bleugh

not with your crusty eyes

:clap1:100% agree. Im ashamed of the monstrous anti American racism that exists throughout every part of England and lots of Europe too. Whether one specifically calls America a race is irrelevant, this is bigotry and discrimination. Europeans love nothing more that slandering the americans. America is by the way way better place to live and visit and the people are infinitely friendlier. and us brits are dumber on average too

You're being bigoted and discriminatory against Brits. You're generalising wildly... most Brits I know love Americans and the American culture. I've lived and worked there... and they're more like us than I can say.

You told me that you were OK with my crusty eye :shrug:

:nono: please do not forget the crucial "s"

This is why I find it hard to agree with lostalex's idea that it's all just an elaborate excuse to "bash" America. I've lived / worked in a variety of social settings and I've honestly never encountered this supposed hatred for America here in the UK :shrug:. There was plenty of anti-Bush stuff, and Bush jokes, when he was president but it was all very much focussed on the man himself and not on generalisations of America or American people...

Nope there's definitely only one...

Or most people just don't want an idiot in control of the most powerful country in the world. Also Obama's much more popular internationally than he is in the US so that point is rather silly.

It's not about hating America, nobody here hates America, if anything you seem to have an evident dislike for the UK/Europe given how you look to bring them up in irrelevant topics to bash them.

trumps like Hitler in the ball department.:thumbs:

Why is there a propensity among certain members on here to always 'shoot the messenger' just because the message does not fit in with their own skewed and ILLOGICAL ideologies?

Comparing Trump to Hitler is odious, and says more about the inner prejudice of those making the comparison than it does about any prejudice Trump stands accused of purely because he speaks the TRUTH about SOME immigrants.

(Some of us on here suffer the same irrational and unfair attacks for speaking that same truth)

So Trump is 'Stupid', 'Trump is like Hitler', 'Trump is 'prejudiced'?

So to examine that truth, let's see how Hitler and Trump REALLY compare:

Hitler was a physical non-descript who suffered from a massive inferiority complex due to his poor background and Father's illegitimacy.
Trump was a "Star Athlete" in his 'college years', and certainly does not suffer from any inferiority complex.

Hitler had merely a 'comfortable' working class early home life.
Trump enjoyed a privileged childhood.

Hitler was a failure who cowardly 'stopped trying' at school because he could not compete against other bright students. He left school with no qualifications having failed his exams.
Trump was a “star pupil” and graduated from, both the New York Military Academy in 1964, and 'Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania 4 years later where he gained a degree in Economics.

(Trump stupid? Don't make me laugh.)

Hitler dreamed of being a famous artist but was again a failure when he was rejected by the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts.
Trump is a multi-billionaire who has been successful and maintained his wealth throughout his life, overcoming the reverses which all ambitious people inevitably encounter.

Hitler - an abject failure and misfit - became a "bum" and "drifter" prior to 'finding' politics.
Trump - a 'winner' in anyone's language - is a multi-billionaire who has been successful and maintained his wealth throughout his life, overcoming the reverses which all ambitious people inevitably encounter.

Hitler illogically and wrongly blamed the ENTIRE Jewish race for ALL Germany's and the world's ills – from causing the Russian Revolution to being solely responsible for the collapse of the German Economy.
Trump is NOT blaming ALL immigrants for America's problems but RIGHTLY pointing out that ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and even THE UNSUSTAINABLE HIGH LEVELS of LEGAL immigration, contribute to its problems - including its massive out of control drugs problems and the growing threat to its security from covert immigrant terrorists.

Hitler scapegoated millions of completely innocent Jews and perpetrated the most heinous, inhuman catalogue of degradation against them culminating in his 'Final Solution' - still the most incredible and sickening evil event in recent history.
Trump is NOT proposing one act of violence against ANYONE.

Hitler - little inadequate toerag that he was - had that insane 'corporate jealousy' known by psychologists as 'Othello Syndrome' - named after Shakespeare's insanely jealous Moor - where one's actions are dictated by a deep seated jealousy resulting from the success of others. He resented the business acumen and success of the Jews who owned half of all German private banks, 'dominated' the stock exchange, controlled half of the nation’s newspapers, and over 80% of Retail Businesses.

Their success only highlighted pathetic-little man Hitler's own total failures and inadequacies, and he conveniently 'forgot' when it came to scapegoating them, that although these remarkable people were indeed Jews, they were - unlike him - also GERMANS.
Trump has NO corporate jealousy and does NOT suffer from 'Othello Syndrome'.
Trump is HUGELY successful in his own right.
Trump LOVES, RESPECTS and WELCOMES successful people - no matter what race, colour, or creed. These entrepeneurial people ALL worship at the same altar of commercialism that he does, and Trump recognises the need for such wealth makers.

Unlike turd Hitler, Trump is not 'grinding' any 'personal axe' when he voices concerns about unfettered legal immigration or unchecked illegal immigration, or the high percentage of criminals, benefit seekers, or subversives among such immigrants.

He is SPEAKING THE TRUTH - a truth corroborated by the FACTS and FIGURES.

Dislike trump all you want. Hate him all you want. But to try to liken him to Hitler and to label him 'stupid' speaks more about your own stupidity and prejudice - in my (always very unpopular) opinion.

As a footnote - and also in my (always very unpopular) opinion; to trivialise a despicable, evil bastard like the psychotic Hitler in such a willy-nilly manner to aid in lambasting people we do not like - also demeans, disrespects, and trivialises the 6 million innocent victims of the Austrian ******'s evil.

Oranges and bananas are both fruits? :joker: PLEASE. Utterly ridiculous. Let's see how they really compare.

A banana starts off green and turns yellow - whilst an orange is obviously ORANGE :shrug:

A banana has an elongated, curved shape whilst an orange is roughly spherical, by all accounts.

The skin of a banana is smooth and almost has the texture of a soft leather, whilst an orange is puckered, hard and waxy.

You have to dig your nails into an orange to begin peeling, whereas a banana has a convenient peeling stick at the top.

Bananas have those weird long stringy bits down each side, while an orange is covered in a with "pith".

An orange divides into segments which can be eaten individually - a banana is more like one piece to be eaten from the top down.

Oranges are juicy, whereas bananas have a soft, squishy texture.

Bananas have a bland carby-ness about them whereas oranges are tangy.

You can make orange juice. You cannot make banana juice :joker: :joker: pls pls I dare you to try lolol.



Don't see how anyone could even begin to compare an orange and a banana! Let alone categorise them both under the same food group! :joker: So ignorant.

I am utterly confused by your points. I get the fruit analogy, I'm not sure why you would work so hard to debunk it. It was perfectly valid.

Are you for or against people comparing Trump to Hitler? Because from your first few posts, you were implying that it was fine. Although that doesn't sit very well with you getting quite bent out of shape because people on here referred to terrorists as "monsters". So... is it okay with you to call Trump and Nazi? And is it not okay with you to refer to terrorists as "monsters". It seems like an overly complicated system you have for grading people's comments.

My point is that two things dont have to be identical to come under the same heading,I.e. the argument that Trump is nothing like Hitler because he is not EXACTLY like Hitler is logically invalid. In other words, kirk pointing out the differences between the two men does not negate the fact that there are also similarities, any more than pointing out that bananas and oranges have differences stops either from being a fruit.

Trump is not "a Nazi". Trumps political platform and the rhetoric he uses to gain support has clear similarities to the emotive tactics used by Hitler; economic pride, xenophobia, scapegoating. It is valid to point that out and it is a valid concern, because it is a toxic brand of politics fuelled by fear and hatred. Some seem to believe that this is the same as simply saying "zomg trump is a Hitler Nazi oh no!!", and they seek to shoot this down (passively censor it) by bleating on about Godwin's law.

As for the final part, that's not complicated at all. My issue with terrorists being called monsters has nothing at all to do with it being a "bad term", my issue there is simply that monsters do - not - exist... And using the term "monsters" therefore distracts from the uncomfortable truth of what these people actually are. Nazis on the other hand, are unfortunately very real. It is a descriptive term for a wretched type of human, not an attempt to cognitively reject a human as "other".

People can choose to call other people monsters even if they are not literally monsters. They can choose to call them animals, even though they are not literally animals. I can't see why you would be so concerned about the syntax of other people's comments. Terrorist, in my book, ARE monsters. Figuratively, not literally.

Trump is not a Nazi and anyone comparing him to a Nazi needs to look a little harder into what a Nazi actually is.

Also, if people mention Godwin's Law it's for a reason. The fact that you consider it to be "bleating" is neither here nor there.

So it's ok to describe someone as a monster, although they are not literally a monster.

It's OK to describe someone as an animal, although they are not literally an animal.

But if you describe someone using the terms "Hitler" or "Nazi", literally or otherwise, BZZT BZZT BZZT ALARM ALARM GODWIN GODWIN.


Is that about right?

monster and animal are generic terms

Hitler is too though now, have you never heard anyone refer to someone as a Little Hitler....not actually properly comparing them to Hitler but just to mean he's a bit Power mad?

Not in the instance of this thread

Godwins Law is merely an internet adage that sits in the jargon file of the slang dictionary. It was originally coined by a frustrated Mike Godwin because the word 'Nazi' was a problematic online topic killer.

Well the topic hasn't stopped here, in fact the title of the topic, the very thing that got this topic going invites us to discuss Nazism. The mention of Nazism on that other thread, didn't kill the thread but actually made the discussion move further.

Godwins law is fine, providing we don't wrap it up with Murphys law and although a few people have tried to do that here, the worst hasn't happened and the topic remains active.

But the thread topic - which you wrote yourself - specifies "comparing" and not "equating". And so we come back to my suggestion from earlier; that some people are confused, and don't realise that there is a (significant) difference between these two terms.

It's a common mistake of course. The vast majority of the time when people say "Oh no, you can't compare X to Y!" or "X and Y just do not compare!" they do in fact mean "equate". You can compare anything to anything else. Such is the nature of comparison.

I'm wasting my time here.

You are, yes.

I know.

You will stick rigidly to your opinion, crack "jokes" etc. in an effort to mask the fact that you cancel out one of your opinions with another. It's amusing.... but a time waster.

I think I explained quite clearly why that is not the case; the fact that you don't understand (perhaps by inability, though I suspect by choice) isn't really of any concern to me.

You write something I can't comprehend. How likely do you think that is?

Maybe you're not quite grasping my meaning?