Hitler, even minus the world domination, hatred of Jews, and gays, also did many other sh-tty things within Germany to make it “great again”:

1) he upended the democratic system of government to suit his own purposes
2) he was corrupt to the core, imprisoning his political enemies
3) he used dubious means to “right” Germany’s failed economic system
4) he was a sexist pig, and implemented policies to get women to produce more Germans
5) he embraced research that destroyed people
6) he got religious leaders to spout his crap to their followers

Shall I go on?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It's pretty clear Lieu cherry picked Ms Owens words. Ms. Owens response to Nadler/Lieu was robust and welcomed.

"Cherry picked"

Find me any instance in which saying "Hitler would have been fine" without adding the words "Had he not been a racist anti-Semite bent on annilhilating Jews, whether in Germany or the rest of the world" is ever a good idea. Go ahead, I dare you.

Actually, her remarks on Hitler were much stronger than those. You must have hearing problems.

Here's her remarks:

"You know, he was a National Socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, okay fine," she said. "The problem is he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalize. He wanted everybody to be German."

So it takes a special kind of ignorance to say that "Hitler wanted everybody to be German." Uh, no. He specifically wanted only Aryans to be German. He stripped citizenship from Jewish Germans because they were not, in his mind, German.

She also said this: “[Hitler] was a homicidal psychopathic maniac that killed his own people,” she said. “A nationalist would not kill their own people.”

Well when you are ignorant of German history you can make stupid statements like that. Hitler did not consider Jewish Germans to be his own people. He considered them foreigners. He considered them less than human, animals, cockroaches, rapists and murderers and criminals. That does not make him "not a nationalist." It makes him an anti-Semitic nationalist.

What the hell do you think "Deutschland Deutschland uber alles" means? It's a nationalist sentiment. The Nazis were proud nationalists and it's chilling to hear someone in this day and age so completely try to spin that fact any other way. Disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It's pretty clear Lieu cherry picked Ms Owens words. Ms. Owens response to Nadler/Lieu was robust and welcomed.

"Cherry picked"

Find me any instance in which saying "Hitler would have been fine" without adding the words "Had he not been a racist anti-Semite bent on annilhilating Jews, whether in Germany or the rest of the world" is ever a good idea. Go ahead, I dare you.

Actually, her remarks on Hitler were much stronger than those. You must have hearing problems.

The only negative thing she said about Hitler was that he tried to invade other countries. But exterminating Jews within Germany's borders? Apparently, that's fine with her!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It's pretty clear Lieu cherry picked Ms Owens words. Ms. Owens response to Nadler/Lieu was robust and welcomed.

"Cherry picked"

Find me any instance in which saying "Hitler would have been fine" without adding the words "Had he not been a racist anti-Semite bent on annilhilating Jews, whether in Germany or the rest of the world" is ever a good idea. Go ahead, I dare you.

Actually, her remarks on Hitler were much stronger than those. You must have hearing problems.

Uh oh and we know what Nazis like to do to the less-than-perfectly abled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It's pretty clear Lieu cherry picked Ms Owens words. Ms. Owens response to Nadler/Lieu was robust and welcomed.

It was clear that Lieu and Nadler thought they could bully her. They did, but she pushed back. They did not expect that.

The way Nadler just shrugged his shoulders when she corrected him was gross.

What's gross is someone completely mischaracterizing the absolute horror of who Hitler was.

Here's a hint: even before he started looking outside the boundaries of Germany (i.e. his "globalist" viewpoint) he was rotten to the core. Even without his drive for German Lebensraum, his entire project of "Making Germany Great Again" was all about getting rid people in Germany he deemed inferior - Jews, Roma, the disabled, anyone who wasn't an able-bodied Aryan. There's no whitewashing that. She could have said "Hitler would have been fine if he had not been Hitler" because that's the only way Hitler would ever have been fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It's pretty clear Lieu cherry picked Ms Owens words. Ms. Owens response to Nadler/Lieu was robust and welcomed.

"Cherry picked"

Find me any instance in which saying "Hitler would have been fine" without adding the words "Had he not been a racist anti-Semite bent on annilhilating Jews, whether in Germany or the rest of the world" is ever a good idea. Go ahead, I dare you.

Actually, her remarks on Hitler were much stronger than those. You must have hearing problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It's pretty clear Lieu cherry picked Ms Owens words. Ms. Owens response to Nadler/Lieu was robust and welcomed.

It was clear that Lieu and Nadler thought they could bully her. They did, but she pushed back. They did not expect that.

The way Nadler just shrugged his shoulders when she corrected him was gross.

+1.

Hurrah for a strong woman like Candace

Anonymous wrote: It's pretty clear Lieu cherry picked Ms Owens words. Ms. Owens response to Nadler/Lieu was robust and welcomed.

"Cherry picked"

Find me any instance in which saying "Hitler would have been fine" without adding the words "Had he not been a racist anti-Semite bent on annilhilating Jews, whether in Germany or the rest of the world" is ever a good idea. Go ahead, I dare you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: It's pretty clear Lieu cherry picked Ms Owens words. Ms. Owens response to Nadler/Lieu was robust and welcomed.

It was clear that Lieu and Nadler thought they could bully her. They did, but she pushed back. They did not expect that.

The way Nadler just shrugged his shoulders when she corrected him was gross.

Anonymous wrote: It's pretty clear Lieu cherry picked Ms Owens words. Ms. Owens response to Nadler/Lieu was robust and welcomed.

It was clear that Lieu and Nadler thought they could bully her. They did, but she pushed back. They did not expect that.

Anonymous wrote: It's pretty clear Lieu cherry picked Ms Owens words. Ms. Owens response to Nadler/Lieu was robust and welcomed.

No, lies are never welcomed.

It's pretty clear Lieu cherry picked Ms Owens words. Ms. Owens response to Nadler/Lieu was robust and welcomed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious why you couldn't call them stupid? Is the government really attempting to tell her what she can and can't say? I see no attempt to incite violence. Do these Democrats understand the Constitution?

What? The Republicans brought her as their witness to talk about the problem of white nationalism. It was then pointed out that she recently gave an answer to a question basically saying if Hitler had just stuck to Germany, all would have been well. I've seen the whole clip, with the question - that's what it is.

I think the GOP look like fools for bringing someone who got their start at freaking Infowars to a Congressional hearing. That's the best you've got?

She can say whatever she likes within the bounds of the Constitution and the accepted judicial interpretation of the First Amendment. No one is saying otherwise, but it's not some trick or crime to play your own words back to you.

It amazes me that people buy this fake outrage grft.

It shows that LIeu did NOT listen to the whole clip--and would not give her a chance to respond. He presented it as if it were in totality--when it was not. To not give her a chance to respond was disgusting. Kind of like what the media did to the Covington kid. Same thing.

It is a shame.

I've heard the whole clip. It does not exonerate her.

DP: you are crazy. Her remarks were a perfectly valid answer to the question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious why you couldn't call them stupid? Is the government really attempting to tell her what she can and can't say? I see no attempt to incite violence. Do these Democrats understand the Constitution?

What? The Republicans brought her as their witness to talk about the problem of white nationalism. It was then pointed out that she recently gave an answer to a question basically saying if Hitler had just stuck to Germany, all would have been well. I've seen the whole clip, with the question - that's what it is.

I think the GOP look like fools for bringing someone who got their start at freaking Infowars to a Congressional hearing. That's the best you've got?

She can say whatever she likes within the bounds of the Constitution and the accepted judicial interpretation of the First Amendment. No one is saying otherwise, but it's not some trick or crime to play your own words back to you.

It amazes me that people buy this fake outrage grft.

It shows that LIeu did NOT listen to the whole clip--and would not give her a chance to respond. He presented it as if it were in totality--when it was not. To not give her a chance to respond was disgusting. Kind of like what the media did to the Covington kid. Same thing.

It is a shame.

I've heard the whole clip. It does not exonerate her.