Politicians have so much crap to spew everywhere, you literally don’t know when any of them are telling the truth, all they want is a pay raise to pad their pockets.

Cause they are backed up against a wall and decided to use the same augmentative method they used when they were little children in school. Name calling is so strategic. They must be so proud.

Mudslinging is more popular now than I’ve ever heard of it being before, and the one that can make the most of the public hate the other more seems to win. People associate “Nazi” to terrible events and a generally horrific person, and therefore it’s the best word to use: you can probably agree that most people know what I Nazi is and what they did, and if more people start associating their opposer with that word, more people won’t be able to help being predisposed to disliking them. As for the shooting, I can’t say that rhetoric had too much to do with it. The boy already had shown signs of being mental unstable, and I believe that’s what their claiming now to keep him out of prison; maybe it was the bad word choices politicians have, maybe it was just his own decision. What I can tell you is that our generations have become completely desensitized to certain words and phrases that would have appalled people just a few decades ago, and certain words connote different things than they mean. Even the word “literally” doesn’t mean literally anymore, it’s practically just used for emphasis. But not everyone perceives anything the same way as everyone else, and you never know who might take something as harmlessly meant as, “Let’s smash the opposition into the ground,” literally.

Oh dear lord: “mentally unstable” and “they’re” *

One should consider whether they might be correct from their own perspective.
The question is: what does the word “Nazi” ACTUALLY mean ? ….. . (as opposed to what one may assume an opponent to mean by it, when one believes one KNOWS what they mean by it, but when they may ACTUALLY mean something else ) . ….. My American derived English Dictionary defines Nazi in the following considerably different ways: .

1. follower of Hitler: a member of the German National Socialist Party that came to power under the leadership of Adolf Hitler in 1933 (often used before a noun)
2. racist: somebody regarded as having right-wing political views, especially on race and immigration (insult)
3. Nazi nazi (plural nazis) bossy person: somebody who is regarded as behaving in an authoritarian or dictatorial manner (insult) (offensive in some contexts)

[Mid-20th century. From German , a shortening of Nationalsozialist ‘national socialist’ or Nationalsozialismus ‘national socialism’.]

[ quoted from Microsoft Encarta ]

. Let me first of all suggest that they DO NOT really mean the first definition, but fully expect their own opponents ( to whom they are referring ) to be be offended by their MISTAKEN assumption that they do mean the first definition. . They may in fact mean definition number 2, ….. ….. there are indeed many American racists who have right-wing political views particularly on such things as immigration. It is very easy to take different views on whether someone of a different race to oneself is:(a) an illegal immigrant; (b) a desperate morally justified refugee; or (c) an unwanted descendant of a non-indigenous population ….. (e.g. English, Spanish, Italian or German) who may actually be a legitimate citizen. . Or perhaps they mean definition number 3, ….. …. there are indeed many Americans who are bossy, authoritarian and dictatorial - and that is true of all political persuasions. . At the end of the day, even if it was the first definition that was meant, it does not actually mean a killer of oppressed minorities, it is a contraction of “National Socialist” and in principle there is no reason why that description could not apply to a morally upright patriotic person with views midway between extreme Capitalism and extreme Communism. . For the record, I personally would not call someone a Nazi - because i do not like the broad ranging offensive context in which the term may be taken. I believe one should be very economical and careful with any attempt to give offense by the deliberate use of ambiguous terminology. .

– Best wishes - Majikthise. .

To slur someone by calling them a NAZI is another way of calling them fascist… only with the added insult of suggesting that they may also be sociopaths. In my opinion… once someone resorts to making ad hominem attacks they are essentially conceding the debate… especially if the ad hominem has no other context to support it.

I have made comparisons to certain segments in any population who play the role of the brown shirt or useful idiot who is working against his own best interest. I have also made comparisons to others who would have been perfectly at home with the STASI. When I make the comparison it is with the intention to conjure up the image of a particular behavior or to articulate an action as briefly and succinctly as possible.

Some people…. like TN Rep Steve Cohen who called those opposed to Obamacare, “NAZIs”… did so only to marginalize those whom he disagreed with. Fascism is an authoritarian style government predicated upon corporatism. Most people who oppose Obamacare do so because of the authoritarian and corporatist qualities inherent in the bill. Mr. Cohen only hurts his own image… and possibly that of the voters of Memphis… when he uses this kind of rhetoric.

I’m fine with people saying whatever they will. The words they choose may be greater than the sum of their message concerning the image they portray to the public.

Jared Loughner was a very troubled man. We don’t know the entire circumstances of the event yet… but monsters are not born… and they don’t transform overnight. Mr. Loughner snapped due to pressures that must have been building up inside for quite a while. I don’t give much credence to the pundits who have placed a blame on the political climate. The worst possible response is to further repress the few release valves people have when a political climate is as heated as it is today.

I agree to a certain extent. I am certainly not advocating government censorship, but I see no problem with people voicing their opinions about the toxic rhetoric that is so common place today. While Cohen’s rhetoric is unnecessary, it paels in comparison to some the things be said out there.

When Americans need a quick example of how government can become evil, they use the Germans (or specifically, the Nazis). When Germans need a quick example of how corporations can become evil, they use America. In both cases, using such examples can quickly portray one’s political opponents as not only having unfavorable ideas, but actually being worthy of contempt, and can resonate powerfully with voting populations. It’s a despicable tactic that is unfortunately a reality of modern political discourse.

Drat, alread liked three answers. I hadn’t realized Germans use American corporations as examples in similar context…food for thought.

Liked it in your honor. And also mine, I suppose.