Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: February 5, 2025, 3:00 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overthrowing oppressive regimes by military force
#76
RE: Overthrowing oppressive regimes by military force
(March 9, 2016 at 7:18 am)Aractus Wrote:
(March 9, 2016 at 4:47 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: lol, my evidence is history.  He was banned from politics at all in 1925 as a result of the Beer Hall Putsch until 1927.

At this point you really need to quote and link reputable sources.

And I'm saying that Hitler never, I repeat never, sat in the Reichstag. "As far as I know" -- you clearly don't know shit from shinola on this topic.

Your same Wikipedia link CLEARLY says "Leader of the Nazi Party: In office 29 June 1921 – 30 April 1945". You've brought me no evidence that he didn't have a seat in parliament until 1933. You've shown me NO information that says that Hitler didn't hold a parliamentary seat. You fucking moron.

But that's besides the point anyway. You seem to forget that your little claim that he was not elected. No one gets elected into the position of Chancellor so that point is moot, and only parliamentarians can be appointed Chancellor, obviously, unless you have evidence otherwise?


(March 9, 2016 at 4:47 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, you do realize we're not talking about Australia, right, Bumpkin?  We're talking about ... wait for it ... an entirely different country.  Wait, you mean other countries don't do things like Australians?  Are you kidding me?!  What a fucking idiot.  Let me repeat that: what a fucking idiot.

I'll wait for you to actually research the topic, learn a little about it, and link to your sources for the incorrect claims. He was not elected to any office, he held no seat in the Reichstag, and his accession to the Chancellorship was not a result of any parliamentary action but as a result of a Presidential appointment. Indeed, Article 53 of the Weimar Constitution stipulates that the Chancellorship, which was Hitler's title from Jan 33 to Aug 34, must be appointed by the President -- i.e., Hindenburg.

Forgive my laughter as I hand you a shovel, but really, the hole you're digging is comical.  You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Go fetch your citations, now. I'll wait for your acknowledgement of error.

You do realise that the President (Hindenburg) was directly elected into office by the people, right (in fact he was also re-elected in 1932 TWICE!)? And as you said it was his responsibility to appoint the Chancellor. Hitler won three straight elections - that is to say that the NAZI party held the largest number of seats.

Before Hitler the other Chancellors had also routinely issued rule by decree, so that wasn't anything new either. And they had also been granted emergency powers, so even that wasn't new. Abaris claimed that "virtually every other party was opposed to him" - that's just not true. Firstly, the NAZI's formed a coalition with the German National People's Party, and that did give them an outright majority of 52% in the parliament. Then they went about freeing themselves from negotiations with their coalition partner by passing the Enabling Act 1933 which allowed the NAZI's to bypass parliament entirely. And that was passed into law by a parliamentary vote. Yes the President bent the rules to allow an easier passing, but it didn't matter anyway since it passed easily with 444 votes in favour and 94 against - which was more than the 2/3rd majority required (before any rule bending). It passed with an 83% vote and only needed 67% (2/3rds). If the SPD parliamentarians had been allowed to vote then the result would have been 79% in favour - which is still way more than the votes required (see Wikipedia). I am aware that some people have pointed out the law was unconstitutional, but that's largely irrelevant also since the constitution could have been amended with the same requirement for quorum (67%), therefore had they taken the time to make a constitutional amendment at the same time that made this law legally sound it also would have passed, easily.

What this world really needs to save it from world domination is another Hitler, and its name is Aractus Erectus. Good luck with that, you violent fucktard! Australia really should do something about its new asshole, but then I wouldn't have your free speech censored, because this guarantees that those who would put you back where you belong will be heard. What a serious dumbfuck!
Mr. Hanky loves you!
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Overthrowing oppressive regimes by military force - by God of Mr. Hanky - March 9, 2016 at 8:20 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Need for Scapegoats in All Forms of Oppressive Regimes Leonardo17 4 866 May 5, 2023 at 7:13 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Why do we hate the American military institution? WinterHold 16 1388 November 23, 2021 at 1:40 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Ike Warns of unchecked military industry. Brian37 25 3745 May 26, 2020 at 8:20 am
Last Post: Peebothuhlu
  Why don't the dictator regimes be punished by the west? WinterHold 14 1592 March 8, 2019 at 7:05 pm
Last Post: fredd bear
  NDT on Trump's "Space Force" EgoDeath 50 7039 February 26, 2019 at 9:27 pm
Last Post: EgoDeath
  transgender military ban to go into effect Fake Messiah 20 3393 January 25, 2019 at 12:28 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Trump names Falwell Jr. to Higher Education Task Force Cecelia 8 1846 February 1, 2017 at 6:59 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  American military in afghanistan tor 73 12449 April 14, 2014 at 9:19 pm
Last Post: Senshi
  America and military criticism BrokenQuill92 8 2484 January 17, 2014 at 9:45 am
Last Post: EgoRaptor
  The 14 defining characteristics of fascist regimes Doubting Thomas 3 1162 July 19, 2013 at 9:32 am
Last Post: kılıç_mehmet



Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)