I'm pretty sure Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is Chinesse. The style is Kung Fu, which is Chineese.
Printable View
I'm pretty sure Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is Chinesse. The style is Kung Fu, which is Chineese.
No idea where the movie was made, just know it was based in China. Compared to some past presidents...ie Clinton and Nixon...he looks pretty decent to me. Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention. *just a joke* I am not real sure killing Saddam is a good idea...I mean, we all know what would happen if he went to Hell...
http://ensim.spepisodes.com/~spepiso...es/sp4/411.gif
Jackle
Yes, it would be a horribly happy day if Saddam went to hell.. and by happy, I mean gay. :tongue: Then of course, we always have Cartman to save the world. ;)
No, it's not chinese, trust me. One of my former aides at school worked with the director of the film. The film was based in China, maybe, but wasn't actually filmes there. Forget where. Taiwan or Thailand.
No, it's not chinese, trust me. One of my former aides at school worked with the director of the film. The film was based in China, maybe, but wasn't actually filmes there. Forget where. Taiwan or Thailand.
Wow, what a thread! And all in two days!
Violence doesn't breed violence. Pacifism breeds violence.
1. A certain percentage of people are inherently inclined to violence, and they always will be. You can deliver all the pacifistic sermons you want to these Violent Few, and they will still want to kill each other.
2. The only way to stop the Violent Few is to threaten them with greater violence. It's the only thing they understand. For them, pacifism is simply weakness.
3. Peace, freedom and prosperity are only achieved when the Violent Few are held at bay, which only happens when they believe that they will achieve nothing through their violence but their own deaths.
4. When we respond to violence with flowery words and noble sentiments - but no action - we introduce doubt into their fear of retribution. We encourage them to hope that they can achieve their goals through violence. Therefore they become more violent. If we give concessions, then we reward their violence and purchase more of it.
These are simply facts of human nature. They apply to the schoolyard bully just as they do to Saddam Hussein.
This is all cyclical. After the carnage of WWI, there was a massive worldwide peace movement. Many people believed that if we didn't think about war, then it would just go away. Defense budgets plummeted. Elite society believed that talk of war was only for slavering lunatics. Educated people believed that war had been abolished, and the new League of Nations would ensure peace forever.
Those starry-eyed pacifists weren't just blind about the coming war. They created it. Each word of their pacifist talk told Hitler and Tojo that violence could succeed for him, because no one was maintaining the force or will for retribution.
Now the world is shrinking rapidly, and an arab dictator will soon have the capability to vaporize any major US city. And the response of half the country is . . . to dawdle? To think about it some more? To complain about the cost? To whine that the future isn't certain?
Pacifism is not a noble cause. It is an ugly bloody religion that requires us to sacrifice thousands and thousands of young men every few generations. Its past is well-documented. But then, Americans don't read history any more, which is why they're doomed to repeat it. If losing two buildings and 3,000 people is enough to teach us the lesson, then we've gotten off pretty cheaply this time around.
That may well have been the most intelligent post in this entire thread. Thanks for restoring some of my faith in lawyers, Leo. Apparently, not ALL law practicioners are red diaper doper babies, after all.
I know you don't practice criminal law, but I'd still love to hear your opinion in regard to the behavior of defense attorneys Steven Feldman and Robert Boyce in the Danielle Van Dam murder trial. As far as I'm concerned, they should be disbarred for what they did. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, watch the O'Reilly Factor segment in which this topic was debated. Man, that Nimmo idiot is lucky he wasn't in the studio with Bill, who resembled this guy: :mad:. He likely would have suffered severe bodily harm.
Oh, and welcome back, Leo. :)
Great post Leo.
Very well spoken post Leo.. as Pal said, its probably the most intelligent post in this thread. ;)
I listened to O'Reilly rant and rave about that on the Radio Factor the other day, and I think I disagree. Isn't a defense attorney bound by the Constitution to ensure that their clients receive a fair and impartial trial by peers, legal representation, and equal protection under the law? I'm sure there's a few other clauses that could be thrown in as well, but REALLY, do we want every lawyer that thinks his client might be guilty to recuse himself? How many people would be able to represent 90% of indicted individuals if that were the case? I'm sorry, but if the lawyers HAD done something to make their client look guilty to a jury, they probably would have been disbarred and sued for malpractice...
I stay as far from criminal law as possible. In fact, I try to stay out of courtrooms altogether.
There's a constant tension in law practice. The lawyer is an advocate in an adversarial system, which means that he's supposed to push single-mindedly for his client's side. On the other hand, the lawyer is also an officer of the court, which means that he must never lie to the court. Those two are always in tension.
The only way out in criminal defense is to remember that lying isn't simply saying something false. Lying is saying something that you know to be false. Knowledge makes all the difference.
So the first step that a good criminal defense lawyer takes is to tell his client: "Don't tell me if you did it." As long as the client doesn't tell you that he did it, then you can maintain a doubt in your mind about it, which means that you aren't lying if you try to convince the court that he didn't do it.
None of this is in the Constitution. But it is probably part of Constitutional Law, which has nearly nothing to do with the actual Constitution.
Very well thought out post. I disagree, but well thought out. The last part was completely wrong, though. "and an arab dictator will soon have the capability to vaporize any major US city". Totally untrue. Just cause someone has nukes, doesn't mean they have missles to launch those nukes. Sure, Saddam can hit Isreal or somebody, but to hit us he'd need ICBMs or something like that, and hes a long way way from getting those. Besides, as someone said the other day "Bush went around and tried to get support from the countries of the world for this war against Iraq, and not a single country supported him. Can it really be that the entire world is wrong and a few people on Bush's cabinet are right?"
Suitcase nukes. Or hell, dirty bombs. Time to wake up.Quote:
Originally posted by Aerothorn
Very well thought out post. I disagree, but well thought out. The last part was completely wrong, though. "and an arab dictator will soon have the capability to vaporize any major US city". Totally untrue. Just cause someone has nukes, doesn't mean they have missles to launch those nukes.
That statement is incorrect, unless England is no longer considered a country.Quote:
Originally posted by Aerothorn
Besides, as someone said the other day "Bush went around and tried to get support from the countries of the world for this war against Iraq, and not a single country supported him. Can it really be that the entire world is wrong and a few people on Bush's cabinet are right?"
Good postings Leo.
Good points.
Squid has an especialy good point about England. If our country has to go to war, and I don't want war but when there is no better altertanive (to be honest I don't realy see a better alternative) I just hope it is done right. Being forced into an attack on Iraq is one thing but doing it against the wishes of the world comunity is not a good thing. We may end up with no alternative but I just hope our leaders can convince the world comunity of support.
I do not know how to get that support myself, I just hope somebody does. Bushes arguments do not entirely convince me yet. Iraqs ploys are obvious to me and I feel in that tough area of knowing Hussien is guilty (the videos of him paying the families of and praising the suicide bombers was particularly damning to me) but not having the actual concrete evidence yet. Attacking without that concrete evidence will work heavily against us if Hussien does not show off his insanity by using his big weapons. If he does he he sunk. And he knows it I am sure.
Its a tough call. One I am glad I don't have to make. I just hope things come out all right in the end. I may not like or trust Bush but I do not have any doubt that he is doing exactly what he believes is the right thing. I do not believe he would intentionaly do anything against the interests or safety of the nation and its people. I do trust that he will do exactly what he thinks is right and neccisary, and that my differ with my personal philosophies but he is still our president and as such I can trust that he will not act unless he believes there is a reason. I do, however, fear that he may be falling into the trap of "the ends justify the means" that does not hold very well with me, I just hope that fear does not become the reality.
I don't blame Bush for any of the coporate scandals or the economic situation, I do think he did get involved in some of it as is the nature of corporate greed (before he was president, and not to a great extent in comparison). I blame the corporate criminals that deliberately used the system against itself for their own personal gain at the expense of the people. I blame greed for our economic troubles, and greed is not always a bad thing it drives our way of life but everything needs limits.
And I don't realy hate lawyers or politicians.
But they do make for great joke fodder.
The point is missed here. Those two idiots lied and tried to manufacture false evidence and point the blame at anyone else. They broke the law and violated legal ethics. The defender's obligation is to work hard to defend his client to the best of his ability or cut the best deal he can for his client in light of overwhelming preponderance of evidence. They are not obligated to lie and break the law but both prosecutors and defenders commonly do this. Those two jerks attempted to make a mockery out of a already broken justice system but the jury saw through the smokescreen and did the right thing. Yes! There's hope! There's even hope for socialist California.Quote:
I listened to O'Reilly rant and rave about that on the Radio Factor the other day, and I think I disagree. Isn't a defense attorney bound by the Constitution to ensure that their clients receive a fair and impartial trial by peers, legal representation, and equal protection under the law? I'm sure there's a few other clauses that could be thrown in as well, but REALLY, do we want every lawyer that thinks his client might be guilty to recuse himself? How many people would be able to represent 90% of indicted individuals if that were the case? I'm sorry, but if the lawyers HAD done something to make their client look guilty to a jury, they probably would have been disbarred and sued for malpractice...
I would have thought that the OJ trial would have taught people how things really work in the justice system and that it's all about money, power, and who can lie the most and tell the biggest and most entertaining story. Facts and truth don't really count.
O'Reilly is dialed in and dead on in this situation. I salute him for standing up and saying the things that needed to be said.
Bah. Don't talk about O'Reily. The guy is a grade A-jerk. But he tried to be. What his job? While he would deny it, his job is to be an ENTERTAINER, like Rush Limbaugh, not an informer or anything. O'Reily just causes controversy for the sake of causing controversy, though I think he does sometimes believes what hes saying.
And Squid: When that statement was made, England had not yet pledged support, and even now England really only seems to be doing it to keep their good relationship with the US intact. As for suitcase bombs, ya, they have those, but ANYBODY could bring suitcase bombs. Libya could bring suitcase bombs. So why target Iraq? Why not Libya? Why don't we just declare war on the entire friggin middle east, just to be safe?
Unless you made your statement prior to 9/11... England has pledged support from day 1 and has always done the same with Iraq.
And Squidly didn't say ANY suitcase bomb... he said Nuclear or Dirty suitcase bomb and not just anybody can get those... they need access to plutonium or other radioactive materials. Iraq is known to be working on biological and nuclear weapons.. thats WHY.
More comments from Aerothorn that are too ridiculous to even acknowledge, but what the hell. O'Reilly is a NEWS ANALYST, not an entertainer. He hasn't gotten masters degrees in journalism and public policy (the latter from Harvard) and dedicate his life to reporting and analyzing the news only to be considered merely an entertainer. O'Reilly is one of the hardest working, most genuine and fair news guys in the business, and simply dismissing him as an entertainer because you disagree with his analysis is silly, and certainly not surprising from the likes of a 14 year-old commentator. We need more people like O'Reilly. He's not afraid to speak his mind and he's not intimidated by anyone. He gets more accomplished than most politicians; when he makes a stink about something, things get done because he has legions of viewers with the ability to write letters (a skill that CNN viewers lack, fortunately) and make phone calls. He's a mover and a shaker in the news business like no one before him.
O'Reilly for president!
http://www.foxnews.com/images/195/9_21_bio_oreilly.jpg
"In tonight's Talking Points segment, we'll discuss Aerothorn's recent remarks about me in the August Knights Forums. We requested to have Aerothorn come on the Factor and face the fire, but our calls were not returned. As always we'll let our audience be the judge. But first, it's time for 'The most Ridiculous Item of the Day', and that would be Aerothorn's previous post.
I'm Bill O'Reilly, goodnight."
I will talk about O'Reilly! He's a true American hero in my opinion. He has guts! He is a bulldog! When he get's something between his teeth, he runs with it and backs off to no one. Sure! The people that get their hides nailed to the wall won't like him but he is fair. He has respect for those of differing veiwpoints when they can intelligently explain their reasoning. Many won't or simply do not have the capacity to do so. This is why it's called the no spin zone. He has no tolerance for those that twist and turn, blow smoke and hide behind mirrors. Entertainer? Wow! He's far too serious to be an entertainer! He is highly intelligent and highly educated. He is lightyears ahead of his opposition! He always believes in what he is saying or he wouldn't say it.Quote:
Bah. Don't talk about O'Reily. The guy is a grade A-jerk. But he tried to be. What his job? While he would deny it, his job is to be an ENTERTAINER, like Rush Limbaugh, not an informer or anything. O'Reily just causes controversy for the sake of causing controversy, though I think he does sometimes believes what hes saying.
Limbaugh was part entertainer a number of years ago, but currently he is very serious and analytical. In some ways he is more analytical and savy to the political process than some of his competition.
There are others. Doctor Michael Savage is a savage! He is on fire most of time. He's a very emotional guy and is alarmed and extremely vocal at what is going on in our country. I love this guy! He is another true American hero. Michael Reagan is a common sense person. Rusty Humphreys has all the good qualities of the others and is just an outstanding, likeable, and caring individual. He is a great supporter of local community activities.
All these people are true American heros in my viewpoint. They are the clear voices in a sea of babble and ignorance. They proudly wave their tiny candles of light in the descending curtain of darkness. They are modern visionaries and see clearly where average people are blind and asleep.
I salute these guys and only wish I had half the guts they have.
Oh, I see, Palooka. Just cause I'm 14, automaticlly means my opinion can be dismissed, can it? Most of the people I know also think O'Reily is an entertainer. Political debates on forums are all in good fun- they never get anywhere and no one ever changes their mind, espescially with right wing conservatives- so people don't need to get huffy about it.
Opinions on political matters become relevant only when you turn 18. Rock the vote.
Not true. You can write letters to congressman. You can sign and start petitions. You can do stuff.
But that wasn't what I was talking about. Palooka dismissed my opinion simply because his disagreed with it, which is both immature and annoying.
How about everyone agrees to disagree? We all put our two cents in. Lets not turn this into a flame fest.
Why can't everybody be as open minded as Hale here?
Because as an adult we have the right to ignore and dismiss the kiddies!! :D
* In case you didn't realize, that was an attempt at humor.
See... This is why political debate can be bad. Like it or not, it all becomes a "Hardball" yelling match, no one actually listening to the other, everyone hollering out their talking points over top of everyone else. Honestly, I can't even bear to watch that silly show, and I certainly can't bear to see this kind of stuff on my online home... So, it seems the best recourse would be to call it even, retain whatever views we walked in with, and leave with our dignities in tact. Shall we?
One point that I can't let lie, however, is the dismissal of someone's opinions due simply to their age. Political awareness does not discriminate based on age, last I checked, so I would suggest that any participant in this kind of debate stay to the facts at hand and not highlight non-related and trivial facts as a diversion (should I insert, "that's a popular tactic, even Hitler used it," here?). It simply doesn't seem to jive with our open door policy, our claim that anyone can speak their mind here, and the other "Knightly" ideals that we stick to around here, ya know?
Well, now that I've opened up an entirely new can of worms with the Hilter thing ;) let's just all get along, be friends, agree to disagree, and carry on with our complete and total q0wnersh1p of the BF1942 "elite", shall we? :D
It is time to go to war baby!!!!! wahooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
It is time to take that Paper Pushing, No Nutts, Butt Plug Son-Of-Bitch out!!!! Blow him up.....
We should have finished the job over 11 years ago, but we didn't have a President with the testicles to do it!!!!!
We do now!!!!!
Bush forever!!!!!
He isn't the brightest guy, but he knows whats right and whats wrong, and it's time to fix it.........
It is time to go to war!!!!!! :mad:
The time for talk is over!!!!!
Have to listen to people talk about peace and love......
Let me tell all of you something, the only peace and love is found in those idiots out in Berkley who live in a freakin fantasy world.....
Oh please, lets be lovey dovey to Mr Terrorist and Mr. Sadam, he is really a nice guy......
What a bunch of pansies.....
You may return to your normal program......
It's kinda hard to tell whether you were being serious our not, but I have counseled with the voices in my head and the advise that I excuse myself from this discussion.
Well, shun me for stating what everyone else is thinking all you want. You may take the rantings of a 14 year-old seriously, but I tend not to. I will say, however, that Aerothorn does not betray his tender age as blatantly as most teeny-boppers; he's perhaps the sharpest 9th grader I've come across on the net. By the way, age discrimation in AK is nothing new. We have had and always will have a minimum age policy for membership, and our past experiences have set this in stone (with a couple noteable exceptions).
Oh, comparing me to Hitler is pretty lame, I might add. I'm not THAT conservative.
I had no idea of his age. But that is nothing new.
We all look the same on the message board.
Except Squidly. He's sexy in that little schoolgirl outfit.
In my opinion, having one of these rip-roaring debates every once in awhile is good. I don't know about the rest of you, but the forums have seemed pretty stale and boring for the last several months. Then, suddenly, we have an incredibly active thread like this, in which people are speaking their minds and getting fired up. I like it!
I don't think this debate has gone bad at all. Rather, it has, for the most part, remained surprisingly civil, even with everyone having such extremely dissimilar views.
If being young meant your opinion didn't matter, this thread would have never started. Slaughter was the one who started it and everyone responded.
Jackle
Yes I did, but I'm also 18.. which means I can vote.. ;) Its cool though, I'm glad this thread got so active.. I knew we needed something good to come along and keep this board jiving... ;)
Oh please! Give me a break! If people's friendship dissolves because they disagree, then there can only be one conclusion. They were never friends to start with. You can be friends and still yell and get angry with each other. That's the true test of friendship. Yeah! But just to be safe you should probably just play your little games and never get to know each other. Play safe! Don't offend anyone!Quote:
See... This is why political debate can be bad. Like it or not, it all becomes a "Hardball" yelling match, no one actually listening to the other, everyone hollering out their talking points over top of everyone else. Honestly, I can't even bear to watch that silly show, and I certainly can't bear to see this kind of stuff on my online home... So, it seems the best recourse would be to call it even, retain whatever views we walked in with, and leave with our dignities in tact. Shall we?
One point that I can't let lie, however, is the dismissal of someone's opinions due simply to their age. Political awareness does not discriminate based on age, last I checked, so I would suggest that any participant in this kind of debate stay to the facts at hand and not highlight non-related and trivial facts as a diversion (should I insert, "that's a popular tactic, even Hitler used it," here?). It simply doesn't seem to jive with our open door policy, our claim that anyone can speak their mind here, and the other "Knightly" ideals that we stick to around here, ya know?
Well, now that I've opened up an entirely new can of worms with the Hilter thing let's just all get along, be friends, agree to disagree, and carry on with our complete and total q0wnersh1p of the BF1942 "elite", shall we?
Are you mice or men, or are you a group of sob sisters sitting in a circle, holding hands, and softly humming the polically correct song? "We are family....", "You're a different color than me? I didn't notice that! Really!"....."We are family...., We are just alike, you and me"...."We are all the same....We all look alike....We all talk alike....We are family....". Don't you just love that song? It makes you just want to clap and shout doesn't it? It makes you want to hold hands and hug each other. See you just have to be all touchie feelie and reasonable and all the bad men will go away. Yayo! Brothers and sisters, mothers and misters! Release all those bad thoughts! Just let them flow from your body. Let it go! Let it go! Be knightly! Be a sob sister!
Oh yeah! The Hitler word! Is it surprising? I've heard that just recently from our good friends, the Germans! Mr. Bush! Tell those krauts to watch their mouths or their diplomats can start packing their bags. Oh no! I said a bad bad word! I can't say kraut? I'm half German and half Irish. Arf'n'arf! So there!
And what about that age thing? Yes! We have to defend the youth of America from themselves. I have no problem with kids. I'm sure most of them have higher IQs than myself. But think about it! If they knew everything like they say they do, they wouldn't need parents or school. So what's the deal? Herein lies the truth. They simply don't know anything. They are akin to a new and fresh high powered computer that hasn't been programmed yet. This is why they go to school. This is why they have parents that say, "You are restricted to your room until you reach the age of 40!". Eventually they become programmed and move on to higher levels of programming like Berkley. At this point they know more than the President of the United States. It's simply amazing how smart they become and how dumb I become. Kids do have a right to an opinion. I give that much to them because there are adults that don't seem to have an opinion on anything. They don't want to step on any toes.
Am I on the ignore list yet? I sincerely hope so! Mr. Censorship is on the prowl. Straighten up morons! ;)
I don't know this guy but I like him already. From his words I see a modern John Wayne, a man of true grit. From his words alone, I add this man to my list of true American heros. This is no ex-marine slacker. This is a former marine, a man of honor, a man ready to go if called upon. In these words I see a man of courage, a man of principle, and a man of vision. Lay down your protest banners for a moment and reflect on his words. If you do not learn the lessons of history you are doomed to repeat history. I cannot standby and leave his words ignored and lost in a sea of rants.Quote:
It is time to go to war baby!!!!! wahooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
It is time to take that Paper Pushing, No Nutts, Butt Plug Son-Of-Bitch out!!!! Blow him up.....
We should have finished the job over 11 years ago, but we didn't have a President with the testicles to do it!!!!!
We do now!!!!!
Bush forever!!!!!
He isn't the brightest guy, but he knows whats right and whats wrong, and it's time to fix it.........
It is time to go to war!!!!!!
The time for talk is over!!!!!
Have to listen to people talk about peace and love......
Let me tell all of you something, the only peace and love is found in those idiots out in Berkley who live in a freakin fantasy world.....
Oh please, lets be lovey dovey to Mr Terrorist and Mr. Sadam, he is really a nice guy......
What a bunch of pansies.....
You may return to your normal program......
I salute you.
I see that Gore has crawled out from under his rock now... no coincidence there.
Probably one of the more mealymouthed speeches I have ever heard in
my entire life. I flashed back to Carter's Malaise... :P
Whore should shut his trap as he has no room to criticize anyone on foreign policy!
Perhaps the first Bush didn't finish the job.... but maybe if Whore wasn't so busy selling our secrets to China, soliciting illegal campaign contributions, and Slick Willy wasn't getting a hummer all the time.... they could have actually done something to prevent 9/11 and done something with Iraq. But they were too busy dismantling our intelligence and defense capabilities so they could spend the money on "social engineering".
Actually, Hitler wasn't conservative at all, in the American sense of conservatism meaning smaller government, lower taxes, and more personal freedom. It's a common misconcpetion that liberal propaganda has given us, but it's utter nonsense.Quote:
Oh, comparing me to Hitler is pretty lame, I might add. I'm not THAT conservative.
Hitler was a collectivist. He wanted an all-powerful government that could fulfill his ambitions. In fact, NAZI is an acronym for Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, meaning National Socialist German Workers' Party.
Socialist meant then exactly what it does now. Here are some lines from a statement of Nazi principles when party adopted the Nazi name in 1920:
>>We therefore demand:
11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.
12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.
15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.
17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.
>>
The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was the kind of rhetoric they used to seize power. Hitler used racial and nationalist rhetoric. Stalin used communist rhetoric. Both men were absolute despots.
It's really a very minor difference, because once you have total power, it doesn't matter what you had to say to get there.
So don't ever fall for the old 'Nazis were conservatives' canard. If the Nazi platform is similar to an American political group, it's similar to the American far left, in that both call for government control over the economy, and both stir racial hatred for political gain. (Remember the Gore radio commercials, aired on black radio stations, claiming that Bush would bring back slavery if elected?)
Here's the lie within the lie: As 20th century villians go, Hitler is probably only third on the list. The number one mass murderer of the century is Mao, for his murder through starvation of 60 million Chinese civilians. Second place goes to Stalin, who killed at least 20 million Russians through starvation, deportation, and the occasional mass shootings.
Hitler is a distant third with only six million civilians killed. It's not that Hitler wouldn't have killed more if he had had the chance. But he only had a couple of years to work and a relatively small country.
If you measure evil in terms of viciousness instead of scale, then it's still hard for Hitler to compare to Pol Pot, Castro, or Idi Amin. Hitler was a nasty guy, but he never tried to kill every literate person in the country, like Pol Pot.
The interesting question is why Americans have an obsession about Hitler, yet know nearly nothing about Mao and Stalin. The answer, of course, is that the others are all communists, while Hitler was a nationalist socialist. The American left has been in love with communism for decades, and they've assiduously worked to ensure that Americans know as little as possible about what really happened.
Sorry to post so long, but the 'Hitler was a conservative' thing is a hot button with me.