Campaign Fuhrer, Sieg Hill
by Big Dog on Feb 2, 2008 at 15:21 Political
The race for the nomination in each party continues through this weekend in the lead up to Tsunami Tuesday where 21 states will cast their ballots. The NYT says that campaigning is furious over the final weekend. They must mean there is a lot of furor because of the races. However, the picture on the front of the Drudge Report made me think of a different Fuhrer. That picture, shown to the right, is a glimpse into the future if Hillary becomes the leader of America, or the formerly free world.
Hillary’s outbursts and demands for loyalty are well known as are the consequences of showing less than a complete and total lack of support for her. People are shunned from politics, embarrassed, belittled, chewed up and spit out when they dare to cross “The Leader.” Hillary stands for socialism and I would not be surprised if, a few years into her term, we don’t have school kids standing with similar salutes. They will be chanting Sieg Hill, Sieg Hill while the Fuhrer tells them how to be good little Socialists.
When they discuss campaign furor they are talking about everyone. When I hear furor I think fuhrer, because they are talking about Hillary.
“Sieg Hill, Heil Hillary, Sieg Hill”
Tags: campaign, fuhrer, Hillary, sieg heil
I’ve noticed that Hill and Bill are getting quite hysterical over Obama’s star power…they’re working so hard at this…and Obama is just as smooth as silk and getting all the endorsements.
Go drudge… I’ve seen him select some very interesting pics over the years.
Here’s another good site for drudge fans: drudgetracker.com
[…] [Discuss This Topic with Big Dog] Share Article […]
Let me get this straight, you went to that fancy college and you are asking me if fascism is socialism now because I compared Hillary to Hitler and have said she is a socialist.
In that college did they teach you that a Nazi was a member of a national socialist party. Get that now, socialist party. And did they tell you that a Nazi was a member of the German fascist party? That would mean the fascists were socialists because Nazis were fascists and Nazi was short for national socialist party.
Since we already know Hillary is a socialist by her actions and her writings in college as well as who she wrote about, we can make the connection that she is more of a fascist than GW Bush who does not espouse socialism.
So, since Hillary is a socialist and fascists are socialists, Hillary is a fascist. Since Nazis are fascists and Hillary is a fascist, she must be a Nazi.
At least she is closer to one than GW Bush who you and your liberal buddies like to call Bushitler and all kinds of other names that refer to Nazis.
And you claim that racism sounds like a GOP debate when the Democrats have been the only ones using race in this campaign season. They are the ones who make a big deal out of race. Republicans don’t go around enslaving blacks to welfare so that they can be kept under tight control. We are not the ones who think they are inferior so they need special programs. The problem is, liberals have repeated that Republicans are racists so often that they have begun to believe it themselves. Liberals are the true racists.
I find no problem with being a nationalism if you mean strong belief in one’s nation. If you want the other meaning it applies to your group, ..desires a strong national government. Nanny state, all they ever talk about in a Dem debate.
Militarism might not appeal to you but you might not be here today if it were not for the military. If you are reading what I have written thank a teacher. Since it is in English, thank a soldier.
In reality the average dem debate sounds like people telling me how to run my life and how they are going to rob me in order to do it. Take money from all the “rich” and give it to the poor. It is a bunch of rich folks saying it and they don’t pay their fair share by a long shot. However, I don’t need any of them to tell me how to live my life. I am their boss, not the other way around and I have done fine for myself without them.
Keep them…
You have more grounds for calling Hillary Satan than for comparing her to Adolf Hitler. So what is it? Socialism is fascism now? Let me see for a minute…nationalism, militarism, racism…hmm…that sounds more like an average GOP debate to me…
Sieg Hill, Sieg, Hill
She is a Nazi when she handles her staff. A real fascist, a bi*ch.
I could not work with her. I would have snapped her head off the first time she raised her voice to me or was rude. I would have ripped her head off the shoulders and then evacuated down her neck.
Yeah, she would get out of line one time and it would never happen again. Her problem is she never had a man to take care of her cause he was taking care of others. She had to turn to women.
If they run on a joint ticket and win, we will get the first black, first woman, first lesbian and first bisexual (Obama apparently likes hummers from other guys, at least that is what one is saying).
If the libs get all those things at once they will be having orgasms for months and passing a crack pipe and bong around to celebrate the diversity.
Fortunately, they are aborting themselves to extinction so after this generation of aging hippies dies off we will have fewer to deal with.
Maybe if you cracked a book that wasn’t written by the so called “storm troopers” of your Conservative movement you’d remember that the far-right Nazis were Socialist only so far as the name of their party. Their ideas and actions had little bearing on modern Socialism and certainly have no connection to the Socialist ideas that make up some of Hillary Clinton’s political beliefs. But sure, she’s got her arm up, so that makes her a Nazi…
I know this is all just part of your hate the Clinton party, but come on now. You shouldn’t talk like such a sexist pig with the stuff about Hillary “getting out of line” and needing a “man to take care of her” and having to “turn to women.” But maybe calling Hillary a bitch makes you feel like more of a man?
I have cracked many books, before you were alive, and they were not the history revisionist books of your generation. The only major difference in philosophy was that the later workings of the Nazi party believed that the purity of the race was important. Not so different from many of the theories of the Communist/Socialists founders.
As far as a redistribution of wealth and keeping the poor, poor, the Nazis certainly did that.
I don’t like Socialism, it chokes the life out of productive people and there is not one example of where it has worked. Libs just believe it will work if done right and they are wrong.
Hillary needed her man to get ahead in life. Indisputable fact. She would not be where she is without him and she would not be considered a presidential candidate without him. She uses him to do her fighting and mud slinging and she hides behind him.
It is not sexist to point out a fact. Just because Hillary is a weak woman who needs a man does not make me a sexist. As for her sexual preferences, the rumors are there…
With the Clintons, if the charge is made it is probably true. Web’s daughter knows.
The bottom line is that Hillary and most of the Democrats in power do not want a Socialist state, but instead believe that certain aspects of Socialism can and have benefited this society…which you of course disagree with.
You can say that Hillary got to where she is today with the help of her husband, but to say Bill was necessary is an idea that cannot be proven either way and is only put out there as a way to attack her with no basis.
The only indisputable fact here is that you hate the Clinton’s so much that you’ll repeat any rumor, any lie, any sleaze against them just so you can continue to rail against them. It’s sad, really, but also very entertaining…
What is entertaining is how many liberals will believe anything they say as if they have told the truth and have impeccable records.
It is not a matter of me hating her, you attempt to diminish things by making excuses. This one hates her, that one hates her, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, blah blah. You rationalize based upon your hatred for GWB and Republicans.
It is amazing you would say that my rails against anything Clinton are sad but entertaining but your last 8 years of unhinged lunatic rantings about Bush were rational. Oh yeah, libs can’t be wrong, if they hate the guy he must be Hitler.
Obviously there is no way to prove a negative so I can’t say Hillary would not have made it on her own because, as you state, it cannot be proven. However, I can say, and it is fact, she has gotten where she is based upon her marriage to him and the last name. I might not be able to prove she wouldn’t have done it without them but I can show that it was those things that got her where she is (that and she played the victim greatly).
Funny, I will repeat lies and rumors and they are lies and rumors because you say so and your proof is that things have never been proven etc. And yet, you repeat lies and rumors about Bush, none of which have been proven.
This is that double standard we talk about. If Bush got a hummer in the Oval Office you guys would be calling for his head but you ignored the last one. Clinton said that Hussein had WMD and lobbed missiles in there and went to war in Bosnia without UN approval, you ignore. Bush goes after WMD and he lied (same thing Clinton said and Clinton signed EO calling for regime change) and he goes to Iraq without UN approval and you all cry.
Clinton dodged the draft and you ignore, was an unpopular war and he was a smart guy, too smart to be an idiot soldier. Bush joins the service and people make claims he was AWOL (never proven, or as you call it lies/rumor) and he is castigated. When Clinton did not go it was OK, you understood and military service was not necessary. With Bush you all said he was AWOL and could not serve because he screwed up his military obligation.
Bush had the DUI and there was word of past drug use. Left went nuts and said he was a druggie and a boozer and unfit to serve. Kennedy gets drunk and kills a woman and he is held up in honor, Clinton says he smoked dope but did not inhale and people believe him and say it did not matter anyway, what’s a little drug use back in the 60s?
Double standard. You laugh and my inferior intellect but you did the same thing.
BTW, there are no aspects of Socialism that work. You cannot redistribute wealth and it will not work. Socialized medicine is a violation of the Constitution and it will bankrupt the country. The government has never run any program efficiently or effectively. I know more about health care than damn near anyone of them and I know it will not work.
If they want to get it right they should remove government from the equation and ensure there are no mandates on what can be offered (except emergency, regular visits and surgery) all others are options. Leave it to the states where it belongs. Socialism does not work, even if your God Michael Moore said so, he is wrong (and he owns Halliburton stock).
So by your argument then Bush is as guilty as Clinton is, since there’s about as much evidence on each side to prove whatever it is liberals and conservatives feel like saying about either person on any given day, so why do you defend Bush but not defend Clinton, or the other way around? That’s the tricky part of this double standard, and one of the reasons I grew out of repeating crap like that about Bush.
At the end of the day I like the Clinton’s because
all of the things you accuse them of really don’t matter to me as much as they matter to you. For all his personal faults, Clinton lead this nation well and administered over a period of wealth, prosperity, and job growth. Bush, in all his moral character, has done none of that.
Clinton will always be viewed as a better president than Bush, and that drives you crazy…
And that is where you are wrong. I don’t care how history views any president. What matters to me is how I view them. Your statement is misleading anyway. The question is, by whom? Idiots who salivate in his presence? It will depend upon who you ask. As for me, I don’t care what others think about it or what history will say. I only care about my opinion.
You also assume that I defend Bush all the time when the fact is I have taken him to task on many things. I also know that there is a hell of a lot of evidence around about the misdeeds of the Clintons that gets hidden by the media. Take the stolen documents, Clinton had his hands in that but now his wife has the guy advising her.
Clinton led this country through the wealth, prosperity and growth that a Republican led Congress enacted. They forced him to do a lot.
He also sold our secrets and his weakness on terror gave us 9/11. One thing Bush is that Clinton never was or could be and that is a strong defender of our country. If Bush had been president during Clinton’s time there would not have been as many attacks on us because he would have retaliated and it would have stopped.
Think Libya and Reagan bombing them, not another word spoken.
“I only care about my opinion.”
Clearly. If you like the hypothetical, maybe if Hillary would have been president on 9/11 we would have caught bin Laden by now…
Hillary was copresident during all the other attacks.
I doubt she would have chased after him. She might catch him if she used the same tactics her husband used to bring criminals home; give them a pardon for a huge sum of money. I know, another rumor/lie that has those inconvenient little things called facts in them.
We can look it up.
Hillary will be a disaster to the military. I am willing to bet that she will have to institute a draft because so many will get out if she is elected.
I see all these comments about BD spreading lies and rumors yet no evidence that his information is indeed incorrect or mere speculation. Have anything to add except personal attacks on BD and Bush like some proof of his misinformation?
I find it interesting that instead of proving the information to be inaccurate, one would rather just claim it to be incorrect because the author “hates” the subject. Sad, very sad.