising taxes on people who work and earn = socialism. And you did not answer my question. How is Nazism in any way "capitalist"?
        Look up the word "socialism". I think you might be surprised with what you find.
Liberals support medical research that violates the sanctity of life. So did Hitler. - another stupid argument that because Hitler may have done something, it's bad.
- Stem cell research = murder. It would be bad even if Hitler didn't support that kind of thing.
  - Yes, a fertilized egg = a human being. Brilliant.
    - An aborted fetus is a human being. And worth much more than those scum on death row that liberals love.
      - And a fertilized egg is not (though probably more intelligent than you)
        Do you know what is dumber than a fertilized egg? Someone who believes that a Jew-hating, baby aborting, gun grabbing, anti capitalist, neo-pagan, vegetarian, sexually liberal socialist is a "conservative" because everyone bad is.
        Hitler was more right wing than left wing because of his political actions and beliefs I outlined below. "Neo-paganism", vegetarianism, sexually liberalism (the guy was the most prude, sexually suppressed person on the planet) are as irrelevant as the fact that he was a big fan of King Kong.
Liberals support a welfare state. So did Hitler. - at best, both of these are only a very little true.
- Even liberal Wikipedia admits Hitler supported a welfare state.
  - I'm not sure if putting people in gas chambers is anyone's idea of a welfare state.
    - How do you respond to the fact that even WIKIPEDIA, a notoriously leftist source, admits that the Nazi state was based on a social welfare system?
      - That's a vague term. I'm not sure how you can reconcile public welfare with murdering 6 million citizens.
        Ask Obama.
        Great response.
Liberals promote unhealthy eating disorders like veganism. So did Hitler. - veganism isn't an "eating disorder", and probably about 1% of liberals are vegan. Hitler wasn't.
- He was vegetarian, and 90% of vegetarians and vegans are liberal. Most liberals long to be vegan.
  - Most liberals long to be vegan? Where do you some up with this? If most liberals want to be vegan they'd be vegan. It's not an exclusive club. Hitler was mostly vegetarian, but ate meat on occasion. Still it hardly matters, because you obviously can't seem to grasp the fact that things are bad because Hitler did them; Hitler was bad because he did bad things. Not eating meat most of the time isn't one of those things.
    - A lot of people, mainly hippie liberals, want to be vegans but never could be. The promotion of "healthy" lifestyles as a way to increase the size of government has long been an agenda of the murderous liberals, fascists and progressives.
      - How does not eating eggs increase the size of government? Oh, that's right. You have no idea what you're talking about.
        Liberals try to restrict corporations to "fight obesity". They try to ban french fries and Happy Meals.
        No one's banning french fries. Admittedly some liberals are trying to curb marketing of unhealthy foods to children. You are argue that it's overreach of government, but it has nothing to do with Nazism.
Liberals hate fat people and fast food. So did Hitler. - At this point I'm pretty sure you're just trolling us. Aren't you?
- Obama is trying to demonize fat kids. Liberals hate fast food because they see it as part of Americanization, and because McDonald's and the like are successful - liberals hte success. Hitler, similarly, was anti-Americanization and saw fatty foods as "unhealthy" and "bad for the poor little animals".
  - Obama is not trying to demonize fat kids (that's someone else's job), but obesity is unhealthy and he's trying to do something about American health. No one's banning McDonalds.
    - He's trying to create a socialist Big Brother society under the guise of "fighting obesity". Obesity is not as bad as the liberal "health experts" say. Liberals did try to ban the happy meal in San Francisco. They got applause from Nazis and extreme leftists when they did.
      - And how is he trying to do that? (And why am I arguing with someone who has an IQ of 12?)
        See above. Obama's true purpose is probably to make us all starve ourselves when he ships us off to FEMA camps.
        "FEMA camp"s...you just failed at life.
Liberals believe in anti-Semitic and anti-American conspiracy theories. So did Hitler. - conspiracy theories are much more the prevalent on the right these days.
- Belief that Obama is a Marxist is not "conspiracy theory", it is fact. The liberals are the ones who believe in that 9/11 truth nonsense, along with the Muslims.
  - Only the extreme wackos beliebe in the 9/11 crap, and many of them are libertarians, not liberals. And yes, the belief that Obama is a Marxist, Muslim, foreign-born usurper who wants to put conservatives into FEMA camps is a conspiracy theory.
    - If it is a conspiracy theory, it is a good, true one. It is the liberal/progressive/libertarian/Nazi/Islamic anti-Semitic and anti-American conspiracy theories that are the problem. If it is mostly libertards who believe the 9/11 crap, that proves they are just like liberals, united in hate of America.
      - SO your conspiracy theories are good, all the others are bad. And you complain about others' hypocrisy? How old are you? 7?
        The ones God approves of (anti-communist, anti-Muslim) are good, the ones Satan approves of (anti-Semitic, anti-American) are bad. Simple as that.
        Another "what I do is good, what you do is bad" argument. Complete logic fail.
Liberals support racist affirmative action policies. So did Hitler. - Hitler's version of "affirmative action" was to support the white majority, sort of the polar opposite of Affirmative Action.
- It was still racist discrimination.
  - It was very different, and a discussion of AA is too arduous to have here.
    - Let's discuss all the other important similarities then...
      - Please do.
Liberals hate bankers. So did Hitler. - Not exactly true in either case, and irrelevant.
- OWS is all about hating the banks. And Hitler hated the banks and saw them as Jewish scum. Not that he didn't need them for political success, but liberals are known hypocrites.
  - The TEA party also was against bank and corporate bailouts, remember?
    - But OWS wants to destroy the banks and corporations completely. They want to punish success and reward laziness. That is the liberal way.
      - Not true (or at least not necessarily true). It's actually hard to tell what the OWS guys want. That's part fo their problem.
        But they were supported by the American Nazi Party. Because they were fighting "Jew capitalism". Sure sounds right-wing to me.
        Some racist groups jumped on the OWS bandwagon (like they did with the TEA party), under the delusion that Wall Street was entirely inhabited by Jews (which it isn't). They were resoundingly rejected by the mainstream protesters.
Liberals believe in social Darwinism and the theory of evolution. So did Hitler. - liberals believe in Darwinism, not social Darwinism, which is a different thing entirely.
- Social Darwinism is a form of Darwinism. Hitler believed creationism was Semitic hillbilly superstition.
  - Social Darwinism has nothing to do with biology, which is what evolution is about. Maybe when you grow up you'll learn some of this stuff.
    - Hitler believed in evolution too. He persecuted them, just like today's liberal public schools and scientific community.
      - Persecuted whom? If you don't believe in evolution you don't have to, but you'll remain an idiot. Social Darwinism, by the way, is mostly advocated by the uber-capitalist Randroids.
        So I'm idiot if I don't believe an unproven theory promoted by liberals and National Socialists to undermine Christianity? Okay...
        No, you're an idiot for all sorts of reasons.
Liberals support ridiculous "animal rights" and environmental legislations. So did Hitler. - Partially true, but irrelevant
- It's not irrelevant.
  - It is. Hitler wasn't an evil man because he cared about animals.
    - There is difference between caring about animals and the environment, and passing he ridiculous, totalitarian laws that liberals and Hitler support.
      - By your argument it seems there isn't. I'm not sure how such laws qualify as totalitarian anyway.
        "Saving the environment" is Liberal for "punishing successful businesses". That is socialist, liberal, Nazi and totalitarian.
        Again, you have no idea what you;re talking about. To you I guess Minamata and Bhopal were positive things, I guess (they did kill many undesirable non-Christians.)
Liberals think polygamy is an acceptable "alternative lifestyle" and should be legal. So did Hitler. - Most liberals don't believe this. This biggest proponents are polygamy are arch-conservative Mormons.
- Actually, the Gallup poll says that 19% of liberals think polygamy is acceptable, as opposed to only 3% of conservatives.
  - Even if that were true, that's still a small minority of liberals, almost none of whom practice it. It is almost exclusively practiced by conservative Mormons.
    - Liberals call it polyamory.
      - That's a different thing. Only fascists like you want to criminalize private behavior among consenting adults.
        It is the same thing. Liberals just do not want moral Christians to know how filthy their agenda is. How is it "fascist" to protect morality when fascists were big proponents of "sexual liberation"?
        It's authoritarian to restrict people's personal choices when they don't effect others. Banning homosexual relationships, polyamory, etc. is much more totalitarian than anything Obama has done.
Liberals take the side of everything evil and anti-Christian. Who does that sound like? - Too stupid to refute

There are probably more similarities I am forgetting.

If Hitler were alive today, he would support the Occutards. What do liberals think about this?

Here's what you're forgetting:

Conservatives are anti-communist. So was Hitler.
- Most liberals are "anti-communist" too. Hitler was also anti-captialist.
  - I thought liberals were Marxists, or at least sympatheitic to them?
    - Liberals, like Hitler, are greatly influenced by Marxists. Some, like Obama, are clearly Marxists. But, like Hitler, they pretend they aren't.
      - So Hitler was a communist who's overriding goal was destruction of communism?
        His overriding goal was the elimination of "undesirables" and the creation of an Aryan worker's paradise,. It was just like a communist dream except all-white. He was only anti-communist because communists claimed to support racial equality and many of their leaders were (self-hating) Jews.
        Yes, his goal was a pure, Germanic paradise. Very little to do with communism (a economic, not political system). He wanted conformity, which is not a liberal ideal.
Conservatives believe in a very strong military, and support militarism at all costs. So did Hitler.
- Liberals are fine with a strong military if it is Iran aor North Korea who have it. It is the idea of a strong American or Israeli military that the left hates.
  - As with everything else, you base this on nothing. Liberals don't want wackos like North Korea and Iran to have nukes, but aren't in favor of nuking them to prevent it.
    - You might realize that Iran and North Korea are whackos, but all your fellow liberals who were mourning Kim Jong Il don't. Liberals NEVER criticize other countries, just America, Israel and their allies.
      - No one's mourning Kim Jong Il for fuck's sake. And liberals do criticize other countries all the time.
        Liberal icon Jimmy Carter mourned him. Liberals never burn most flags in their rallies. Only the American and Israeli ones.
        Carter sent a condolence letter to Kim Jong Il's son because he takes the whole Christian thing seriously, and maintains a (probably naive) belief that bridges can be built between North Korea and the rest of the world. And sending a condolence letter is not the same as mourning. That's a much more Christian tack than your preference of nuking them. As for flags, most people don't burn flags in general. When they do, it's usually to protest something happening in their own government. For obvious reasons, people don't protest what governments on the far side of the world are doing, as it tends to be ineffective.
Conservatives believe in exceptionalism. So did Hitler.
- Again, liberals are fine with Iranian or Palestinian exceptionalism. It is American exceptionalism they hate.
  - What a fucking idiot. What would Iranian or Palestinian exceptionalism even be? Conservatives believe in a form of exceptionalism for them: everyone can have nuclear power except Iran. Everyone has a right to self-determination except Palestinians.
    - As long as Iran is run by Holocaust denying, far left, Islamo-fascist liberal, it should not be allowed the same privileges as sane countries. Palestinians will have the right to self-determination when they stop voting for terrorists (that said, America voted for a terrorist in 2008...oh well).
      - Achmadinejad is a liberal now? Of course. Everything you don't like is liberal.
        Someone who hates Israel, America and Christianity is probably not a conservative. Infact, DEFINITELY not.
        There are conservative muslims, believe it or not. America and Christianity don't have a monopoly on right wing politics. They have their own version of the same ideals. Religious fundamentalism exists in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and basically every other religion. They're different sides of the same coin.
Conservatives believe patriotism is extremely important. So did Hitler.
- Ditto.
  - I don't even know what you'r talking about now.
    - Muslims can be "patriots" in Liberaland. Americans can't.
      - Whatever, retard.
        Muslim terrorists who fight against American troops are "freedom fighters defending their country" to liberals. Americans who wave the flag, however, are "fascist white Christian male rednecks" in the depraved liberal mind.
        In your mind they are. People who fight against foreign armies can be freedom fighters or terrorists; it's mostly a matter of perspective.
Conservatives have a long history of anti-Semetism. So did Hitler.
- Even if you are not counting Hitler, most of the anti-Semitism over the last 100 years has come from the socialists. The liberals hate Israel, the conservatives support it. There was never anti-Semitism at the Tea Party, it was all over OWS. Marx was a self-hating Jew. I could keep going on, but my point is that liberals are MUCH more anti-Semitic than conservatives.
  - Yeah, conservative groups like the KKK and the like love Jews.
    - The "conservative" KKK that was founded by Democrats, has long supported progressive polices and endorsed OWS? No, maybe you mean the KKK that endorsed Obama? Even if it WERE conservative, it is a tiny fringe group and nothing compared to the much larger liberal, left-wing groups which promote anti-Semitic hate. 90% of anti-Semitism is on the left, get over it.
      - Not true. And Democrats in the 19th century were conservatives.
        Why would most anti-Semites align with the pro-Israel right over the anti-Israel left? And the Democrats being racist didn't mean they were "conservative".
        Well, they were conservative. They called themselves conservative. The ones who opposed civil rights ont he 50s and 60s were Democrats who were the conservative members of the party, like Wallace and Thurmond. Hardly liberals.
Conservatives are in favor or pre-emptive war. So was Hitler.
- Liberals are only against it of America or Israel does it.
  - When have liberals every supported a pre-emptive war? Aren't most pacifists liberals?
    - Liberals supported Hitler's invasion of Poland. Back in the 1930s, liberals were Hitler's biggest supporters. Today, they support a pre-emptive nuking of Israel by Iran. If the terrorists do it, liberals support it.
      - Wow. Not even wrong.
Conservatives are Christian. So was Hitler.
- Hitler HATED Christians. What a tired old liberal cliche.
  - What a tired old conservative cliche. He was a Christian, though perhaps not a conventional one. (He did think jesus was a bit of a wuss.)
    - Ever read Hitler's Table Talk? "I'd like to see Christianity die a slow death. A quick one has something comforting about it".
      - I noticed you refused to answer this question.
        Hitler espoused Christianity, though wasn't a typical Christian. He was certainly no atheist. If the only people who are true Christians are those who actually follow the teaching of Christ, then there's a few dozen of them on the planet. You certainly aren't one.
Conservatives want to limit personal liberties. So did Hitler.
- Conservatives only want to limit your "freedom" to do things which should not be allowed, like smoke pot, watch porn or worship Satan. Liberals try to limit your fundamental human rights, just like Hitler.
  - Now I know you're a parodist. "Conservatives only want to prevent people from doing things they consider bad, which isn't limiting freedom." Let me know when you reach high school, kid, and we'll have another discussion.
    - If God considers it bad, it IS bad. Limiting freedom = limiting GOD-GIVEN rights. I'm sure your fine with those same "rights" liberals support being limited if it were Muslim theocrats doing it. Can't offend them, right?
      - No liberals like Muslim theocrats. Get over it, kid. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
        They want us to tolerate Muslims, most of whom want Sharia law.
        Yes, they want to tolerate Muslims. The fact that you don't shows you're closer to Hitler than any liberals (just swap "Muslim" for "Jew" in Hitlers mantra and you've got a platform you're basically in agreement with). Most Muslims in this country don't want Sharia law, and eben when some do that doesn't mean we demonize Muslims as a whole, unlike you.
Conservatives like dogs. So did Hitler.
- Whatever.
  - The fact that both conservatives and Hitler support it means it is probably pretty bad.
    - It has nothing to do with politics, religion or society. Big difference.
      - It's at least as meaningful as 95% of your arguments.
        What a lousy response.
        Your responses have been largely appalling.
Conservatives like bad bad bad bad bad bad things. So did Hitler.
- Yeah, whatever.
  - Ditto

Alright, imagine an American politician who strongly advocated anti-communism; favors the persecution of a religious minority (let's say Muslims); advocates jingoism, nationalism, militarism, and American exceptionalism; was anti-immigration, and thought American culture needed to be defended at all costs. Would this guy get more support from liberals or conservatives? For argument's sake let's say he was a vegetarian and heath advocate. Sounds like in terms of his important views he's much more conservative than liberal, and I just described an American Hitler. Given all that, are views on circumcision or level of interest in Buddhism relevant? Not really. Nor is his love of dogs.

The problem, my brainwashed liberal friend, is that the Christian patriot whom you describe is NOT the American Hitler. If you want to see the American Hitler, go to any neo-Nazi website. Those people are anti-American, they think American exceptionalism is "Jewish" and they root for Muslims in the Clash of Civilizations. Neo-Nazis rallies often involve the burning of American flags. Neo-Nazis are more anti-capitalist than anti-communist, just like their leader. "Persecuting" Muslims is different from Hitler's persecution of Jews. Jews are part of our culture, Muslims are the enemies of our culture. Neo-Nazis do not advocate militarism for America, they hate our "ZOG" military and would like to see it weakened. American patriots are far more opposed to REAL Nazis then liberals. We would gladly see Nazis hung for treason, while the anti-death penalty libs would be out calling us "inhumane" to those poor little Nazi traitors.

My point, my mindless conservative friend, is that you can swap basically meaningless terms and have the same overall worldview. Switch "American" for "German", "Muslim" for "Jew" and you haven't fundamentally changed anything, but you've got a basically indistinguishable similarities between a far right American and a German Nazi. Your post above says it all. "Muslims are the enemies of our culture." That is basically the sum of Hitler's arguments against Jews. You've merely switched one minority for another. If the American version of Hitler were to appear (and he wouldn't come waving swastikas and denouncing Jews, he'd be waving an American flag and denouncing Muslims) you'd be right there supporting him. If you weren't a parodist, you'd be a fascist.

I'm convinced[edit]

Well I, for one, am convinced. Hitler was obviously a liberal Christian.--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 17:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

no no, he hated christians, duh. He was a liberal muslim pagan. A bit like Obama after all. He probably doesn't have a birth cirtificate either.

GodotEn live 17:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)bhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd- (apparently, kittah wanted to tell him nerts, too).

Actually I've changed my mind having read the notes again. It's clear that Hitler was a communist!--Bob ^{Spring is sprung!} 21:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm convinced this is Talsley's new account. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The response[edit]

Liberals suck (or whatever) response to Robert's criticism are even better than the original posts. "cause i said so".GodotEn live 03:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

One question...[edit]

If liberals were indeed Nazis, then why was the SPD the only German party to vote against the Enabling Act and the term "welfare state" coined to differentiate Britain from Hitler's "warfare state"? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To be fair here, the Commies probably would have too, but they were "taken care of" by then — their seats were empty that day. --★uː ʤ ɱ pervert 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it appears he totally ignored this. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was about marijuana, not Hitler. Who, interestingly but irrelevantly, was born on 4/20. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

He baited us with the username and hit us with a Godwin. Very clever, actually. Osaka Sun (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone I don't like is literally Hitler[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ToEvz-7trY

Yeah everyone I don't like is literally Hitler, everyone except for me. Commie Lib (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)