Comic Genesis Forums

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 913D97.DTL

Arnold, I know there is good in you -- Hollywood hasn't driven it from you completely! I feel the conflict within you, let go of your liberalism!

I've always found it hard to take him seriously anyway. Not that I really care that much...I mean, it is California, after all. (No offense to those Californians here!)

Trust me, what he's doing to the state workers is as far from liberalism as he can get legally. Arnold would privatize the entire state if he could. Sad thing is if he'd only take one step halfway to the left and raised taxes in direct compromise to removing benefits it would go a long way towards proving his sincerity of trying to be an actual statesmen.

Oh by the by, this isn't Arnold's administration. This is Pete Wilson's administrion. Arnold is using Wilson's economic models, wilson's legislative policies, and Wilson's people advising him what to do. If Arnold would just realize he's a poor hardline republican and a pretty good moderate or a fair democrat he would go leaps and bounds. He would still have a difficult task of working out California's woes, but at least on the legislative end and in working with the state officials he could have more credibility of working with state employees rather than against them.

Oh, and by the by, just because he's a democrat doesn't mean he'd have to abandon his position on other things. He could still be hard on illegal immigration and still be a democrat. Being a republican he's rather locked by default into a confrontational stance.

"And that doesn't work at all."

Somber

Time for another "lets educate Somber Cat" moment.


RAISING TAXES DOES NOT HELP. EVER.

Anyone with a decent education in economics can tell you that raising taxes causes a reduction in overall revenue. Why? Because money that the government sucks up, cannot be spent or invested by the people who earned it. Every dollar in government hands is one less dollar in the economy. You can't hire employees, build new stores and factories, research new products or improve old ones with money you don't have--- and money taken from you by the government is money NOONE will ever spend wisely. This effect is amplified by the fact that people REDUCE their spending and investing disproportionate to the tax increase, because they can see that hard times are coming. Spending is reduced, wages are reduced, the economy slows down and diminishes....

Example: Joe Blow makes $50,000 a year and pays 5% in taxes. The government gets greedy, and raises taxes by 2% on Joe Blow. Yay, more money to flush! But what happens? Joe blow sees his income go down. He spends less. (So does everyone else.) Joe Blow's boss sees his widget sales go down, so he has to cut wages, or cut employees, or both. Joe Blow gets a pay cut. Joe Blow WAS planning on investing in a business of his own, or in stocks and bonds or an IRA. But because his taxes have increased, and the value of his dollar has decreased, he puts it off.... so his real income drops even more. If he has any investments already, those take a hit as well.... He starts scrabbling for tax shelters to protect himself from any further hits, along with all his neighbors.

So the government goes from collecting 5% on $50,000 ($2500) to collecting 7% of $30,000 ($2100)

It's quite easy for tax-grubbers to demand the government screw over the people. Because the tax-grubber doesnt have to ever count businesses never started, products never sold, inventions never marketed, medicines never discovered, people never hired, educations never paid for, or lives never raised out of poverty.

NO GOVERNMENT IN EXISTENCE, PAST, PRESENT, OR FUTURE, CAN TAX ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY.

And no statesman worth the name would raise taxes just to make a "gesture" to feed the schadenfreude of spiteful ignorants.

RHJunior wrote:Time for another "lets educate Somber Cat" moment.


RAISING TAXES DOES NOT HELP. EVER.

Anyone with a decent education in economics can tell you that raising taxes causes a reduction in overall revenue. Why? Because money that the government sucks up, cannot be spent or invested by the people who earned it. Every dollar in government hands is one less dollar in the economy. You can't hire employees, build new stores and factories, research new products or improve old ones with money you don't have--- and money taken from you by the government is money NOONE will ever spend wisely. This effect is amplified by the fact that people REDUCE their spending and investing disproportionate to the tax increase, because they can see that hard times are coming. Spending is reduced, wages are reduced, the economy slows down and diminishes....

Example: Joe Blow makes $50,000 a year and pays 5% in taxes. The government gets greedy, and raises taxes by 2% on Joe Blow. Yay, more money to flush! But what happens? Joe blow sees his income go down. He spends less. (So does everyone else.) Joe Blow's boss sees his widget sales go down, so he has to cut wages, or cut employees, or both. Joe Blow gets a pay cut. Joe Blow WAS planning on investing in a business of his own, or in stocks and bonds or an IRA. But because his taxes have increased, and the value of his dollar has decreased, he puts it off.... so his real income drops even more. If he has any investments already, those take a hit as well.... He starts scrabbling for tax shelters to protect himself from any further hits, along with all his neighbors.

So the government goes from collecting 5% on $50,000 ($2500) to collecting 7% of $30,000 ($2100)

It's quite easy for tax-grubbers to demand the government screw over the people. Because the tax-grubber doesnt have to ever count businesses never started, products never sold, inventions never marketed, medicines never discovered, people never hired, educations never paid for, or lives never raised out of poverty.

NO GOVERNMENT IN EXISTENCE, PAST, PRESENT, OR FUTURE, CAN TAX ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY.

And no statesman worth the name would raise taxes just to make a "gesture" to feed the schadenfreude of spiteful ignorants.

Let's play Educate RHJunior

Do you think that politicians take that money, pile it in a big heap, and light it on fire to oooh and ahh warm their hands? What they do is they take that money and say "Mr Contractor, can you keep these freeways from falling apart?" Mr Contractor says "Why yes I can." Mr Contractor makes the freeway. Mr Businessman says "Why thank you Mister Contractor. Now I can get my stuff across the US in three days instead of seven. I'll be able to save more money because I have good roads than I had to pay in taxes." Mr Man who has a life with wife and kids and plans says "Geee, I can't stay home to teach the kids and my wife can't stay home and teach the kids so we'll put them in public school because we can't afford a private school." The kids say "aww". Mr Man then goes to work and doesn't worry about his home being broken into or his car being stolen because Mr Man knows that there are police who take care of that sort of thing. And when Mrs Man gets sick and the hospital says "We're not going to operate because you don't have enough money, sorry that your wife has got to die." then Mr Medicaid says "Don't worry I'll pay it." and Mrs Man doesn't die and instead lives many long years paying back into the system. And if you get old and you haven't been able to save up retirement then at least Mr Social Security will be there so that you'll have something to live on.

That's enough of that.

When you have a spending deficit there is a budgetary problem. More money out than is going in. Some expenditures you can cut. Some you can't. For instance, you always have to pay for your house. You always have to pay for gas. You always have to eat. You always have to pay for power. These are expendatures that you can't get rid of. You can cut back, but you can only cut back on eating before you start starving to death. You can only cut back on rent before the house is repossessed. Like any good lender, interest is always there to assure that the more money you owe this month, the more you will owe next month. When the sheer interest exceeds all possible cutbacks, then you have to bring in more revenue.

California has reached this point. It can not cut back any longer. You can save a lot of money by eating one meal a day. You'll also very quickly get sick and not do your work well. This is the same for state agencies as well. Some one has to work at the DMV. Some one has to work at the schools. Some one has to work highway patrol. None of these people are going to do it for free. The only way that California can meet expenses without people suffering is to either raise taxes, or beg for money from the US government. And NO ONE likes to give up money. You seem to think that every tax has to be to some one's paycheck. You can tax dividends. Imports. Exports. Registration. Services. And is your life so decimated when, gasp, you have to pay an extra twenty cents with your Mc Donalds Big Mac?

You also seem to think that it has to, by default, be a perminent arrangement. True, I would like to think that california could pay off it's state debt and once paid, apply that tax revenue to other programs, but it could just as easily repeal those taxes and hope experiance makes them all the wiser for future spending. This is why I loathe deficit spending. Because the deficit of today may not be repaid by the elected of tomorrow. Eventually you either bite the bullet, raise revenue, and pay off the damned thing or go into bankrupsy.

And because I know you're going to say it: corruption, waste, and ineffectiveness. All these things are undesired in ANY level of government, business, or family. Appointed officials who squander money, or worse, spend it upon themselves are to be driven from authority with all expediency. Wasn't that what the California recall of Davis was partially about? Removing ineffiency? Whether it is a state govenor's ineffective policy, a mayors corrupt cronyism, or a father's alcoholism it is a drain on resources.

Let me tell you the optimal tax senario. Equilibrium. The state should take in only as much money from the populace as it needs to maintain a stable quality of life for all citizens under its authority. Any more amounts should be taken for very specific amounts and for clearly outlined lengths of time. And yes, that means that one person's life is lowered a little so that another person's life is uplifted alot. Personally, I would like that one person to be individuals and corporations who make more money than your man's 50,000 a year because a person who makes 50,000,000 can absorb a 10% tax far easier than a man who makes 50,000 can absorb 7 or even 5. Incidentally I also support independant auditing of state agencies to maintain honesty and efficency.

Short of adopting a socialist governmental policy such as Sweden or Finland or even France to a degree, America will always be fighting over this equilibrium. The fight itself is ineffcient and wasteful. Better to reach compromises that, while unpalatable, are still acceptable.

"And say what you will, Sweden has never been anything but a peaceful and stable nation."

Somber

Somber Cat wrote: "And say what you will, Sweden has never been anything but a peaceful and stable nation."

Somber

Agreed in pretty much everything regarding taxes. For the record, however, before the 19th century Sweden was as aggressive, imperialist, and unstable as anyone else (notably, it was highly conservative in this time). It was actually rather strong for such a cold nation, and it was only through the bad luck of losing King Gustavus Adolphus that it didn't form a substantial continental empire. For the last 100 years or so, though, it has indeed been stable, peaceful, and fairly prosperous.

I challenge you to show me any one conservative who would not wish to overthrow an imperialist government. I bet you can't find them, unless they're a nutjob even most conservatives wouldn't associate with.

Stop comparing us to the imperialists and the barbarians, alright? Our values and ideals have nothing to do with theirs. We value as much personal freedom as humanly possible, within reasonable limits.

Imperialists value control. Control over money, over resources, over land, and over people.

Conservatives are not imperialists; never were. All we want is to be left alone and do our own thing, like our forefathers. Until the government and the rest of the population learns to do that, we'll fight for our God-given rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

You wanna see an imperialist's values? Take a good, hard, and honest look at your own party's. You might be surprised.

StrangeWulf13 wrote:I challenge you to show me any one conservative who would not wish to overthrow an imperialist government. I bet you can't find them, unless they're a nutjob even most conservatives wouldn't associate with.

While the political dispositions of those called 'conservative' change, the word itself means 'a person that resists changes.' I can think of plenty of imperialists that fit in that category. Winston Churchill, all the Tsars except Alexander II, Klemens von Metternick, King Leopold II of Belgium, Ferdinand and Isabella, Henry the Navigator... Many political leaders from 1450 to 1950 were self-described conservatives, and were imperialists.

And of course, there is Adolf Hitler- devoutly Christian, an imperialist to the highest degree, and pretty far to the economic right.

Stop comparing us to the imperialists and the barbarians, alright? Our values and ideals have nothing to do with theirs. We value as much personal freedom as humanly possible, within reasonable limits.

I've only made that comparison once, in a somewhat offhanded comment that was meant to illustrate the historic use of the term 'Conservative.' It is indeed the title that has historically been attached to imperialists, although the barbarians existed before these terms could be applied to politics.

And of course, the 'reasonable limits' clause would be the sticky point. Every leader throughout history wanted to give their people as much freedom as possible within reasonable limits- they just determined reasonable limits to be somewhat less than pleasant.

Imperialists value control. Control over money, over resources, over land, and over people.

Um... Yeah. I'd say this describes modern conservatives quite well.

Conservatives are not imperialists; never were. All we want is to be left alone and do our own thing, like our forefathers. Until the government and the rest of the population learns to do that, we'll fight for our God-given rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Do you really think that liberals think anything different? Freedom is the ability to do whatever you wish as long as you hurt no one else, or infringe on their freedom.

Thing is, conservatives argue against this- homosexualit is villified, even though it hurts no one; birth control is lobbied against, even though there is absolutely no logical reason that it should not be available; capital punishment is supported, despite the facts that it has little effect on crime rates, as well as the possibilities of abuse based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, or the possibility that even someone not prejudiced against may have been wrongly convicted. If the latter occurs and they're in prison for life, then they can be released and be recompensed if evidence is found proving their innocence, and go along their way. If they're dead, that's not so easy.

You wanna see an imperialist's values? Take a good, hard, and honest look at your own party's. You might be surprised.

Well, for one thing, I don't really have a party affiliation- the Democrats are too centrist for my tastes, but by the American system, none of the other, smaller parties have a chance of gaining much influence. Secondly, go ahead- illuminate me. Care to point out imperialist values in the Democratic party platform, or in liberal viewpoints in general? This ought to be interesting.

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


Dude, I hate to tell you this, but Adolf Hitler did NOT belong to ANY denomination that was even CLOSE to the most basic or even traditional hints of Christianity.

And of course, there is Adolf Hitler- devoutly Christian, an imperialist to the highest degree, and pretty far to the economic right.

Devout Christians do not burn down churches that don't fall in line with their politics, rip out half the Bible, and practice Paganism privately. Hitler gave lip service to Christianity when and where that was useful. Insofar as he really followed any religion, it was Paganism -- indeed many of his higher ups favored a complete banning of Christianity and return to "the religion of fire and sword" practiced by their Germanic ancestors. And insofar as he was a disciple of any man, it was Nietzsche, not Christ, and we know full well what Nietzsche thought of Christianity, and religion in general.

Steltek wrote:Devout Christians do not burn down churches that don't fall in line with their politics

ummm, I know I'm sticking my neck out and will probably get my head flambe'd by a flamethrower or something but ah yes, there are some that do, or at least they did at one point.

It would be nice if Deflare would go get a LiveJournal account and blog his head off there. This forum is a lot more enjoyable when the same old fertilizer isn't being spread, especially in such huge amounts.
He seems to subscribe to the old theory, "If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, baffle 'em with your bullshit."

Deflare wrote: <snip> And of course, there is Adolf Hitler- devoutly Christian, an imperialist to the highest degree, and pretty far to the economic right. <snip>

Hitler was into into cultic practices and beliefs and far from orthodox Christianity. http://www.nationalreview.com/shiflett/ ... 2102.shtml
And listen to Hitler himself from Hitler's Table Talk (Oxford Univ Press)

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7) .

As for being conservative I suggest you look at the Nazi platforms - they were the National SOCIALISTs! Their problem with the Communists is that they were to close to them politically, not too far.

The JAM wrote:[...unWARP!!!]
Dude, I hate to tell you this, but Adolf Hitler did NOT belong to ANY denomination that was even CLOSE to the most basic or even traditional hints of Christianity.

Ah, so Catholicism isn't even close to the most basic hints of Christianity? I know at least one person who thinks this, but I doubt that many around here think likewise.

Hitler's Religion For reference. Some notable quotes from the essay:

He believed that Jesus of Nazareth was an Aryan, not a Jew, and that Jesus fought the Jews and was killed by them. He believed in life after death, the supreme being, and universal creation. He opposed the Catholic church only because its seat of power was in Rome, not Berlin. He was intolerant of competing versions of Christianity (an approach lifted directly from the Catholic playbook), but at no time did he ever commit acts or express beliefs which were not expressed by other Christians before him such as Martin Luther (as well as certain Christians after him, right up to this day. The mere fact that the Lutherans refuse to change their name is very revealing; if there was a Hitlerian church, don't you think it would have changed its name?).

The point about Luther is good, acually- he wrote and essay saying that the German states should, like the larger nations (Spain, France, etc.), expell the Jews from their lands, burn synagogues and Jewish homes, and so on.

Mein Kampf wrote:"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."

Mein Kampf wrote:"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Mein Kampf wrote:"The root of the whole evil lay, particularly in Schonerer's opinion, in the fact that the directing body of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that for this very reason alone it was hostile to the interests of our nationality."

Mein Kampf wrote:"Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image."

Mein Kampf wrote:"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."10 (recalling World War I).

Mein Kampf wrote:"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."

Mein Kampf wrote:"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."

Mein Kampf wrote:"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god"

Mein Kampf wrote:"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."

Aye, this isn't a Christian.

Hitler's paganism: Aye, the Nazis did glorify the Norse gods; however, this was in the same way that Europeans glorified the Greek and Roman gods for centuries, and still do. They both find the respective pre-Christian religions to be inspiring and good artistic and political fodder; the doesn't mean that they believed in it.

labrusca wrote:It would be nice if Deflare would go get a LiveJournal account and blog his head off there. This forum is a lot more enjoyable when the same old fertilizer isn't being spread, especially in such huge amounts.
He seems to subscribe to the old theory, "If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, baffle 'em with your bullshit."

I dislike weblogs- too often, they are meant for no purpose than to whine to either the converted or to the emptiness of unvisited webspace. I like the comic, but I find parts of it that I disagree with; thus, here I am to discuss it. Many of the posts here link to politics, apparently, and never of my initiative. What point is there in discussion if everyone agrees with one another?

Bullshit, you say? Enlighten me- where is the bullshit in my statements? Don't forget that you need to read the entirety of my posts, so as to see the arguments I make in support of my statements.

Narnian wrote:As for being conservative I suggest you look at the Nazi platforms - they were the National SOCIALISTs! Their problem with the Communists is that they were to close to them politically, not too far.

A typical faux pas. Unlike post-50's America, 'socialist' was not a dirty word in 30's Germany. The Nazi party took the name 'socialist' for the purpose of attractin workers to the movement, nothing more. What is in a name, after all? North Korea calls itself the "Democratic
People's Republic of Korea." Not exactly accurate, is it?

Hitler rose to power by siding with capitalists and industrialists. The conservative parties in Germany thought that they could use Hitler as a dupe; they thought they could control him once he took power. They were wrong, of course, but the fact remains that his roots and his source of support revolved around highly conservative elements in society, and his ideals focused on highly conservative ideas of race, class, and social order.

Benito Mussolini wrote:...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of

[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.


It's still quite obvious that Hitler was only paying lip service to existing religion in Germany at the time. Can someone find the speech where he said, "You are either a Christian or a German. You can not be both."?

He sure used flowery speech in Mein Kampf, though his claim that Yeshua was an Aryan instead of a Yehudi is totally bunk. That would mean that the entire ancestry in Matthew and Luke, including King David and Yehuda Ben Ysrael, Ysrael Ben Ytzchak, Ytzchak Ben Abraham, and Abraham Ben Terah, were also Aryan, even though Abraham Ben Terah was born in what is now KUWAIT.

But ignoring that point, his flowery speech remained just that: flowery speech. His actions obviously proved that he didn't give a whit about his fellow man (a violation of the Book of 1 John), the Jews (Romans), or even other Europeans who weren't blue eyed blondes (I Corinthians). I doubt he ever read the Bible, or at most he quoted craftily out of it (like Lucifer in Matthew and Luke).

So, no, sorry. Hitler's definition of Christianity does not correspond to Yeshua's definition of Christianity, so, no, insomuch as the Bible is concerned, Adolf Hilter was NOT a Christian, not in the least bit.

And don't get me started on Catholicism, please. Out of respect for this forum, and the Catholics represented here, I will hold my tongue regarding that topic.

The JAM wrote:[...unWARP!!!]

Good evening.

It's still quite obvious that Hitler was only paying lip service to existing religion in Germany at the time. Can someone find the speech where he said, "You are either a Christian or a German. You can not be both."?

Micheal Wong wrote:The common excuse given by Christian apologists is that he was only pretending to be a Christian in his public speeches and writings, in order to curry the favour of Christians in Germany. However, this excuse has many serious weaknesses:

All of the evidence for this massive contradiction between public and private beliefs is hearsay. Typically, it involves uncorroborated accounts of private conversations. Any sensible observer must question why Hitler suddenly became so open about his secret beliefs that he would spew them even after having been informed that they would be documented.

Most accounts of his private conversations do not contain anti-Christian sentiments. In fact, when you look carefully at all the anti-Christian quotes attributed to Hitler, you will find that virtually all of them come from just two or three people! One must question why they alone were privy to secret thoughts that he carefully hid from everyone else in his life and his government. Why didn't he reveal these secret thoughts to Rudolf Hess38? Heinrich Himmler39? Joseph Goebbels40? Hermann G

A Hitler youth marching song:

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.



"It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity, because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood."--Adolph Hitler

Yes, what a devout Christian. Hitler may have believed in Christ, but if so he believed in his own "Nordic Martyr" perversion of Christ, not in the Christ of Christianity. He was no more a Christian than a Hindu who adds Jesus to his voluminous pantheon.

Heh, and if this is the same Mike Wong I'm thinking of, I am no more impressed by his venemous rants against religion than by his painstakingly crafted explanations of why Star Wars would beat Star Trek in any conceivable space battle.

Steltek wrote:A Hitler youth marching song:

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

The thing about Hitler's conflict with Christianity is that he had no problem with a state church, as long as he held power over the church rather than the other way around. He used Christianity as a tool, as much as any other politician.

"It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity, because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood."--Adolph Hitler

Source? Remember, my quotes are from Mein Kampf, which is pretty much where Hitler tells all about his beliefs. Quotes can often be misquoted, misconstrued, taken out of context, or invented altogether. What was the source of your quote?

Yes, what a devout Christian. Hitler may have believed in Christ, but if so he believed in his own "Nordic Martyr" perversion of Christ, not in the Christ of Christianity. He was no more a Christian than a Hindu who adds Jesus to his voluminous pantheon.

Again, Hitler glamourized the Norse pantheon as a further connection between the German people and their fatherland. See again my reference to the glamourization of Classical gods thoughout Western culture. We have integrated many elements from those into Chritianity; for example, the common depiction of God is often rather Zeus-like. Hitler's fascination with Norse mythology was no different.

Heh, and if this is the same Mike Wong I'm thinking of, I am no more impressed by his venemous rants against religion than by his painstakingly crafted explanations of why Star Wars would beat Star Trek in any conceivable space battle.

Yep, same Wong. I fail to see the 'venomous rants against religion'- against religious intolerance, blindness to plainly obvious evidence, and lying to further one's agenda, aye, but nothing against religion itself.

And yes, his explanations for the utter superiority of Star Wars technology and tactics to their Star Trek equivalents are indeed painstakingly crafted- and have evidence backing them up. All sorts of mathematical evidence can be found throughout the site; if you find fault with it, tell him, and he'll either change it or reply stating his proofs. Frankly, it stands to reason- the Empire was built upon 54,000 years of faster-than-light travel, while the Federation was built on only a few centuries of FTL travel (which is slower than Star Wars FTL, at that). It's like pitting an MG-42 against a musketeer and claiming that the musketeer would win because of larger ammunition, to claim that the Federation could defeat the Empire.

The quote, I believe, was most recently recorded in a biographical book called "Hitler's Table Talk" published in the UK shortly after the war, elsewhere published as "Hitler's Secret Conversations", which contained records of discussions between Hitler and various people close to him in his regime.

I find it quite odd that people essentially maintain -- in the interest of slamming Christianity -- that Hitler would not have said one thing and believed another. (Or more precisely, said two things and believed one of them.) While you may, in the short term, gain personal satisfaction from invoking Godwin's law to unjustly assault religion, you are in effect basing your thesis on the integrity of Adolph Hitler.

I also find it incredible that people will schizophrenically use Hitler to slam Christianity, and then protest at the idea that the actions of Stalin or Mao would tarnish the name of Atheists in like manner.

Steltek wrote:The quote, I believe, was most recently recorded in a biographical book called "Hitler's Table Talk" published in the UK shortly after the war, elsewhere published as "Hitler's Secret Conversations", which contained records of discussions between Hitler and various people close to him in his regime.

Now you see, that's just plain suspicious. I'm more inclined to believe the tell-all book of Mein Kampf than what could easily be a largely fictionalized or misquoted account. Immediately after the war, the 'last words of Hitler' would undoubtedly have some major tabloid quality.

Mein Kampf: Hitler's expression of his fundamental beliefs, ideals, and plans. He actually did follow almost everything he wrote here, including the extermination of the Jews, light treatment of the Western nations he occupied, and the overriding goal of a solid push east to destroy 'Bolshevism.'

Hitler's Table Talk: An work that quote secondhand sources, directly contradicts Mein Kampf, and just happened to be published at a time when a book revealing Hitler's personal perversions and such would fly off of shelves.

Forgive me if I'm a tad skeptical.

I find it quite odd that people essentially maintain -- in the interest of slamming Christianity -- that Hitler would not have said one thing and believed another. (Or more precisely, said two things and believed one of them.) While you may, in the short term, gain personal satisfaction from invoking Godwin's law to unjustly assault religion, you are in effect basing your thesis on the integrity of Adolph Hitler.

I don't say that Hitler was a Christian in order to strike at Christians- I point it out as a way to say that Christains aren't automatically good. This specific example was a way for me to say that Christain conservatives aren't necessarily good, and was in response to a direct challenge.

The integrity of Hitler... The odd thing is that, in regards to Mein Kampf, Hitler was disturbingly honest. He said that he would destroy Poland there, and he did. He said that he would eliminate Jews, Communists, and others, and he did. He said that he would destroy the Soviet Union, and he... well, he tried. Indeed he did lie once he had seized power, but he eventually performed every action he demanded in Mein Kampf that he could. Why, then, when he is actively printing material that could potentially harm him politically, would he lie and placate on this one regard, when being a devout Catholic fits his background well?

I also find it incredible that people will schizophrenically use Hitler to slam Christianity, and then protest at the idea that the actions of Stalin or Mao would tarnish the name of Atheists in like manner.

Do Stalin and Mao's actions tarnish the name of atheists? Hmm... Good question. For one thing, unlike Christianity, atheism isn't organized in the least. Two different atheists could believe entirely different things on all issues, but each would have come to their conclusions differently. They have no common link, except for the assumption that there aren't any divine beings that created and control the universe. They would thus be categorized in different schools of thought, so the actions of one doesn't reflect the beliefs of the other.

For example, Stalin and Mao were Communists. I am not. While we're both atheists, that really doesn't say much of anything- because there is no real common link between atheists, my philosophy and assumptions would be completely different from that of Stalin and Mao. I am of a completely different ideology from them, so whatever can be said of their actions can't be applied to me.

On a somewhat pedantic note, I would say that Mao and Stalin didn't so much reject God as replace him with Marx's dialectic. They had faith that Marx's philosophy of inevitable class conflicts was true, which I don't. Stalin and Mao were therefore influenced much less by atheism than by Marxism, and are therefore to be disassociated from non-Marxist atheists.