11 Feb

Chris Matthews, Who Compared Republicans to Nazis, Is Outraged When Ben Carson Compares Liberals to Nazis

Jim Hoft:

Chris Matthews, who compared conservatives to Nazis, railed against Dr. Ben Carson today for comparing the progressive movement to Nazis. While discussing the progressive movement, Carson said, “There comes a time when people with values simply have to stand up. Think about Nazi Germany.”

Tingles didn’t appreciate that. Matthews sneered, “Haven’t we all learned by now not to go there? No Nazi references.”

It’s only funny when Chris does it.

Video here

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

24 Responses to Chris Matthews, Who Compared Republicans to Nazis, Is Outraged When Ben Carson Compares Liberals to Nazis

  1. DrJohn says: 1

    You can’t help but notice that the left really goes off the rails when the tables are turned.

  2. Bill Burris says: 2

    You can’t make the comparison, even though both Nazis and liberals are socialists? Why not?

  3. Richard Wheeler says: 3

    @Bill Burris: Fascism was critical of both Communism and Capitalism.
    Hitler personally hated Socialists and made that clear in Mein Kampf.
    Himler “We are of the right and of order.We shall sweep away Jews, Bolsheviks (Socialists) and liberal democracies as one swats away flies.”
    Naziis not only railed against the welfare state and slackards–they sent them to prison.
    IMO Hitler and Naziis were about as far from Socialists as it is possible to be.

  4. Redteam says: 4

    Hitler started out using the term socialism to attract German Dimocrats (my word for the Germans that wanted the government to support them at the time) to support him. Once he seized power though, he changed it to Nazi socialism, which as RW says is far from socialism, more like a dictatorship where he just ran things the way he wanted to. He didn’t like anyone.

  5. Bill Burris says: 5

    @Richard Wheeler: Socialism can never sustain itself and must morph into some form of tyranny. Hitler controlled the media, education, the military and industry. That’s pretty much socialism.

    No, he wasn’t a big fan of the non-productive, but even here, using socialism to create more that are dependent on the government is not an end but a means to an end; the pathway to power. I would have no doubts about our dear liberal friends, if they had absolute and irrevocable power, would put those ragged masses to work for the good of the State in short order. It’s too bad they can’t realize it.

    Just because a government or leader changes its stripes once it has power does not diminish what ideology it used to gain that power… whoa; what a rush of Deja vu I just experienced.

  6. Redteam says: 6

    @Bill Burris: Bill, I agree that Hitler used the enticement of socialism to win the favor of the masses, with his goal being dictatorship, which he achieved. Once he got to that point the masses then worked for the betterment of the dictatorship, not the masses but with the hope that the masses had to be taken care of. Of course, if they didn’t voluntarily work for the masses, then they involuntarily worked for the masses. It was not a Dimocrat stronghold and it was a very clear goal of socialism. To have the masses work for the masses, not for themselves.

  7. Richard Wheeler says: 7

    @Redteam: “masses work for the masses” ??

  8. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says: 8

    @Richard Wheeler: Wrong, National Socialism was opposed to Communism, but they shared basic traits. By the way, Hitler was a communist before he was a Nazi. Where in a socialist system is the welfare state? There certainly was not one in the Soviet Union nor in the PRC. Your knowledged of politics and political systems is superficial.

  9. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says: 9


  10. tommy boy says: 10

    After Dr John ,EVERYONE sure went off message :The double standard of LIBRALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. Redteam says: 11

    @Richard Wheeler:

    “masses work for the masses”

    It’s called socialism by the Dimocrats, you gotta have a lot of workers(masses) to support all those(masses) on the dole. It’s sure not gonna be Walt’s dog.

  12. Greg says: 12

    Whereas with the New and Improved version of American capitalism, you need a lot of serfs working as hard as possible for as little as possible to support the lifestyles of the new aristocracy…

  13. Richard Wheeler says: 13

    @Redteam: oh you mean the 53% masses working for the 47% masses–thanks Mitt tell us another one.

  14. Redteam says: 14

    @Richard Wheeler:

    53% masses working for the 47% masses

    Is that Greek?

  15. Redteam says: 15


    you need a lot of serfs working as hard as possible for as little as possible to support the lifestyles

    of the unwed mothers and their welfare children that somehow got spared in the killing of the unwanted. And we also have to support all those border fence climbers that come here to drop babies and get all the bennies the Libs want to toss them for their votes( which they do without photo ID’s

  16. Bill Burris says: 16

    @Greg: Under capitalism, anyone that wishes to exert the energy can work to improve their economic condition. I does not happen overnight, in a year or in a decade, usually. It happens over generations and I have seen it and experienced it.

    The economic system employed by our liberals, however, thinks a constantly shrinking class of providers can finance an ever growing class of users. These are divergent paths and the system cannot endure. Those on subsidies grows exponentially while those with the task of providing are rendered less and less effective and efficient by the very burden of the government’s preoccupation with growing the dependent class and reaping their votes; more must be given away, more must be taken from the providers, more harm must be done to the economy to accomplish this. It is unsustainable, but the Democrats play a game of chicken in which they try to gain total control of the government and put these lay-abouts to work for the collective before the economy collapses. At the rate Obama is imploding the economy, I don’t think they will make it.

    Those in poverty will benefit more under capitalism than socialism; they just have to understand that some people (to their ultimate benefit) will become wealthy.

  17. Richard Wheeler says: 17

    @Redteam: That’s Mitt Romney–it seems to also be R.T –‘masses working for masses’ is your quote. Wanna explain?

  18. Bill Burris says: 18

    @Richard Wheeler: I’m not sure I get the Romney reference; he is a guy who has actually created jobs… lots of them… and provided the opportunity for those working to better their personal condition. As to the masses working for the masses, I take that to mean that they gain the benefit of their own labors rather than having all the benefit siphoned off to benefit some voter bloc and those politicians that feed off them.

    I could be wrong about redteam’s meaning, though.

  19. Redteam says: 19

    @Richard Wheeler:

    ’masses working for masses’ is your quote. Wanna explain?

    I did, see 11 above.
    Bill said above.

    I take that to mean that they gain the benefit of their own labors rather than having all the benefit siphoned off to benefit some voter bloc and those politicians that feed off them.

    What I mean is that if we get to the Dimocrats utopia, we will have a group of people working to support themselves with what is left over after supporting another group of people that will not work to support themselves. The function of the ‘non-working’ group is to be sure to vote to keep the correct politicians in place to insure that the free benefits keep coming from the working group. Kinda like it is now.

  20. Richard Wheeler says: 20

    @Redteam: That’s pretty much what Romney said 53% taxpayers (workers) and 47% non taxpayers (slackards on the dole). Only problem is that statement cost him the election.

  21. Redteam says: 21

    @Richard Wheeler:

    53% taxpayers (workers) and 47% non taxpayers

    I didn’t use any numbers. I also didn’t lose the election, or win. in fact, I wasn’t on the ballot.
    but if I were going to put numbers on it, it would likely be more like 30% workers, 70% on the dole.

  22. Richard Wheeler says: 22

    @Redteam: Are you currently in the 30% or 70%? With your political views I wouldn’t expect you to be running for anything.

  23. Redteam says: 23

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Are you currently in the 30% or 70%?



  24. Bill Burris says: 24

    @Richard Wheeler: What cost Romney the election was a loyal and corrupt media that ran with that non-story, along with the Democrat assertion that a woman died because of Romney and, of course, Romney’s dog on the roof of the car. Meanwhile, they ignored Benghazi, the perpetually collapsed economy, high unemployment (they could have asked a few questions about dropping unemployment numbers while the number of jobs taken was fewer than the number of people entering the job market) and a complete lack of leadership in any area.

    Nodding donkeys like Chris Matthews cost Romney the election.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>