Southern Discomfort

**tomcat** · 13-04-2017, 11:05 AM

...morons on parade! We don't already have a thread on ignorant Confederates, do we?:

A Southern lawmaker called Lincoln a ‘tyrant’ and compared him to Hitler
By Peter Holley April 12 at 8:13 PM

Abraham Lincoln’s name is frequently invoked as one the greatest — if not the greatest — leaders ever produced on American soil.

Adolf Hitler’s name is frequently invoked as one of the worst — if not the worst — human beings ever produced on Planet Earth, a man worthy of enough scorn that his name is a colloquial benchmark for what constitutes evil (i.e., “That guy sucks, but he’s no Adolf Hitler”).

Aside from being born in the same century, these two men would seem to have very little in common, unless you’re asking North Carolina lawmaker Larry Pittman.

The Republican General Assembly member from Cabarrus County this week called the 16th president “the same sort (of) tyrant” as Adolf Hitler,” according to the Charlotte Observer.

Pittman made the comparison on Facebook while responding to a commenter who was critical of legislation the lawmaker has introduced that seeks to bring an end to same-sex marriage in North Carolina, the Observer reported.

Pittman’s bill maintains that the “U.S. Supreme Court overstepped with its 2015 ruling that effectively voided an amendment to North Carolina’s constitution forbidding same-sex marriage,” according to the Associated Press.

Pittman appeared to be arguing that the definition of marriage should be left to the states, the Observer reported, when he wrote that North Carolina should ignore same-sex marriage “in spite of the opinion of a federal court.”

“And if Hitler had won, should the world just get over it?” he added. “Lincoln was the same sort if (sic) tyrant, and personally responsible for the deaths of over 800,000 Americans in a war that was unnecessary and unconstitutional.”

North Carolina state Rep. Larry G. Pittman. (North Carolina General Assembly)
Pittman did not respond to requests for comment from The Post.

Now, as you may suspect, Pittman is not alone in his assessment of Lincoln in the Deep South, where the Civil War is often called the “War of Northern Aggression.”

And while his Lincoln/Hitler comparison may sound absurd, the argument that Pittman is trying to make is based on the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution and that all remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

It was the Southern states’ attempt to secede, based on the 10th Amendment argument — and Lincoln’s actions to prevent that — that resulted in the Civil War.

And the 10th Amendment argument has been used repeatedly against federal legislation and court actions, such as school desegregation and the Civil Rights Act. (Other amendments and clauses in the Constitution have been used as the basis of arguments made in support of federal laws and regulations, defeating those challenges based on the 10th Amendment.)...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.038bd0a6dedd

**Maanaam** · 13-04-2017, 11:31 AM

And here was me thinking it's a thread on haemorrhoids.

**Norton** · 13-04-2017, 11:54 AM

Or Janis Joplin with a killer hangover.

**Topper** · 13-04-2017, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by tomcat

Now, as you may suspect, Pittman is not alone in his assessment of Lincoln in the Deep South, where the Civil War is often called the “War of Northern Aggression.”

No its not....it's called the Civil War, speaking as one who grew up in the south.....

**Slick** · 13-04-2017, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by CSFFan

Originally Posted by tomcat

Now, as you may suspect, Pittman is not alone in his assessment of Lincoln in the Deep South, where the Civil War is often called the “War of Northern Aggression.”

No its not....it's called the Civil War, speaking as one who grew up in the south.....

Same here.

Civil War.

**Cold Pizza** · 13-04-2017, 12:46 PM

It's so stupid when people, politicians, and protests compare any person they don't like with Nazis and/or Hitler.

I think the last 4 Presidents have been compared to Hitler.

Shallow, and stupid.

**VocalNeal** · 13-04-2017, 01:03 PM

Hitler the worst? What about Pol Pot?

**Digby Fantona** · 13-04-2017, 01:14 PM

Shicklgruber.

**Looper** · 13-04-2017, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

It's so stupid when people, politicians, and protests compare any person they don't like with Nazis and/or Hitler.

Sorry, can't red you CP but totally agree.

These hysterical comparisons that are often made with history's most notorious genocidal maniac are insult and injury to the memories of the victims of the holocaust.

**nidhogg** · 13-04-2017, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

Hitler the worst? What about Pol Pot?

Hitler actually checks in at about number three both Mao and Stalin have higher body counts. Pol Pot ranks pretty high on percentage of a population though.

**Maanaam** · 13-04-2017, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Looper

These hysterical comparisons that are often made with history's most notorious genocidal maniac are insult and injury to the memories of the victims of the holocaus

Yeah but...

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Hitler actually checks in at about number three both Mao and Stalin have higher body counts. Pol Pot ranks pretty high on percentage of a population though.

Yeah but, the Jewish chip-on-the-shoulder ensures it's only the holocaust that is sacrosanct and any great grandchildren still have a right to feel they are victims and thus the world owes them.

**Looper** · 13-04-2017, 06:30 PM

^I know what you mean about the jewish chip on the shoulder and they can be a bit of a pain in that respect, but I think Hitler still takes the genocidal maniac biscuit in terms of sheer horror, cold-blooded strategy and international spectacle.

**Norton** · 13-04-2017, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

It's so stupid when people, politicians, and protests compare any person they don't like with Nazis and/or Hitler.

A lesson Sean Spicer recently learned.

**Digby Fantona** · 13-04-2017, 07:54 PM

Little Baby Schicklgruber.

**Maanaam** · 14-04-2017, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by Looper

^I know what you mean about the jewish chip on the shoulder and they can be a bit of a pain in that respect, but I think Hitler still takes the genocidal maniac biscuit in terms of sheer horror, cold-blooded strategy and international spectacle.

Agree. I don't trivialise the holocaust at all when I point out that the grandchildren and great grandchildren of the victims, and even Jews that didn't have an ancestor taken by the holocaust act as if they are the eternal victims and everyone owes them pity at the very least, and hopefully support for taking over Palestine.

**nidhogg** · 14-04-2017, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Looper

^I know what you mean about the jewish chip on the shoulder and they can be a bit of a pain in that respect, but I think Hitler still takes the genocidal maniac biscuit in terms of sheer horror, cold-blooded strategy and international spectacle.

The main difference I think was that Mao and Stalin happily slaughtered their own people. Hitler exported his slaughter.

**Neo** · 14-04-2017, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

Hitler the worst? What about Pol Pot?

Hitler had a better PR team.

**Looper** · 14-04-2017, 03:21 PM

^^Yes, Mao's body count could be higher. He had a very large tame population at his disposal to abuse and mistreat and there was also a huge unintentional bodycount from silly policy decisions that led to mass starvation. The 'total suffering caused' title would go to Mao.

**Cold Pizza** · 14-04-2017, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by CSFFan

No its not....it's called the Civil War, speaking as one who grew up in the south.....

What state?

If you don't mind me asking, CSFFan.

**DrB0b** · 14-04-2017, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by Looper

^I know what you mean about the jewish chip on the shoulder and they can be a bit of a pain in that respect, but I think Hitler still takes the genocidal maniac biscuit in terms of sheer horror, cold-blooded strategy and international spectacle.

The main difference I think was that Mao and Stalin happily slaughtered their own people. Hitler exported his slaughter.

The difference is not in the numbers, it's in the politics, aggression, and ideology. Anybody who doesn't understand the difference between Hitler and the others needs a quick course in just what NAZI Germany actually stood for.

**tomcat** · 14-04-2017, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

The difference is not in the numbers

...it is if you're one of the numbers...

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Anybody who doesn't understand the difference between Hitler and the others needs a quick course in just what NAZI Germany actually stood for

...let me guess: you're available...

**Cold Pizza** · 14-04-2017, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by Looper

^I know what you mean about the jewish chip on the shoulder and they can be a bit of a pain in that respect, but I think Hitler still takes the genocidal maniac biscuit in terms of sheer horror, cold-blooded strategy and international spectacle.

The main difference I think was that Mao and Stalin happily slaughtered their own people. Hitler exported his slaughter.

The difference is not in the numbers, it's in the politics, aggression, and ideology. Anybody who doesn't understand the difference between Hitler and the others needs a quick course in just what NAZI Germany actually stood for.

You have a Ph.D in Nazism,

Seriously,

I want to learn more. Do tell.

I've read a couple books here and there, but my knowledge is shallow like 99% of people.

**DrB0b** · 15-04-2017, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Originally Posted by Looper

^I know what you mean about the jewish chip on the shoulder and they can be a bit of a pain in that respect, but I think Hitler still takes the genocidal maniac biscuit in terms of sheer horror, cold-blooded strategy and international spectacle.

The main difference I think was that Mao and Stalin happily slaughtered their own people. Hitler exported his slaughter.

The difference is not in the numbers, it's in the politics, aggression, and ideology. Anybody who doesn't understand the difference between Hitler and the others needs a quick course in just what NAZI Germany actually stood for.

You have a Ph.D in Nazism,

Seriously,

I want to learn more. Do tell.

I've read a couple books here and there, but my knowledge is shallow like 99% of people.

Hannah Arendt, 'The Origins of Totalitarianism'. Read it.

**UrbanMan** · 15-04-2017, 03:08 AM

Good stuff.

**Humbert** · 15-04-2017, 09:19 AM

And then there's Chick-fil-A.

Thread: Southern Discomfort

Thread Tools

Display

Southern Discomfort

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions