Violating Godwin's Law

[Xemmy]

In my humble opinion, there is a pattern.

A country goes to War, followed by major economic decline, followed by the rise of a formerly obscure party characterized by racism, xenophobia, and isolationism, then the scapegoating of minorities.

World War I took place from 1914 to 1918. Then in 1919 The Treaty of Versailles was signed, which was a very unfair document that required Germany to take sole responsiblity for WWI, forcing the Germans to pay 132 billion marks. A sum that many economists at the time determined would take until 1988 to pay. Then in 1921, countries demanded more, which led the German government to print money like hell, which ofcourse led to horrific hyper inflation, and then collapse of the German economy. Also in 1921, Adolf Hitler became the head of the Nazi Party. In 1920, the Nazi party had under 60 members. Because of the state of the economy and Hitler's charisma the Nazi party had hundreds of thousands of members by the end of the 1920s. He seized power in 1934, and we know what he did from there.

Now in Germany during that time, the people looked for a scapegoat. At the time the treaty was signed, many Germans believed that their army was still strong and that they shouldn't have lost WWI. They were wrong, but just because something is false, doesn't mean it can't get popular. They looked for someone to blame. The scapegoat was easy. Jews, gypsies, and foreignors. And that was Hitler's platform.

We've got it all folks.

We have War, two wars in fact. We had economic collapse in the last 8 years. We have the rise of a new politcal power in America characterized by irrationality, racism, xenophobia, and isolationism in the Tea Party Protestors. Illegal Imigration WAS going to be the big issue of the 2010 election, but it was later revolved to Obama himself- which still fits- Smooth Sexual Chocolate n' Chief just so happens to be a minority.

Now am I saying the Tea Party is as bad as the Nazi party? Ofcourse not.
Iraq and Afganistan are no World War I. And as bad as the recession has been, it's not nearly as bad as Germany's complete collapse in the 1920s. The minority issue has been veiled with word's like Socialismand Eilite. All that, plus Sarah Palin doesn't have a creepy mustache.

My point is simply that there is a pattern. I see it. Do you?

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Absolutely not, simply because members of the Tea Party are few and far in between, despite what the mainstream media has told you. Even among the Tea Party, there are even fewer extreme right-wing people who would even consider going through with violence.

The amount of sane, rational people in this country far outnumber your Nazi comparison, and those people are much stronger. If anything, the real threat are the people who you don't know who are violating your freedoms.

 

[Xemmy]

Absolutely not, simply because members of the Tea Party are few and far in between, despite what the mainstream media has told you. Even among the Tea Party, there are even fewer extreme right-wing people who would even consider going through with violence.

The amount of sane, rational people in this country far outnumber your Nazi comparison, and those people are much stronger. If anything, the real threat are the people who you don't know who are violating your freedoms.

Despite what the mainstream media has told me? I don't even watch T.V.
I'm aware that they're scattered. They don't even technically have a leader.
I'm just making a light comparison. I'm simply saying that they've gained alot of relevance and have certain similarities. And it's a little hard to deny those similarities or the fact that they've gained their relevance in the same way.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Despite what the mainstream media has told me? I don't even watch T.V.

You don't have to watch TV in order to have access to mainstream media.

I'm aware that they're scattered. They don't even technically have a leader.

Which kind of supports my point. The Nazis had Hitler from the very beginning.

I'm just making a light comparison. I'm simply saying that they've gained alot of relevance and have certain similarities. And it's a little hard to deny those similarities or the fact that they've gained their relevance in the same way.

There's really no other way to gain relevance, other than to grab the attention of the media, and therefore the population. How else would you go about gaining relevance in this day and age?

 

[Minnesota Connection]

Someone who hates Palin more then me. Heh.

What he said about everything is right... Except the part that included the Tea Party or Sarah Palin.

I don't agree with your comparison because what you are saying implies that the Tea Party is a racist against Mexicans and Black people, to put it blunt.

However, now is the time to be wary... Not just us but around the world. History may repeat itself by placing to much trust in our leaders.

 

[Xemmy]

You don't have to watch TV in order to have access to mainstream media.




Which kind of supports my point. The Nazis had Hitler from the very beginning.



There's really no other way to gain relevance, other than to grab the attention of the media, and therefore the population. How else would you go about gaining relevance in this day and age?

Fuck the media point already.

The fact is, that the Tea Party movement gained relevance coming off of a War and Economic decline. We all know that the media is the tool to become relevant.

 

[Xemmy]

Someone who hates Palin more then me. Heh.

What he said about everything is right... Except the part that included the Tea Party or Sarah Palin.

I don't agree with your comparison because what you are saying implies that the Tea Party is a racist against Mexicans and Black people, to put it blunt.

However, now is the time to be wary... Not just us but around the world. History may repeat itself by placing to much trust in our leaders.

I don't think I hate her more than anyone else. I'm making a historical reference. And for the record, the majority of the Tea Party happens to be White Men. So yes, I am implying that they're somewhat racist. They have this little phrase, "We Want Our Country Back!". Back when? The 1950s usually. When the United States was still the richest country in the world. And Segregation was still around. I'm not saying there all racist, in the same way that I say that not all members of the Nazi party were Jew haters. Some were just going with the flow. But can you honestly say that the Tea Party would have been able to gain ANY relevance if the president was white?

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Fuck the media point already.

The fact is, that the Tea Party movement gained relevance coming off of a War and Economic decline. We all know that the media is the tool to become relevant.

So then what's your point? Are you saying that every social/socioeconomic movement has parallels to the Nazi uprising in 1920s-1930s Germany? By your logic, that's very true, but by anyone else's logic, you're not going to see anyone viewing the Tea Party movement as having anything to do (including paralleling) the Nazi movement.

 

[Xemmy]

So then what's your point? Are you saying that every social/socioeconomic movement has parallels to the Nazi uprising in 1920s-1930s Germany?

My point is simply that The Tea Party and The Nazi Partly rose to power in a parallel.

I gave a list remember?

1. War- Check
2. Economic Decline- Check
3. Rise of obscure political party.- Check
4. Scapegoating a minority- Check

I'm pointing out the pattern.

So no, I am not saying that every movement has the parallels to the Nazis.
Mozzy are you implying that all social/economic movements involve these 4 things?

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

1. War- Check

The movement has nothing to do with the war. These people think the deficit is caused by federal spending.

3. Rise of obscure political party.- Check

The Tea Party is not a political party. The Tea Party is made up of Republicans and Libertarians (depending on what your definition of "libertarian" is).

4. Scapegoating a minority- Check

What? They're scapegoating the government.

I'm pointing out the pattern.

So no, I am not saying that every movement has the parallels to the Nazis.
Mozzy are you implying that all social/economic movements involve these 4 things?

A good amount of social/socioeconomic movements have risen in this way.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Do you even know what Godwin's Law is? How does a law about Internet discussion have even the remotest connection to what you're trying to argue here (save for the fact that they deal with Hitler in two totally different ways)?

Anyway, Hannah Arendt already dealt with this topic in her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, drawing parallels between the origins of Nazism and Stalinism. There's hardly any comparison between our present situation and that of Nazi Germany. Firstly, we don't have a parliamentary style of government where the executive and legislative branches are fused, so, even if Sarah Palin got elected as the POTUS, she wouldn't be able to dissolve Congress and declare herself a dictator. Second, while we do have a shameful amount of debt, this wasn't forced upon us by our vanquishers. When Afghanistan and Iraq can claim victory in their wars against the US and make the US assume all responsibility and costs for the war, then you might be onto something.

 

[Xemmy]

Do you even know what Godwin's Law is? How does a law about Internet discussion have even the remotest connection to what you're trying to argue here (save for the fact that they deal with Hitler in two totally different ways)?

I'm not violating Godwin's Law? The point of the title, was to say that "I'm about to Violate Godwin's Law!"
Yes, I know it's stupid.

Anyway, Hannah Arendt already dealt with this topic in her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, drawing parallels between the origins of Nazism and Stalinism. There's hardly any comparison between our present situation and that of Nazi Germany. Firstly, we don't have a parliamentary style of government where the executive and legislative branches are fused, so, even if Sarah Palin got elected as the POTUS, she wouldn't be able to dissolve Congress and declare herself a dictator. Second, while we do have a shameful amount of debt, this wasn't forced upon us by our vanquishers. When Afghanistan and Iraq can claim victory in their wars against the US and make the US assume all responsibility and costs for the war, then you might be onto something.

It's an overgeneralization. Ofcourse there are an ASSLOAD of differences. I'm just pointing out the similarities. If I'm wrong about those, then we'll have something to debate.

 

[Xemmy]

The movement has nothing to do with the war. These people think the deficit is caused by federal spending.

The war is a big part of our debt. I'm almost certain we have the largest military budget in the world. That's not the point though. They're not against the war even IF it's the cause. But the War is the central reason we're in debt. Hell they're not even against federal spending. They couldn't care less. They just want the taxes down. Even though they've been lowered by Obama. I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that a large portion of the Tea Party are also Birthers. See where this circles around?

The Tea Party is not a political party. The Tea Party is made up of Republicans and Libertarians (depending on what your definition of "libertarian" is).

They call themselves "The Tea Party", it's a force of habit, Official party or not, it's still a political movement. I'm aware that they're just the GOP in disguise.

What? They're scapegoating the government.

You mean Obama. And illegal immigrantion. They'll say government- but when you see alot of signs like this-

Spoiler

You get the idea that it's more than just Scapegoating "The Government". There's a difference between what a party claims to stand for, and what a party actually stands for.

A good amount of social/socioeconomic movements have risen in this way.

I know, this is just a specific one.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

The war is a big part of our debt. I'm almost certain we have the largest military budget in the world. That's not the point though. They're not against the war even IF it's the cause. But the War is the central reason we're in debt. Hell they're not even against federal spending. They couldn't care less. They just want the taxes down. Even though they've been lowered by Obama. I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that a large portion of the Tea Party are also Birthers. See where this circles around?

Actually, they don't blame the deficit on the war at all. They blame it on Obama's spending solely. That's one of the main reasons they're not taken seriously. They have no idea what is going on in the government, they just listen to Glenn Beck and protest whatever he tells them to protest.

They call themselves "The Tea Party", it's a force of habit, Official party or not, it's still a political movement. I'm aware that they're just the GOP in disguise.

Uh... they call themselves the Tea Party, based on the Boston Tea Party, which is what happened with the Stamp Act Congress/Sons of Liberty during the American Revolution. The Republicans support the Tea Party, and they support the running Republicans.

You mean Obama. And illegal immigrantion. They'll say government- but when you see alot of signs like this-

Spoiler

You get the idea that it's more than just Scapegoating "The Government". There's a difference between what a party claims to stand for, and what a party actually stands for.

You said they scapegoat a minority. They're not scapegoating a minority. They're sure attributing false names to people they don't like, but they're not scapegoating a minority.

 

[Xemmy]

Actually, they don't blame the deficit on the war at all. They blame it on Obama's spending solely. That's one of the main reasons they're not taken seriously. They have no idea what is going on in the government, they just listen to Glenn Beck and protest whatever he tells them to protest.

I'm aware that THEY don't blame it on the war. That doesn't change the fact that that's what caused it. What exactly would make Glenn Beck, or Teabaggers in general makes them so irrational?

Uh... they call themselves the Tea Party, based on the Boston Tea Party, which is what happened with the Stamp Act Congress/Sons of Liberty during the American Revolution. The Republicans support the Tea Party, and they support the running Republicans.

Uh, yeah, I think everyone and their Grandma knows that. But when a political movement calls itself a "Party", you know what they mean. Yes, they are not an official Party, but it doesn't mean it's just a historical reference. It's an intentional paronomasia.

Is this even really important to the point? Are we going to sit here and argue because of the difference between a political movement and a party when really It's just the GOP making a rise under a different name? So it's not a NEW party. It's just smaller division of an existing one. I still say it qualifies.

You said they scapegoat a minority. They're not scapegoating a minority. They're sure attributing false names to people they don't like, but they're not scapegoating a minority.

......Just read. We can make claims all we want, but it's not going to solve anything unless we back it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Race_issues

While the media has definitely made it bigger than it actually is, I would still bet that if not for immigration and the election of a black president, The Tea Party probably wouldn't even exist in it's present form.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I'm aware that THEY don't blame it on the war. That doesn't change the fact that that's what caused it. What exactly would make Glenn Beck, or Teabaggers in general makes them so irrational?

At this point, you're going farther and farther away from what you're calling a parallel to the Nazi movement. Basically, I'm trying to say that this doesn't compare to the Nazi uprising at all. In the slightest bit. Whatsoever.

Uh, yeah, I think everyone and their Grandma knows that. But when a political movement calls itself a "Party", you know what they mean. Yes, they are not an official Party, but it doesn't mean it's just a historical reference. It's an intentional paronomasia.

But they're not acting like a political party. They're acting like any other political support group. It's nothing like a party. It's not in the name, it's not in their actions. They're not a political party.

Is this even really important to the point? Are we going to sit here and argue because of the difference between a political movement and a party when really It's just the GOP making a rise under a different name? So it's not a NEW party. It's just smaller division of an existing one. I still say it qualifies.

No, it doesn't quality, because it doesn't compare to the Nazi uprising in Germany. Tdig already pointed it out, it's absolutely impossible for them to take over with the kind of government we have, they're not TRYING to take over, and everything on your extremely generalized list of quantifiers that compare political groups to the Nazis is irrelevant.

......Just read. We can make claims all we want, but it's not going to solve anything unless we back it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Race_issues

While the media has definitely made it bigger than it actually is, I would still bet that if not for immigration and the election of a black president, The Tea Party probably wouldn't even exist in it's present form.

Okay? They're a bunch of republicans from the deep south bible belt. Of course they're a little bit racist. That doesn't mean they're scapegoating minorities.

 

[Xemmy]

At this point, you're going farther and farther away from what you're calling a parallel to the Nazi movement. Basically, I'm trying to say that this doesn't compare to the Nazi uprising at all. In the slightest bit. Whatsoever.

I wouldn't if I didn't have to keep arguing the Tea Party stance.
1. War- it's just an event in the parrallel. Nothing more. It also happens to be a major cause of # 2 in the U.S. Economic decline.
War in the Nazi's caused their economic decline in a different way, due to the reperations.

It's still the starting line though.

But they're not acting like a political party. They're acting like any other political support group. It's nothing like a party. It's not in the name, it's not in their actions. They're not a political party.

A political party and the Tea Party have the same purpose. To get certain people elected. They're less organized, they're not officially on a ballot, and they have no single leader. But the purpose is still the same.

No, it doesn't quality, because it doesn't compare to the Nazi uprising in Germany. Tdig already pointed it out, it's absolutely impossible for them to take over with the kind of government we have, they're not TRYING to take over, and everything on your extremely generalized list of quantifiers that compare political groups to the Nazis is irrelevant.

Have you missed my point that this is only a pattern? A guy makes a few comparisons, and suddenly he saying that The Tea Party is GOING TO TAKE OVER!
I never said that. They rose in prominance in a similar fashion as the Nazis. That's the only real claim I've made. Are we going to put more things in my mouth?

Okay? They're a bunch of republicans from the deep south bible belt. Of course they're a little bit racist. That doesn't mean they're scapegoating minorities.

Quite a few Tea Baggers/Republicans will tell you that illegal immigrants are the number 1 or two reason that the economies in the shitter. If it's not them, it's Obama himself. I'd call that Scapegoating.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

I wouldn't if I didn't have to keep arguing the Tea Party stance.
1. War- it's just an event in the parrallel. Nothing more. It also happens to be a major cause of # 2 in the U.S. Economic decline.
War in the Nazi's caused their economic decline in a different way, due to the reperations.

It's still the starting line though.

So then maybe I'm missing your point because it's an extremely weak point. I've made multiple attempts at arguing your point, saying your criteria for comparison is weak, that it's a bad comparison, and you keep telling me that I'm missing the point or putting words in your mouth.

I really don't know what you want me to say.

Anyway, those are weak points. An economic decline caused by a war would cause civil unrest in ANY country, and the Nazi movement was no different. Do you see why I'm saying it's a bad example? You're drawing too many parallels with this comparison. It's way too generalized.

A political party and the Tea Party have the same purpose. To get certain people elected. They're less organized, they're not officially on a ballot, and they have no single leader. But the purpose is still the same.

The main function of a political party is to nominate candidates. The Tea Party doesn't do that. I've proven you wrong on every point you've made about the Tea Party being a political party. They're absolutely, 100% not a political party. Let this one go.

Have you missed my point that this is only a pattern? A guy makes a few comparisons, and suddenly he saying that The Tea Party is GOING TO TAKE OVER!
I never said that. They rose in prominance in a similar fashion as the Nazis. That's the only real claim I've made. Are we going to put more things in my mouth?

I'm only responding to what you're implying. You're saying the Tea Party are paralleling the Nazi movement in '20s-'30s Germany. If you're telling me that you made this thread to say that most political/socioeconomic movements come up the same way, based on the quantifiers you've mentioned, then there was literally no reason to even mention them in this thread unless you were trying to compare a group you don't like to the Nazis.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I'm having a hard time seeing your point. You've basically said, "Look, here's the Tea Party. Their movement parallels the uprising of the Nazis in Germany. But they're nothing like the Nazis, and I'm not trying to compare them. It's just a pattern."

Quite a few Tea Baggers/Republicans will tell you that illegal immigrants are the number 1 or two reason that the economies in the shitter. If it's not them, it's Obama himself. I'd call that Scapegoating.

Er, no, actually, the stance of the Tea Party is that government spending is the primary reason for the deficit. I'm saying, you can talk to anybody from the deep south, and they'll be racist regardless of the political party they're associated with.

This is in no way, shape, or form comparable to the Nazi movement, even by your standards.

 

[Xemmy]

So then maybe I'm missing your point because it's an extremely weak point. I've made multiple attempts at arguing your point, saying your criteria for comparison is weak, that it's a bad comparison, and you keep telling me that I'm missing the point or putting words in your mouth.

It is fairly weak, I've admitted as much. I'm pointing out that these two political sects have risen to prominance in a similar fashion, and have race issues. No, the Tea Party protestors don't officially make there stance against race, but still has many of the signs for xenophobia and racism. Most of the members don't have a clue what they stand for other than lowering taxes and hating the president.

I really don't know what you want me to say.

Anyway, those are weak points. An economic decline caused by a war would cause civil unrest in ANY country, and the Nazi movement was no different. Do you see why I'm saying it's a bad example? You're drawing too many parallels with this comparison. It's way too generalized.

Um, yeah, it would cause civil unrest in ANY country. So? The Nazi movement was different. If it was that fucking common, we'd have a lot more holocausts. And YES, I can't stress enough that it is over generalized. I'd edit that in if I could. All this thread was meant to do was say, "Hey, look, these two are kinda similar."- As in Risen prominance, slightly similar ideology, (The Nazi party was considered "Far Right".) and a lack of rationality + racism.

The main function of a political party is to nominate candidates. The Tea Party doesn't do that. I've proven you wrong on every point you've made about the Tea Party being a political party. They're absolutely, 100% not a political party. Let this one go.

I haven't made the point that it is a political party, other than calling them The Tea Party- Which they call themselves. So how have you proven me wrong? They are a political sect. I've pointed out the differences myself too. They've tried, and gotten people elected have they not? No not officially under a ballot, I get that, but they function in a . What's bugging me, is that you're acting as if they don't. As if they have little to no similarities. AND THE ONLY reason this is being brought up at all is nit-picking. Tea Party = A Division of the worst members of the Republican party running around with a different name.

We happy now?

I'm only responding to what you're implying. You're saying the Tea Party are paralleling the Nazi movement in '20s-'30s Germany. If you're telling me that you made this thread to say that most political/socioeconomic movements come up the same way, based on the quantifiers you've mentioned, then there was literally no reason to even mention them in this thread unless you were trying to compare a group you don't like to the Nazis.

I am saying that it's paralleling yes. I am NOT telling you that most political movements come up this way. Because they don't. Economicly based ones would, however there are many different types of Parties that form in many different ways for many different reasons. These two did it under similar conditions, and are known for irrationality and racism. That's it. SO YEAH, I am trying to compare them a bit. That's the point of the title of this thread. However, you've made it out like I'm saying they're identical in nearly everythinkable way, I must be crazy to have drawn the comparrison.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I'm having a hard time seeing your point. You've basically said, "Look, here's the Tea Party. Their movement parallels the uprising of the Nazis in Germany. But they're nothing like the Nazis, and I'm not trying to compare them. It's just a pattern."

I just generalized the topic in my previous statement. If I have said anything contridictory to it in previous posts, I apologize. Sometimes one talks in circles. If I haven't, then disregard this reply.

Er, no, actually, the stance of the Tea Party is that government spending is the primary reason for the deficit. I'm saying, you can talk to anybody from the deep south, and they'll be racist regardless of the political party they're associated with.
This is in no way, shape, or form comparable to the Nazi movement, even by your standards.

THE Official stance of the Tea Party is that government spending is the primary reason for the deficit. It's not what they run on, it's not what there signs say, and it's not how they act. And living in the deep south, I have yet to see those on the left with racial issues, and when they exist, they are few in number. Chances are, in this country at least, if you're racist, you're on the far right.

 

[LigerBomb]

I "see it" but after reading all of this I've concluded there's really no point to any of it. Not all "theories" that pop into one's head should be posted. The parallels you draw are basic and obvious. The ones that would be of actual pertinence and interest are curiously absent.

Yes, you've correctly come to the conclusion that there exists general similarities between a past event and a current one. May I just ask:

So what?
​

The onus is now on you to make it matter. So far, it doesn't, and probably never will. History repeats itself far more often then we acknowledge or care to recognize –usually because it tends to do so in such minor and innocuous ways.

Read something akin to Snyder's Bloodlands; when the tea partiers—and whomever you claim should represent the neo-commies of Russia—begin lining up debt-inducing liberals and sending them off to the killing centers and mass graves, then perhaps I'll concede your allusions as more than pedestrian syllogism.

 

[Xemmy]

I "see it" but after reading all of this I've concluded there's really no point to any of it. Not all "theories" that pop into one's head should be posted. The parallels you draw are basic and obvious. The ones that would be of actual pertinence and interest are curiously absent.

Yes, you've correctly come to the conclusion that there exists general similarities between a past event and a current one. May I just ask:

So what?
​

The onus is now on you to make it matter. So far, it doesn't, and probably never will. History repeats itself far more often then we acknowledge or care to recognize –usually because it tends to do so in such minor and innocuous ways.

Read something akin to Snyder's Bloodlands; when the tea partiers—and whomever you claim should represent the neo-commies of Russia—begin lining up debt-inducing liberals and sending them off to the killing centers and mass graves, then perhaps I'll concede your allusions as more than pedestrian syllogism.

The onus in on me to make it matter? It doesn't though. It was merely something to discuss. I pointed out something I thought was interesting. I thought it would get people talking, in some way, shape, or form. But so far the only thing that's occured in this thread, is me defending the similarities.

I'm done. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. It's too exausting anyways.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

It is fairly weak, I've admitted as much. I'm pointing out that these two political sects have risen to prominance in a similar fashion, and have race issues. No, the Tea Party protestors don't officially make there stance against race, but still has many of the signs for xenophobia and racism. Most of the members don't have a clue what they stand for other than lowering taxes and hating the president.

So? Their racism has nothing to do with their rallies. The birthers, while there are plenty in the Tea Party, are a completely different group of people. The racists are a completely different group of people. I bet you I can find some democrat racists, or some misogynist gamers. That doesn't mean the democrats are all racists, and that doesn't mean all gamers are misogynists.

Um, yeah, it would cause civil unrest in ANY country. So? The Nazi movement was different. If it was that fucking common, we'd have a lot more holocausts. And YES, I can't stress enough that it is over generalized. I'd edit that in if I could. All this thread was meant to do was say, "Hey, look, these two are kinda similar."- As in Risen prominance, slightly similar ideology, (The Nazi party was considered "Far Right".) and a lack of rationality + racism.

The point.





You.

It's already been stated in this thread that Hitler was able to take power based on the structure of Germany's government at the time. Yes, based on your criteria, the Nazi movement rose to power that way. But there are shit tons of other criteria that helped out, criteria that's far stronger than anything you've listed. Criteria that doesn't parallel mild social unrest caused by the Tea Party.

I haven't made the point that it is a political party, other than calling them The Tea Party- Which they call themselves. So how have you proven me wrong? They are a political sect. I've pointed out the differences myself too. They've tried, and gotten people elected have they not? No not officially under a ballot, I get that, but they function in a . What's bugging me, is that you're acting as if they don't. As if they have little to no similarities. AND THE ONLY reason this is being brought up at all is nit-picking. Tea Party = A Division of the worst members of the Republican party running around with a different name.

We happy now?

I've proven you wrong because you're drawing a parallel between the Tea Party and the Nazi party that doesn't exist. There is no parallel. At all. The Tea Party isn't rising in anywhere near the same fashion as the Nazi party.

I am saying that it's paralleling yes. I am NOT telling you that most political movements come up this way. Because they don't. Economicly based ones would, however there are many different types of Parties that form in many different ways for many different reasons. These two did it under similar conditions, and are known for irrationality and racism. That's it. SO YEAH, I am trying to compare them a bit. That's the point of the title of this thread. However, you've made it out like I'm saying they're identical in nearly everythinkable way, I must be crazy to have drawn the comparrison.

I was only wondering why you've made this thread, knowing you were going to make an extremely weak point, based on extremely generalized comparisons. You might as well have made a thread comparing Snoop Dogg and Van Halen, because they rose to fame in similar ways.

THE Official stance of the Tea Party is that government spending is the primary reason for the deficit. It's not what they run on, it's not what there signs say, and it's not how they act. And living in the deep south, I have yet to see those on the left with racial issues, and when they exist, they are few in number.

So because you haven't seen it, it means it doesn't exist? You've never seen a sign of Bush with a Hitler mustache? Because I used to see those all the time. I've seen people try to say that Bush failed out of high school then paid his way into college, I've seen people call him the Antichrist, I've seen people on the news planning on assassinating Bush -- you name it. The same shit Obama's going through now, Bush also went through.

Chances are, in this country at least, if you're racist, you're on the far right.

What? So there are no black racists? Race is always a political thing now? Hate to break it to you, but Nazism was a socialist movement, and those guys are the biggest examples of racists in human history. This is literally the stupidest thing I've ever had to argue, and believe me, I argued with FTS about Muslims.