Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

uppityperson

(115,677 posts)
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 04:23 PM Nov 2015

Killing an innocent infant is "hell, yeah!"????



Aside from having a total lack of imagination to be able to figure out another way to prevent Hitler from becoming the murderous ass he was, it just seems that loudly and proudly proclaiming you are OK with murdering infants is rather off putting.

Wtf?

On the other hand, the more these idiots loudly and proudly announce their idiocies, the better.
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

fifthoffive

(382 posts)
1. But no abortion for the mother!
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 04:26 PM
Nov 2015

The same idiots who deny all abortion rights have no problem with the idea of killing an innocent infant. In fact, they would line up for the privilege of being the one to kill baby Hitler.

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
7. Somebody should have asked a follow-up question: "Does that mean it would have been alright for
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 07:21 PM
Nov 2015

and Iraqi, whose family was butchered by US troops, Blackwater or some other Merc force, to kill baby Dubya?"
 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
5. If he'd been a slightly better painter
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 05:18 PM
Nov 2015

he'd have beed admitted to the Vienna Academy of Arts (Hitler, not Jebthro) and spared the world untold horror.

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
8. I'm not so sure of that.
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 07:24 PM
Nov 2015

Somebody else may have come along who could have out-Hitlered Hitler.

History is set.

Just remember, before Stalin there was Lennin.

Would the former have been more cruel that that latter?

jmowreader

(50,557 posts)
11. It wasn't the quality of his painting, it was his style that kept him out
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 07:40 PM
Nov 2015

The Vienna Academy was heavily into modern art at the time, and was only accepting modern artists. Hitler was a classical painter, and not that bad of one:



I think of him as a Prussian Thomas Kinkade...except that Hitler became the embodiment of absolute evil, and Kinkade just became a swindler who died from mixing booze and Valium. Oh...and Kinkade was a far worse painter. How good could he have been if he was better trained?

Atman

(31,464 posts)
13. Cool painting.
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 07:50 PM
Nov 2015

Kinkade and Hitler were both evil swindlers. If only Hitler had turned to booze and valium. If only we had killed baby Kinkade the world would have been spared the horrible pain inflicted by Kinkade.






I hope I don't really need the sarcasm font.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
14. I'm probably outing myself here somehow as a person of plebian tastes
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 07:58 PM
Nov 2015

But that painting appeals to me more than most of the "modern art" I have seen.

Hitler considered himself an architectural artist, he was interested in grand structures like the one in the painting.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
17. He carried a grudge against modern art, too.
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 08:47 PM
Nov 2015

He labelled pretty much everything more modern than his own work as 'degenerate art'.

Atman

(31,464 posts)
12. And herein lies the problem when a conservative faces nuance.
Tue Nov 10, 2015, 07:47 PM
Nov 2015

They can't deal. Black or white. Life to them is binary. They can never fathom any situation other than the perfectly ironed-out situation. Questions baffle them.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Killing an innocent infan...