|
| |||||||||||||||
Hitler,freedom,constitution,government NO, I WILL NOT COMPLY! PERIODNO, I WILL NOT COMPLY! PERIODtags:Bit by bit, piece by piece, the US government is taking away all your rights and freedoms and property. How far are you willing to let them go until you stop them? Did you realize governments around the world control the local news? Even Hitler made up stories for the newspaper. It's time to make a decision for yourself. Excerpt from Michael Badnarik's constitution class.
Comments  playlists with this video Controversies by Krupo
• Libertarian by my15minutes
who voted for this video eric3579
- my15minutes
- siftbot
x65who has this post bookmarked Constitutional_Patriot
- legacy0100
- MINK
- MycroftHomlz
- cybrbeast
- Fred_Chopin
- gargoyle
- finch451
NO, I WILL NOT COMPLY! PERIOD Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 6. lore_weaver
(237 votes) 15. Nonbrainwashed
(182 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments       | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
Is this guy really comparing Hitler's fascist dictatorship to the US today? Seriously?
He's got a lot of good facts in there. For a while I thought he was going to go off on some "We have no more rights, let's go assassinate the government" tangent, but he stayed pretty straight and taught a good lesson. I hold off on my vote for now though, in the hopes that he wasn't comparing the US to Hiter's regime.
but, the american people have re-elected a war criminal who lied to them and told them exactly what they wanted to hear and wrapped himself in the flag, so this lecture is saying "what do you think step one looks like?" and "if you wait for step five, it's too late to do anything" and "the founding fathers warned you this would happen"
Even if he took that first step just like Hitler, it doesn't matter. He's out in '08, unlike Hitler who came into power 10 years before his demise. In the US, you're out in 8. Not only that, but the people would not tolerate it, nor would they have to. That's what the three branches are for. Checks and balances, checks and balances.
A classic example of what's happened to America over the past few years of this administration. We owe a sincere debt of thanks to our previous leaders for enacting the 8-year rule. But my faith in the whole checks and balances thing has become severely shaken; with Bush and his illegal wiretaps, Cheney and his little tricks and the other blunders that have cost our country it's sons and daughters in the last few years.
Upvote for that!
Now... off to read the Constitution.
Wow, he has so many the of facts wrong, I don't know where to start...
In any case, the responsibility for the Holocaust lies on the Hitler and the Nazi regime, not the people they persecuted. Not to mention, Hitler abused his control of the army and squelched any opposition that stood against him.
Because no party had a majority in the Reichstag it proved impossible to get any legislation passed. So the current President (Marshall Paul von Hindenburg) appointed Hitler Chancellor in order to form an alliance with his own party to get the Reichstag working again.
In the mean time, the Nazis had been busy causing mass chaos out in the streets to stir public unrest and were quite happily assassinating politicians who opposed them. Hitler then used the burning of the Reichstag (ostensibly by Communists but probably by the Nazis themselves) to ask that he be granted emergency and "temporary" dictatorship powers ("Attack of the Clones" anyone?) to stop the Communist threat. The Reichstag believed him and it all went downhill from there.
Christ, you can just Wiki this stuff and here's this dumbass spouting off crap like 98% of the German people voted for Hitler when it was actually 30.1%. Hitler came to power not by the vote of the German people but by ruthlessly eliminating opponents while fear-mongering to consolidate power. I could rip apart this guy's other comments like the Jews going quietly along with their own genocide but he's already proved himself a pompous moron so it's not worth the effort.
SDGundamX, great comment, this is the type of comment that deserves and up vote.
Yes, some facts were wrong, but his message of governments abuse of your rights was something all Americans should be concerned with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Rise_to_power
Too bad I can't downvote this, yet.
Just because he had his facts wrong, it doesn't mean that the message isn't good.
Marine, I think his facts prove his point, and because they were wrong they degrade it.
I have never heard this period of history so badly and so wrongly taught.
Bush isn't Hitler. However as Bush's ideaology unfolds day by day and year by year it's seems to become frighteningly close to Hitler's.
Small changes, that's how the Nazis did it. Each change stands on its merit, hardly warranting closer inspection - it's the ability to forsee the endpoint that is the key. Michael Badnarik tries to explain this in the clip, albeit in a clumsy, vocabulary starved, childlike manner.
Anyway, I'd say 8 years is plenty of time......
Even the Anschluss was enacted only AFTER Hitler sent his troops in to Austria, because the Chancellor would not fully cooperate and tried to get a plebiscite on independence and reject Nazi Germany's control. The Anschluss was not about voting for Hitler. And the plebiscite was not a free process.
I too think his message is dangerously compromised by incorrectly presenting a false history of what happened in Germany before WWII. We should not need such poorly presented arguments to realize that Bush and what he represents is a danger to the country and its constitution.
"...He had a fiancée, Mimi Reiter in the 1920s, and later had a mistress, Eva Braun. He had a close bond with his half-niece Geli Raubal...[92] All three women attempted suicide during their relationship with him, a fact which has led to speculation that Hitler may have had unusual sexual fetishes, such as urolagnia, as was claimed by Otto Strasser..."
(He was into watersports...who knew?)
I find it embarrassing that this guy was a Presidential Candidate, but that is neither here nor there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urolagnia
This post should come with a disclamer *LIES !
He also says that the jews never complained, they did! In Germany and abroad and also in newspapers counter to this guys claims. What a douchebag.
About the Star of David badge, the jews didn't have a choice. They were forced to wear them, being caught without it could mean death. Interesting article about it:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/yellowstar.htm
Go back and smoke another doobie....
His historical exaggerations undermine his argument but the specifics of the history aren't really all that relevant. I think the "Blaming the Jews" argument that some have thrown out here is a red herring thrown out to confuse the issues. He's not blaming them, he's just saying that they might have had a chance if they'd resisted in the early phases. Even if he was blaming them, it's no reason to throw out the rest of his arguments, it's a bit like people calling Clinton a bad president because he couldn't keep his penis in his pants. Attack the argument, not the man. So far I've seen very few people tackle the actual meat of his arguments, most of you are debating irrelevant snippets in an attempt to discredit him.
Marine Gunrock:
Have you had a look at your checks and balances lately? 3 branches; Executive, obviously controlled by BushCo. Judicial, after massive hirings of loyal Bushies against the law in many cases and with a near lock on the Supreme Court also pretty well under BushCo's thumb. Legislative, 100% under control of BushCo up until the recent elections, now they're pretty skittish about opposing him so give him a "mostly" controls B+ (and if they inact any legislation he doesn't like he can just sign away the parts he doesn't like or veto the entire thing.
What checks and balances? They've all been perverted to suit el Presidente, the dictator who has never actually won a fair election.
I think the people that didn't like this video(myself included), didn't like it because he marred his point with erroneous facts. And, in the process of making his point with falsehoods, he blamed a persecuted people for something their oppressors did, which is just ridiculous.
Someone should *lies this...
LOL(arrow downward.)
The fact of the matter still remains that the people of this nation DO have the power to establish a new government, but simply diving your soccermommobile to the nearest protest isn't going to accomplish anything.
I live in Maine, about an hour away from where Bush has a home on the cost. He was here a couple of times this summer, and of course, the protesters came out. Do you really think that he's going to look out the window and say "Oh, well, there's a hundred people out there that don't like me." And then pick up the phone and give the order to get out of Iraq? Yeah, not gonna happen. Real change requires real effort.
As it applies here: This teacher's argument (his message) --that a corrupt government can rise to power without a military campaign, and even while enjoying popular support, and therefore, all people, even citizens of free countries, should be wary of their government-- would have been just as strong if he had merely (and factually) stated that Hitler rose to power legally, following the political processes that had been established by the German government and were in effect in Germany at that time.
The problem is that he happened to make some factual errors along the way, so we not only disregard his other facts (fair enough), but infer that his whole point must be invalid too. That's what doesn't make sense.
Moreover, no one said invalidate- degrade, compromised, was the language used-, meaning the fact that he makes such a poor argument for such a great conclusion is both disturbing and disappointing.
If this was a philosophy class, this could have evolved into an interesting discussion which actually tried to ANSWER this question in a historical and in a modern-day social context, presumably looking at the US, the military industrial complex, and fear of terrorism.
However, ... really bad history lesson. (downvoted)
So y'all, at what point would you stand up and say, NO, I WILL NOT COMPLY! PERIOD?
Yet another example of the medium being the message.
Edit: Also, swearing in the classroom? Is this for real?
But this guy misses that completely and goes off on this crazy tangent about how the people should have stopped Hitler. He implies that Hitler was somehow elected by the people when this is clearly false--Hilter was APPOINTED Chancellor by the German President and later APPOINTED temporary dictator by the German Congress. The people (German, Austrian, Jews or otherwise) didn't have a say in the matter and even if they'd had one, no one could have possibly foreseen what Hitler intended. Could anyone in this country have predicted during the Bush-Gore election that Bush would invade two countries, systematically begin dismantling civil liberties, and generally tarnish the image of America across the world? No, of course not.
I do appreciate the idea that freedom requires vigilance, but because of this guy's whack-job of an argument that idea gets completely lost. What's scarier is that because he is an authority figure and therefore supposedly knowledgeable, many of his students will probably just accept what he says without bothering to check it out for themselves. The guy may have had good intentions but I think he did more harm than good here.
he obviously got passionate, forgot a statistic in the heat of the moment, fudged it, and maybe even corrected himself later off camera. if you had been there, raised your hand, questioned that statistic, you think he would have said "STFU I AM ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!"... i doubt it, he probably would have checked, corrected, and said "but anyway the rest of my point is still relevant and fucking important, why don't you think about that instead of one fucking statistic, morons"
this is UNIVERSITY so you are supposed to listen to your lecturers and RESEARCH what they say and challenge them and question them and think for yourself. He is not there to tell you the answers. He is there to get you excited.
so he made a factual error, this thread comes down hard on him, comments supporting the 99% of his lecture that wasn't this one statistic are downvoted, you're all really happy with yourselves that you can wiki a fact and be "cleverer" than this lecturer.
it's been said before... you wouldn't know education if it sat on your face.
Nice one.
As far as the rest of you, arguing Bush as the devil, that's just what is intended. The whole Demo/Republican backbiting inability to accomplish anything is orchestrated as a ruse to keep our attention while the real nasty stuff is going on behind it. Did you ever stop to wonder what was really going on during the 18 months the Clinton BJs were top news item every day? Must have been something more important than that...yet we didn't hear about it. Google "north american union' and see what comes up- why hasn't this been in the news? If you want to know a little about how long the war against the Constitution has gone on just Google "Freedom to Fascism" and watch the Aaron Russo documentary- and watch it all- it covers a lot of ground- it should scare you sh**less.
Despite factual errors, wish I'd see any history or government teacher in my school district with as much energy...Most seem RIP (retired in place).
Lastly, how far will it have to go before we do something about it? Well the last act curtain is rising, and I am not seeing any movement or even recognition of any problem yet. We're too busy watching sports & Oprah.
No it wasn't just the statistic he got wrong. It's also that he said that the jews let it all come over them, that the jews had a supposed choice. And that they didn't mind the "Star of David" on them. Also there were 6 million jews dead, not 5 or 6.
If you are going to use an analogy then at least know about it.
Just watch some Keith Olbemann videos on the constitution if you want informed commentary on the administration.
keith olbermann is a good example of someone i think gets a lot of facts right and delivers them in the wrong way. you just have to use your brain and piece everything together yourself, not find the one perfect source for your opinions.
notice i didn't upvote.
and you spelt olbermann wrong, so shall i now ignore everything you ever say?
90% wrong and 10% right, and that'll fly for you? Wow.
And let's get somethings straight here
1. Near as I can tell the only thing he got right was placing Hitler somewhere in Europe.
2. Micheal Badnarik was a former liberterian presidential candidate. I think this whole thing is fake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Badnarik
Wrong facts don't negate a right message.
Q.E.D.
By the way this is from a constitution class that Badnarik teaches. He tries to make his living off of saying this crap, I mean “facts”.
Let's do a simple analogy. A girl goes to a frat for a party, dances suggestively, gets completely smashed and is raped.
So, the campus begins a campaign of awareness among the women on campus, "Be careful of your behaviour, this could have been avoided."
Is that blaming the victim or trying to prevent future victims?
Also, JAPR you are apparently quite ignorant on Judaism. Look it up before you comment on things you do not understand. In the '40s essentially all Jews were both race and religion, in fact an atheist or a Christian of Jewish heritage would have been labelled a Jew then and in many cases could be labelled such now. These days some people of non-Jewish descent convert but it's a relatively recent phenomenon for a significant number of people to adopt the religion without the heritage.
In fact, I remember researching what a Libertarian was after that. Kudos Bednarik!
Now please go sit in the corner and think carefully about looking shit up.
Your statements do not make any sense. You can not make this simple just by wishing it. You proved nothing, and no one else's statements proved your point for you.
I understand that you are angry that not everyone believes 100% what you think, but you have to persuade them. Yelling at them or using 3rd grade logic does not persuade people. Personally I'm in agreement that knowing one's rights, understanding the constitution and being aware of current events is very important. However the discussion, as far as I am concerned, is about the context in which the message was given not the message itself.
I must say that I am watching the complete lecture and I find it interesting even if he does strew a few fallacies here and there. I found it ghastly at first when I was under the false presumption that he was a history teacher. But now that I know he is a politician,... well I reserve final judgment until I've seen the entire thing.
It's all in good humor, little kitty, all in good humor.
And btw you guys, Bednarik did skim out on the details of his examples, but I think you guys are missing the entire focus of the speech because of it. I'm also a die hard fan of history and historical accuracy. But I also know how to listen and have the ability to focus on the speaker's main point instead of seeing just one point and missing the focal point entirely.
Like MINK says, if you're wrong with minor detail (i.e. spelling Olbermann wrong), does that mean we gotta discard your entire post? That reminds me of certain newsmen's immature debate tactics (*Cough* O'reilly *COUGH*). Because this man drank OJ juice out of the carton instead of pouring into a cup, we shouldn't trust this person to bake Cake!!!EVER!!2! OH NOES!... Just calm down and listen to the whole speech, not just 10 seconds of it and running home with short ends of logic.
If you ask me, I think Bednarik did it just to polarize and accent his main point, that it wasn't just one man who wanted to oppress the Jews (the idea was already established before Hitler was even in politics). It was the entire nation who demanded a scapegoat for all their troubles, and Hitler ran a successful political campaign based on this popular idea.
After all, Germany WAS a democratic nation. Many of them CHOSE to blame the Jews, many of them CHOSE to elect a tyrant. They chose to support many things that made Germany into a fascist country, but the history books in your classroom doesn't tell the whole story, and just use Hitler's name to carry all the faults and burdens. But that's another topic of discussion.
Go back and read the entire thread, and watch the video again.. I mean seriously.
1) No one said invalidate. We said DEGRADE, COMPROMISE.
2) HILTER WAS NOT ELECTED, he was appointed. So for the love of sushi, stop saying he was elected.
3) Badnarik(Spelled 'BAD' narik) places blame on the Jews for the holocaust....period, end of story.
4) You equate getting almost the entirety of WWII history wrong to a few spelling errors. Are you kidding me?
Damn straight, you are doomed repeat history, especially if you don't even know it.
Drachen,
Comparing anything to rape in a debate, for me is right up there with comparisons to evil dictators, making up words, and name calling. You should rethink you terrificly bad analogy and try another one.
You are operating under the consistent and false assumption that the Jews did not try to stop Hitler. You are unequivocally wrong on that point.
As for analogies, I got a better one.
A man gets carjacked, in the middle of suburbia. Would you blame him for being carjacked?
Yea, he's oversimplifying the whole struggle of the Jews A LOT. And I know that there had been many outcries among Jewish communities in Germany, and the Nazi regime just took that up and used it for their own means, propagandizing as to how violent and uncivilized these Jews were, trying to assassinate the fuhrer and resolving to violence in the streets etc etc. And somehow Jews felt like they were digging a deeper hole for themselves everytime they try to speak against it.
But Badnarik's point isn't to blame the faults on Jews. He's purposely exaggerating and oversimplifying the position the Jews were in, in order to point out that when you're the minority and you don't speak out, you will get bullied around. He's trying to prove this point by excessive exaggeration of Jews being 'bullied'.
Personally I understand why he has to exaggerate in order to get to his crowd. Some of you don't believe he should be stating overly exaggerated facts, and it is just as bad is flat out lying. Well, that's too bad. Because I think that's part of the art of public speaking and knowing when to accentuate certain facts.
Now if you think oversimplifying the struggles of Jews is a abhorrent sin (because of personal/religious reasons you happen believe in), well then I'm sure you're pissed to see this video. But I don't see why it shouldn't be used as an overly exaggerated example to wake some people up.
I do get the point of this video, as emphasized in my previous comments. My disgust with this video is that I feel his point could have been even more powerful if he had been historically accurate.