Is Ann Romney Like Hitler?

"Her comments do highlight an authoritarian culture that isn't really healthy or constructive." Are you must of the Dr. Spock school of never say "NO!" to the child.

I can see how from that point of view that any parent that says no is authroitarian. I wonder how much never saying no has contributed to our financial situation with uncontrolled debt, uncontrolled lifestyles, our underperforming education system. With that never say "NO" the antithesis of the 'authoritarian culture.'

I have to admit I grew up in a home and schools that had rules that had to be followed and the answer to many thigns was 'no'. I wonder if that was the unhealthly authoritarian parenting that you are talking about. Now for me that even included a periodic smack on my bottom for certain response to defiance of my parents. I have to admit that I grew up to never beat my children or my wife, I have never been in jail of even questions by the police (well there was that speeding ticket), I have paid my taxes, I even graduated high school. I was raised by a mother that was a self admitted 'liberal', who served a State Representative for many years. Both my parents were "Yellow Dog" Democrats.

I am of the school where children need to have boundaries so they can learn how to make choices. I guess in an in the evil culture too.

Entertaining how very much you managed to generalize from a post that was only around 200 words long. 0_o

Your comment:
Are you must of the Dr. Spock school of never say "NO!" to the child.


I haven't the first clue on earth what it is you're trying to say there. But I assume that you're sweepingly assuming that I don't condone telling children "no". I wonder how it is you've formed such a false and wide-sweeping opinion off someone simply by the use of the word "authoritarian." At least try to come across as literate when you try to make an ad hominem and baseless assumption about someone ;)

Duane, common sense understands exactly what you're saying.

Of course, because you guys share the same collective brain cells. Of course your "common sense" is going to agree with a baseless assumption that I am "against telling children no" while saying so in a nearly illiterate fashion.

Oafs of a feather, right? :)

Can't rise above someone else's superiority so you result to the weaknesses of making fallible assumptions and borderline insults. ;) It's a tool of the weak and the entertainment of the elite.

Aw girl, school yard.

Exactly, school yard. Now that you've recognized the mentality you and your ilk (especially here on Gather for some reason) display, the next step is to remedy it.

Possibly by making fewer kneejerk responses that prove that you didn't read a thing beyond the title of a piece. I'm going to assume you are a grown up and not someone of the same age as the type who gets into the school yard tactics like you and your friends seem to do.

anyway, goodnight "opinion nate ted."

Have a good day supporting the wrong people ;-) I'm going to get some shuteye.

But, but...I don't wanna be an 'ilk'.

Chelsea,

I apologize,for not first asking how you define "authoritarian culture ". many people would prescieve calling a culture authoritation would be a sweeping ncitement and I now appreciate how lothe you are to that error.

What criteria do you to describe or define an "authroitatian culture"?

Opiinioin,

"common sense ", I must disagree and acknowledge that I do failed to remind myself of that lessaon.

There is no such thing as "common sense". Everything we know is learned, if the instinctive manipulation by children of their parents (the only common thing we all have had). We are each individuals, what and how we learn is different so presume that someone, in this case Chelsea, would have a similar understanding of what I am saying without more specific descriptioin was my error.

Just as it is interesting that Chelsea is concerned with, "Can't rise above someone else's superiority ", others making presumptions and yet so easily seems to feel we should know who is superior and why. What I have learned is that people are different and we should appreciate those differences no condemn people for being different.

I think Chelsea is truly interested in an open discussion and has had limited experiince in how to encourage it to happen. I have found Chelsea thoughful and insightful when it is a topic she is confident with, this true of the vast majority of people. To be open and non defensive when talking about something you are not overly confident in is a skill to be learned. I htinkGahter is a good place for all of us to learn at.

Margie,

Depending what 'ilk' I am part of I can take pride in it, I can have fun with it, and I just like the sound of the word so I even like to use on others.

Isn't 'ilk' one of those words that has almost textual feel that is beyond its simple meaning?

Benjamin Spock called for firm discipline. I have no idea why people (mostly onthe Right) get the idea that he advocated 'permissiveness'.

As for Ann Romney's choice of words, yeah, that was creepy, esp from a wealthy woman who never had to work outside the home in order to feed and clothe her brood.

I apologize,for not first asking how you define "authoritarian culture ". many people would prescieve calling a culture authoritation would be a sweeping ncitement and I now appreciate how lothe you are to that error.

What? 0_o

Are you ESL? Because if you're ESL I'll try to understand what it is you're trying to say.... otherwise, I feel I must point out that the majority of your comments to be have been nonsensical with jumbled up words and nearly illiterate sentences. I'm not going to force myself to read something so whimsical unless you're ESL or something.

Margret,

As I recall a major premise of Dr. Spock was that children were not to be frustrated and 'No' was a frustrating response. It has been awhile but wasn;t he about reasoning with the child and hepling them to make a decision rather than having the parent make the decision for the child? That would seem to reinforce the preception of not telling the child "No".

You seem to suggest that I am of that 'right wing' ilk. I have to admit to being a "Wingnut" in my time, but the had to do with the Red Wings, those from Detroit.

Chelsea,

My less then nimble fingers and trying to do too much in too short a time, left "many people would prescieve calling a culture authoritation would be a sweeping ncitement ", instead of 'highlight an authoritarian culture would be preceived as "making fallible assumptions ". I will make an added effort to proof what I have written before submitting. I accept, justly deserved, you pointing out the poor offering I made.

I am limited in my knowledge and capabilities, I must admit I have no clue what 'ESL' means, would you please educate me?

ESL means "english as second language."

Btw "reasoning" with a child, is not equal to refusing to tell a child "no".


It would be nice if you at least had some kind of knowledge of the topic you're talking against. I mean, I guess reasoning with children is wrong to some people whod rather just I dunno, beat them into submission so they can develop into screwed up adults later, but I digress.

Chelsea,

My experience is that nothing is instinctive even reasoning, it must be learned.

We were authoritive parents with a plan that began with total control and evolve in to the kids making their own decisions. We started by making the rules, were very aggressive at enforcing then, the rules evolved into boundaries that were regularly tested and were actively enforced, that lead to the kids learning personal risk and reward management with coaching, and that has lead them to their families. They seem to be following that same process of being authoritarian in the early years, moving to giving their kids more responsibilies, very similar to how they were raised. The reality was that as long as our kids were 'kids' it was our rules and we were the authority that established those rules.

I also had the opportunity to work in an environment that many people considered extremely hazardous. The employer/their representatives established the rules to manage the risk in the workplace. The organization and its representiatives were very authoritarian in enforcement of those rules. However, they trained the people in their roles, once trained they gave people the responsibility with the authroity to work within the rules and to ensure the rules were conformed to by all. That employer created a culture that is recongized, even by OSHA, to have one the most successful risk management programs in industry. And it has done that by setting standards, training on those rules, and giving the authority to the individuals.

The point is that authoritarian cultures can prove very effective in developing people into personal success by teaching them the value of rules, the means to conformed to rules, and the reasoning behind creating rules. You may want consider the results before you, "comments do highlight an authoritarian culture that isn't really healthy or constructive", condemning 'authoritarion cultures' as wrong.

Reasoning with children can only work when the children have been taught how to reason.

Reasoning with children can only work when the children have been taught how to reason.

That's biologically untrue.

*sigh*

I am still trying to figure out how your reasoning has drawn the conclusion that a dislike for uber authoritarian parenting tactics equates to "not telling kids no." and other extremes. 0_o

But judging from your "reasoning" that a child has to be taught "reasoning" when it's a hardwired trait, not a learned behavior, is just... well.. odd.


No offense.

Chelsea,

" "reasoning" when it's a hardwired trait" that is too bad you think that way because that would lead to the belief that once a child is found to be anti social, break the rules, there is no hope for them to change.

By believing that everything we do is learned then there is hope that by training people can change. I will admit that there are a few where the barriers to change are so great that it doesn't justify the effort, I just feel that that is rare both in children and in adults.

""reasoning" when it's a hardwired trait", what is even sadder about your feeling that way is that it is much like the rationalizarion I have heard used by those justifying both ethnic and gender prejudices. 'It is born into them so they can do any better' or 'woman were born to be barefoot and pregnant.' I was taught that each individual has choices we should judge them on what they do, not their ethnicity or their gender or even their religion. That is obviously the difference between our approach and mine, I believe we all learn while you believe it is born into all of us what we do.

It's biology/psychology 101 (basic basic) to know the difference between learned and non-learned traits/abilities.

Maybe you're not using the proper vocabulary for the point you're trying to prove ?

The right wing mentality, in most cases, can only entertain two possibilities at once. They are binary thinkers. One can only be for or against in their minds ("With us or with the terrorists.").

When you oppose uber-authoritarian parenting, all they hear is permissiveness catering to every whim of the child. They honestly cannot see a middle ground. If you point this out to them they will deny it and remark on all kinds of "middle ground" talking points. Then in the very next discussion they will revert back to their black & white, binary (us or the terrorists) thinking.

This was very hard to type because I was still guffawing at O.N.T.'s claim to "common sense". Unintentional comedy is often the best.

Chelsea,

I have do have limits to my capacities, you have pointed that out earlier, "Because if you're ESL ".

"taught "reasoning" when it's a hardwired trait, not a learned behavior, is just... well.. odd." That would suggest that risk/reward, plane geometry, scientific methhods are all 'hardwired since they are all reasoning methodologies. I disagree, those were all taught. A simple anaology maybe the kid and flame, they put their finger in it out of curiousity and they learn hot creates pain. The reason is the anticedent, behavior, consequences of curiousity with the flame, the touching the flame and the getting hurt. The reasoning is the risk/consequences. I have yet to hear of a child that did not have to learn that either by direct experience such as the flame or by the authoritative parents telling them so about risk/conseqeunces.

I have been told that self preservation is a biological trait, fight or flight. That these are instinctive, we are born with it. And yet time and again I have seen or heard of people would ingore that premise and risk their lives for no good reason. There are too many examples, see the Darwin Awards for a dark humor side of how people violate that inbred instinct.

People make choices, there are the exceptions, but making choices is learned.

As I mentioned, the biological or genetic rationalization seems to be commonly used by those who have a bias if not a prejudice that they cannot explain.

For my edification, what are some of those non-learned traits that are biological or genetic?

Rory,

That is a heck of a test, does that apply to all situations or is just to social or political ones?

*sigh*

Duane, you can't hid your total confusion behind the poorly chosen words you've formed around this long-winded monstrosity of a rebuttal.

And I'm frankly too exhausted to give you a play-by-play of the issues you're confusing between "learned behavior" and "hardwired traits." Google around for a little bit and come back. I really don't have the time to break down to you the flaw in your example about learning how fire is hot by being burned, etc etc etc. T hat's not "reasoning," in the same context as "reasoning with a kid" instead of "telling them no." as you so comedically generalized a while back.

You're talking yourself in circles. 0_o

Thank you for your time an patience.

Funny you would ask "Is Ann Romney Like Hitler?" seeing as how the communists hated Hitler and he hated them. Why not "Is Ann Romney like Lenin or Stalin?" ...just an observation.

Did you bother reading the article/source or do you only ever grab a title and post brainlessly with ad hominem and pointless comments? Judging from the infantile humor of your entire online persona here on Gather, I'm more apt to believe the latter than the former.

It's YOUR title. YOU chose it. IT says a lot. Was it unintended?

Seeing as though it was about another person calling her Hitler, should I have titled it as "Does Ann Romney make Good Cookies?"

herp derp derp derp herp

you got a little drool on your chin, there.... might want to wipe that off.

(yet I shouldn't be surprised that the same familiar suspects only know how to use "ad hominem" and off-base comments... their stances are far too weak to do otherwise.....)

Seems like this is a title in search of an article. You just wanted to get "Romney Like Hitler" in a title. Good job you did it.

You know what they say about ASSuming ;)

She can't be because W is Hitler. Silly you.

W. was, at best, a poor man's Hitler. He may have had aspirations (certainly wanted to destroy one country: the USA) but he had neither the charisma nor the diabolical intelligence to pull it off.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/msnbc-ann-romney-hitler-and-stalin.php

If you were a 1966 Oldsmobile, you sure would not be running on all eight cylinders. You would not know Hitler if he jumped out of the alley and yelled "boo!" This article does not deserve comment or debate. PLONK!

Spirit -- another dullard that didn't read beyond the title. Unsurprising.

And yet he commented, disproving his own contention. Circular logic: a snake eating its own tail.

The inappropriate comparison by Michelle Goldberg of Ann Romney's use of the term "Crown of Motherhood" as being akin to awards which were issued to exceptional mothers by the Hitler and Stalin regimes, was not only in poor taste, but even more-so, it was far less than professionally ethical for a journalist of many acknowledged accomplishments to make such a comparison.

I may have been able to understand how a person in front of television cameras for the first time to inadvertently or offhandedly blurtout some similar idiotic statement in a brainless moment. However, Michelle Goldberg, is not only a published book author as well as a writer for many prominent magizines, she is also from time to time a paid guest speaker on televised and radio talk shows. As such, she was well aware of what she was saying and how negatively it would be received by both the Romney family members and the RNC, as well as conservatives in general. What she mentally miscalculated when making the statement, was the fact that many Democrats are also going to find her statement to be abhorrently offensive to them as well.

Readers can count me as one of those Democrats who found Michelle Goldbergs statement not only offensive, but morally inappropriate since in Ms. Goldberg biography, she list her religion as being Judaism. The very race of people who suffered the most during WWII because of one of the men she referenced.

Ann Romney is and always has been a member of the Mormon religion. A religion which mandates that a woman's place is in the home where she is expected to remain throughout her life. Mormon women are considered as being the home maker for the family, teacher of their children and above all else, subservient to her husband, who is without question, master of his household. The life of a Mormon mother would be considered by most people in todays society as closely being associated with indentured servitude. Albeit, those raised in the Mormon religion view such subservient position as being a requirement of the Mormon religious teachings and biblical scripture.

In the case of Ann Romney, her actual house chores and the rearing of her children, would have been far less than a job of labor, as it would have been for most Mormon mothers. Inasmuch, as her husband Mitt Romney was financially able to pay others to serve the families needs. Thus, leaving Ann Romney free to enjoy the leisure life style which such wealth can provide. Her only non transferable duty as a Mormon wife and mother, was to remain subservient to her husband and act in the capacity as the overseer of the household servants and estate's laborers.

As to her "Crown of Motherhood", my understanding is the term is a verbal religious award used by the Mormon Church when referring to Mormon mothers and their station in life. Not being a Mormon myself, but as a reasoning person, I would suspect that the term is betowed upon subservient wives who bare children. Such title being awarded as a means by which to give Mormon mothers a personal sense of importance within the Mormon community, while in reality, both Mormon wives and mothers are nothing more than second class citizens in their servitude to both their husbands and in the church's doctrine.

No need for readers to ask for references, as this comment is written as one man's opinion only.

SCREW YOU, Scott. You are so far off-base it's crazy. As far as 'second class citizens in their servitude', that is such bs, our Church teaches from a VERY early age that husbands and wives are equals and that a 'successful' husband MUST be true partners with his wife. Just because YOU have a problem with women staying home and raising children, doesn't make it a problem. Sorry if we view raising humans as a noble effort.
If you wanna hate on something, at least find some realistic issues. Unreal. I can't believe how many bs comments and flat out lies are in your single post. Take a freakin' Xanax. Bet you're pro everything, too. As long it's something YOU agree with, right? TYPICAL.

Margie the "Martian"

SCREW YOU, Scott

Absolutely and without any reservation whatsoever, I would not screw you with J. Wrights apendage much less mine.

Go proposition someone who actually finds you sexually attractive, as for me, you personally and your comments are both repulsive.

http://www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm

the role of women in mormonism

The most notorious example of Mormon treatment of women is, of course, the practice of polygamy. In early 1843, Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, announced to the press that, despite rumors to the contrary, the Latter-Day Saints did not practice polygamy and believed it was an abomination (Wallace 53). He spoke the truth as far as the vast majority of Mormons was concerned, for polygamy is expressly forbidden in the Book of Mormon. However, Joseph himself had been married to at least eleven women besides his legal wife by 1843. (Wallace 52). The first of these, in 1835, was a seventeen year old orphan who had been taken in by his wife, Emma Smith. Joseph apparently married all of these women without the knowledge of either his wife or his fellow Mormons (Wallace 52).

Chelsea

Thank you for providing the link. However, I was prepared to defend my position with similar supporting documentation, if it became necessary. My hesitation to do so, was a case of not wanting to argue a known and well documented fact with certain people.

You know the old adage, When you openly argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to determine which one of you is the fool.

To be clear, I like Margie. She may be a part of a ... movement...that is less than respectful, but she's a good person. In fairness to her, she may not live her life as it's actually expected of Mormon women in scripture to behave. She may not see thngs in this religion that is commonly known by others. You must take into consideration the same thing when debating beliefs with an average christian who isn't well-read in their bibles. If you tell them that num. 31 mentions the slaughter of children and the taking of young girls as sex slaves, they will argue with you and claim that it's not true. But you know it's there, and I know it's there. They don't know it's there and they don't want to know.

As for the way women are objectified in the Mormon religion. I grew up very close to the LDS church. I watched the 2nd state temple in AZ being built from my kitchen window. I even "dated" a mormon fella for about five minutes.

Everyone is different. The scripture and the teachings may be a bit strange, but eahc person is different. Certainly Margie isn't a marginalized woman in her home. And I highly doubt that she is in a polygamist relationship. She seems modern, well adjust and normal like you and me.

just thought I'd say that


hope I wasn't being offensive.

Chelsea

I have no ill feeling towards Margie whatsoever. However, her denigrating response to my posted comment was far less than appropriate, hence my quick retort.

Not a word of my comment was directed at any debater, but were in response to the subject of the article it's self. To be unwarrantedly attacked with such venomeous dialogue, in my opinion, required a like response.

It would serve us all well to take a deep breath before responding in a derogatory manner to another debaters comment to which we adamently disagree.

You darn lefties though.

Hitler like=no. Self righteous, arrogant, and not in touch with the ordinary person=fur sure.

Fair comment.

Vicki -- don't bother posting again. I've already expressed to you that this is not the venue for your to rant and rave about breasts and other tangents that have nothing to do with Michelle Goldberg calling Ann Romney "like Hitler."

Since you've worn out your welcome, this will be the last response you get. When you are able to get your wits about yourself a little bit better and behave like a grownup that's not obsessed with ranting about breasts, disease and other issues that have nothing to do with the topic. I might consider allowing you back into this discussion.

Thanks and have a splendid evening.

In fairness, Chelsea, some of rightwingnuts have a point about this posting being an excuse for putting the statement out there about Ann Romney being like Hitler. All the qualifiers you included in the article were rather feeble justification. You still published under a headline that likened Romeny to Hitler, which is spurious in final analysis.

No offense, just sayin'. I remain an admirer of your work.

I think I clearly pointed out that comparing anyone to Hitler is a fallacy.

It isn't my fault if some people have the mentalities of five years to which they only read a headline and then start pounding out rabid comments.


;)

your tinfoil hat is losing it's luster

Ppl get compared to Hilter all the time. And the result is usually the same.