True, and Hitler appreciated art, was an artist and he believed in science. Actually, Hitler had more class than the Donnie does.
I'm not so sure there is such a thing as good and evil. But I don't want to interfere with your primative religious beliefs. If it helps you cope, I say go for it! '
The agw nutter crowd claims co2 is going to cause a food shortage. (very anti science because co2 has been shown to green the planet and thereby increase potential food production.) hitler's belief seems to mirror many of the lefties on this board... particularly the agw nutters... http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opinion/sunday/the-next-genocide.html?_r=0 The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science. Hitler’s alternative to science was the idea of Lebensraum. Germany needed an Eastern European empire because only conquest, and not agricultural technology, offered the hope of feeding the German people. In Hitler’s “Second Book,” which was composed in 1928 and not published until after his death, he insisted that hunger would outstrip crop improvements and that all “the scientific methods of land management” had already failed. No conceivable improvement would allow Germans to be fed “from their own land and territory,” he claimed. Hitler specifically — and wrongly — denied that irrigation, hybrids and fertilizers could change the relationship between people and land. Continue reading the main story The pursuit of peace and plenty through science, he claimed in “Mein Kampf,” was a Jewish plot to distract Germans from the necessity of war. “It is always the Jew,” argued Hitler, “who seeks and succeeds in implanting such lethal ways of thinking.” As exotic as it sounds, the concept of Lebensraum is less distant from our own ways of thinking than we believe. Germany was blockaded during World War I, dependent on imports of agricultural commodities and faced real uncertainties about its food supply. Hitler transformed these fears into a vision of absolute conquest for total security. Lebensraum linked a war of extermination to the improvement of lifestyle. ... Climate change threatens to provoke a new ecological panic. So far, poor people in Africa and the Middle East have borne the brunt of the suffering. The mass murder of at least 500,000 Rwandans in 1994 followed a decline in agricultural production for several years before. Hutus killed Tutsis not only out of ethnic hatred, but to take their land, as many genocidaires later admitted. In Sudan, drought drove Arabs into the lands of African pastoralists in 2003. The Sudanese government sided with the Arabs and pursued a policy of eliminating the Zaghawa, Masalit and Fur peoples in Darfur and surrounding regions. Climate change has also brought uncertainties about food supply back to the center of great power politics. China today, like Germany before the war, is an industrial power incapable of feeding its population from its own territory, and is thus dependent on unpredictable international markets. This could make China’s population susceptible to a revival of ideas like Lebensraum. The Chinese government must balance a not-so-distant history of starving its own population with today’s promise of ever-increasing prosperity — all while confronting increasingly unfavorable environmental conditions. The danger is not that the Chinese might actually starve to death in the near future, any more than Germans would have during the 1930s. The risk is that a developed country able to project military power could, like Hitler’s Germany, fall into ecological panic, and take drastic steps to protect its existing standard of living. How might such a scenario unfold? China is already leasing a tenth of Ukraine’s arable soil, and buying up food whenever global supplies tighten. During the drought of 2010, Chinese panic buying helped bring bread riots and revolution to the Middle East. The Chinese leadership already regards Africa as a long-term source of food. Although many Africans themselves still go hungry, their continent holds about half of the world’s untilled arable land. Like China, the United Arab Emirates and South Korea are interested in Sudan’s fertile regions — and they have been joined by Japan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in efforts to buy or lease land throughout Africa. Nations in need of land would likely begin with tactfully negotiated leases or purchases; but under conditions of stress or acute need, such agrarian export zones could become fortified colonies, requiring or attracting
by the way the US supreme court is not going allow a religious registry for citizens. And it makes sense to keep track of the non citizens allowed in the country whether they are muslim or christian or nothing.
This "religious registry" nonsense is just a typical attempt at delegitimization through the wonders of labeling. Of course, americans are not going to embrace the idea of a religious registry. At the same time, few would object to having a way to keep tabs on immigrants, particularly non-resident immigrants, like students and tourists. Half are known to overstay their visas, sometimes for years. We also happen to have the ability to track the two most predictive factors for terrorism: male and muslim. The second two most predictive factors would be female and muslim. Liberals think it is just plain wrong to consider this, islam being a religion of peace and all.
More Liberal hysteria. The database only applies to non-citizens. It's illegal, unconstitutional, and would be struck down almost immediately, if applied to citizens.
I just think he's way way too demonized, there are many other mass murderers out there that are just walking around free. Any American knows Hitler but I'd bet many don't know Stalin, who was a much worse btw. Thousand of kids and children have been blown to pieces and hundreds of thousands have been killed because GW Bush decided to invade Iraq. If we would punish "mass murders" then he'd be spending the rest of his life in jail. Funny how Saddam Hussein is this horrible dictator but GW Bush is just a regular president, who killed more people?
Are we going to punish Obama for all the drone strikes on innocents, since we're so keen on prosecuting war crimes?
If you'd look at how many have died in drone strikes, the numbers are nothing compared to the Iraq war. But yes, prosecute Obama while at it.