Oh god.  There's 3 people who believe we're 2 steps away from NAZI rule? 

Actually, it's many many steps. But many of them are small. Then comes one big step which nobody will notice and then the remaining steps are taken very quickly.

pretty much as many as are required to complete a marathon in this case. 

it's way worse than ridiculous to suggest some sort of correlation between an organization that arrogantly determines itself to be above the law, then openly defies authorities to take action against them AND law-abiding victims persecuted for no legal reason by totalitarian dictatorships.  it's disgusting and dishonorable.

invert the equation to find a couple much more valid connections

1. hitler's thugs also continually claimed to be victims of state power even as they torched the reichstad.

2. those who truly want a public forum--neo-nazis, for instance--make a point of fulfilling all legal requirements.  god must be really proud he's being represented by a gaggle of lames and losers who make even supremacist throwbacks appear to be good citizens by comparison.

while it appears as if some of yall seem incapable of grasping basic legal concepts the first time around, i had no part in duplicating my previous response--so please feel free to dump this one.

...

...

The organisation that determined itself to be above the law was the party that didn't want the Christians to be heard or the Christians?

Perhaps.

I myself find so-called "peace activists" roaming the streets much more Nazi-like then the states or governments they call "fascist".

In my experience those neo-nazis who want a public forum just rename themselves "peace activists" and are then acknowledged as standing above the law.

In Germany the police even breaks into houses to remove Israeli flags from windows to appease the "peace activists" (who are STILL called "peace activists" by the media even when they call for the death of all Jews.

In Europe, or at least in Germany, the term "nazi" was simply redefined, as if the evil travelled with the term rather than with the ideology.

Whereas the Nazis of old were anti-semitic thugs who didn't care about citizenship or government authority the term "neo-nazi" is now usually used to describe people who are against foreigners, completely forgetting that Hitler's first and most targeted victims were German citizens, not foreigners whereas Hitler himself was a foreigner.

Famous last words.  You mock it because you think you are on the "politically correct" side of it.  The problem is when they do take away the rights from the "trolls", how do you guarantee that the next bozo in the oval office is going to agree with you?  You cannot.  And that is why you have to defend the "least of us" to ensure your own rights. 

As for the "couple of trolls", that is how it started 77  years ago too. "Just this one little land grab!  Just this one little rights grab!".  I do not doubt you are chuckling at my paranoia about government and rights.  The problem with your chuckles is that I have history on my side, you only have myopia.

And I would suggest Google for your ignorance on Napoleon.  Try it with quotes and include Snowball.

Sidebar: as a newbie here, I would not appeal to kb for anything.  You will find that he likes to make outrageous accusations, but never supports them with anything approaching facts, and then cries and runs away when confronted on it.

Egads - double post

Exactly right.  And the major step appears to be the easy one in his view.  Just remove rights from the "trolls".  Simple enough and no one is harmed right?  Once you set precedence, the slippery slope is easy to negotiate.  Just sit on your ass and slide down it.

In their world Leauki, anyone not with them are the ones that consider themselves above the law.  the bee pee pontificates on the patriot act (forgetting of course his side passed it), and totally ignores the abrogation of rights systematically happening under Il Duce (because he loves him, hmmm, hmmm, hmmmm). 

When I was young, I was so cock sure that nothing like Nazi Germany could happen again as we were so enlightened.  But as I have grown in age and wisdom, I see how easy it was for the Austrian Corporal.  He is replicated in every society, and sometimes gains power.  There are so many stupid people that cannot see past the end of their nose and are bound and determined to repeat those mistakes - all for the greater glory of "putting them thar trolls in their place".

It does scare me.  And every time I see the ACLU doing something that I think is petty and stupid, I still thank god they are around to stop those "troll haters" from taking away my rights.  Because I am sure given the opportunity, they would try - for peace in our time of course.

DrG posts:

Agree 100%. This brings the abortion holocaust to mind....4,000 per day, 6,000 on a busy Saturday in the USA.  

The discussion could be boiled down to once the moral law is thrown into the trashcan, there is a proliferation of things people (even the "least of us" trapped in the womb) can be punished for.  

Leaves falling brings the 'abortion holocaust' to mind for some people.

Did it  just say 'abortion holocaust'?

if you read the article contained in my response #24 (i think--at the bottom of the first page of this thread in any event), you'd already know there was no party in this case who "didn't want the christians to be heard" and there'd be no need for me to post it again here: 

"Festival organizer Fay Beydoun said the evangelical group was being offered a good spot in an area with a number of other religious, nonprofit and political groups. “You have to pass right in front of it to get anywhere,” said Beydoun, executive director of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce.

The group sued Dearborn after police told the Rev. George Saieg members would need to restrict literature distribution to a designated table-and-booth section of the festival site.

The city said safely accommodating the 150,000 daily festival-goers requires limits on where people can leaflet. It said other Christian and Muslim groups already have tables and booths for distributing material at the festival.

City officials say anyone is free to have conversations — but not leaflet — on sidewalks within the festival’s barricades.

“It appears to be a legitimate governmental interest for crowd control and safety,” Edmunds said in denying the request. “The festival area is more akin to a fair than a normal city street.”

 there would be no dispute if these 'jews for jesus' wannabes had not convinced themselves they somehow deserved special consideration and, after having their case heard by a federal judge  who rejected their arguments, chosen to violate what seems to be a reasonable, legitimate city ordinance.  

i'm not at all sure how that's relevant to the statement you quoted in which i referred to tactics used by actual nazis and their sympathizers to advance their cause during the actual 1920s-early 1930s in the actual country of germany--unless what you're saying is you feel hitler and the sa were somehow less nazi-like than the peace activists to whom you allude. 

once again, i wasn't theorizing but referring to actual organizations that are publicly proclaimed by their members as neo-nazis. i doubt they'd appreciate being designated as peace activists.  they generally wear uniforms similar to or clearly derivative of those worn by ss members, bear colors festooned with swastikas, etc.

when they elect to hold rallies on public property, they acquire all necessary permits and make a point of fully complying with local regulations.  it has nothing to do with respecting authority or claiming special status; the most provocative element is location.  communities with ethnic majorities are often targeted--especially places like skokie il at a time when it was home\ to a substantial number of holocaust survivors. 

And you know quite well how much attention is paid to them.  If it weren't for the liberal media trying to smear conservatives, they'd get no attention paid to them at all.

"'dog bites man' = not news;'man bites dog' =news"

                                   --gruff old editor layin down the law to new reporter fresh outta college

as long as that fundamental rule of reportage remains in effect, it's a story that gets space and/or air at both ends of the spectrum because:

'neo nazi nuts run riot at rally' = not news

while:

'suburban storm troopers outshine scouts and shriners' = news

by the same token

"bible thumpers run amok...and afoul of the law' = news

It would be, these days.

The media have reported man bites dog so often that most people believe that dogs never bite men.

It is true that the media like reporting the rare rather than the usual. But it is also their job to report the truth. They should tell people that they focus on the rare.

But only for certain types as Daiwa points out.  The media is lionizing Byrd, the last sitting member of the KKK in the senate (totally ignoring the fact that while he said he repented, his language indicated he never did).  Yet they widely report lies about conservatives - because it fits their agenda (see Boehner and Social Security).

Those who claim the MSM is only doing its job are basically saying that as long as they are reporting what the listener wants to hear, incompetence is fine.  And besides the gross bias, that is what it is.  The inability of the media to do their job.  It is no longer them not wanting to do it, it is just gross incompetence.

I think for the MSM it's beyond incompetence...they are outright complicit in tearing apart and bringing America down.

The good news is as far as listeners, they don't have a whole lot of them anymore.

They lionize Byrd while demonizing Rand Paul.  They just can't help themselves, being so blind to the hypocrisy.

I would love to see Leauki comment on your statement (I happen to agree with it).

I assume you both know what my opinion is on Robert Byrd and the media.

And yes, I agree that it is hypocritical to celebrate Robert Byrd and demonize Rand Paul. I myself find Rand Paul less demonic than his father and neither is as bad as Robert Byrd (or anyone who ever joined a club like the KKK).

Many politicians somehow managed to grow up in the south without joining the KKK and I don't think joining the KKK is just a "mistake". And while I believe that someone can join the KKK and then leave in disgust and become a completely decent human being again, I do not believe that the US Senate is the right place for that person.

My opinion on Ron Paul is well know, I guess, and my opinion on his son is really not much different. But I have always described them as loonies rather than evil people. I think they, especially Ron, are limited to their constituency and don't understand what's going on in the world. They should be representatives in a state parliament, not at the federal level. (For example, anyone who argues that withdrawing US aid from Israel, Egypt and Jordan, would benefit Israel because it withdraws relatively more aid from Israel's "enemies" than from Israel must have slept through developments since 1979 at least and really should be allowed to influence US foreign policy.)

So while I am sure that Robert Byrd was a decent human being for most of his life, I cannot agree with the media celebrating him as an American hero. He was not a hero. He was just someone who made a huge mistake because something was seriously wrong with his character and who managed to correct that mistake. That's not a hero. It takes tremendous effort, but he did not, as far as I can see, ever rise above the level he reached after correcting his mistake. And neither did he have a responsibility to become anything more than a decent person.

I still remember the speech by one Republican about Strom Thurmond and about how America would have been a better place if Strom Thurmond had been President (?) at the time, obviously not taking into account Thurmond's views on race in that decade. Lionizing Byrd is exactly the same, except in as much as Thurmond never supported the use of violence to make his point about his racist views.

Before now?  Only the media and Paul, not Byrd.

Funny thing is - Byrd was never in the "south".  West Virginia was the part of Virginia that seceded from the state of Virginia and chose to remain with the North.

The Funny thing about that - he was elected to congress in 49.  He conceded in the early 80s that blacks could be people as well.  And it was in the 60s, long after he was elected (so making a liar of Bill clinton) that he filibustered the Civil Rights law.

That was Trent Lott, Senate majority Leader at the time, and the event was Thurman's 100th birthday.

Well, I think an opinion on KKK-Democrats was implied.

A white man who ever thought blacks are inferior most likely also hates Jews. And a black man who thinks whites are inferior most likely hates Jews too.

And the latter is not even needed to trigger my opposition reflex.