Nazis family values

[Said1]

I honestly don't think her comments were that bad when you consider most pre/post depression era societies were like that....family first etc. Had she not mentioned Hitler, she'd probably still have a job.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2007-09-10T180156Z_01_GOR048737_RTRUKOC_0_US-GERMANY-TELEVISION-NAZI-ODD.xml

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German public television network Sunday sacked a popular talk show host and former news presenter after she had praised the Nazi's family policies at a news conference for her new book on child-rearing.

NDR television program director Volker Herres said on the NDR website the network had fired Eva Herman, 48, with immediate effect for her comments "that we deemed to be incompatible to her role as a television presenter and talk show host."

Herman, who was a news presenter for the network's flagship "Tagesschau" news program for 18 years to 2006, has also hosted several other talk shows on NDR.

While presenting her book "Das Prinzip Arche Noah - warum wir die Familie retten muessen" (Arche Noah principle - why we must save the family), she said family values that were nurtured in the Nazi era were cast away by the turmoil of the late 1960s.

"It was a horrible time with a manic and dangerous leader who led the Germans into ruin as we all know. But there was at the time also something good, and that is the values, that is the children, that is the families, that is a togetherness -- it was all abolished, there was nothing left," Herman said.

Herman could not immediately be reached for comment.

[glockmail]

The Germans are so nervous about being alligned with their past that they refuse to acknowledge the few good policies that Hitler had. I do notice they keep making Volkswagons and driving on the Autobahn though. I guess its easier to throw a talk show host under the bus than to do away with convenient transportaion.

[Dilloduck]

Agreed---the Germans are lucky Hitler didn't continually proclaim the benefits of breathing. I wonder if they are pissed that Nazis helped us get to the moon.

[avatar4321]

Should Germans be fired if they praise Volkswagon too? I mean that is a Nazi product.

[Ruby]

Well she did conjure up the image of Hitlers breeding programs. He encouraged families to have lots of kids so he could fill the world with the superior race...thats not exactly a family value.

Lets not forget that he MURDERED entire families. His family values consisted of RACISM/Anti-semitism and targeting some families for death.

He even encouraged kids to TURN in parents who were disloyal to the state.

He also ran a youth program that interjected state ideology over parental teachings of ideology. I think we all still believe it is our right to raise our children with our values and not the values of others.

Hitlers family values arent anything we want to emmulate now.

If she wanted to talk about a past era and the culture of then vs now....she certainly didnt need to add Hitler to that. She could have just as easily talked about the decades and given examples. She could have explained why the 40's were better than now and how the 60's were a factor in the destruction of values she felt were alive and well in the 40's.

[Ruby]

The Germans are so nervous about being alligned with their past that they refuse to acknowledge the few good policies that Hitler had. I do notice they keep making Volkswagons and driving on the Autobahn though. I guess its easier to throw a talk show host under the bus than to do away with convenient transportaion.

Well he got the trains running on time but I dont think he did ANYTHING good to boost family values!

Edit to add this.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9505EFD8113FF934A35752C1A9609C8B63


To be accepted into the Lebensborn, pregnant women had to have the right racial characteristics -- blonde hair and blue eyes -- prove that they had no genetic disorders, and be able to prove the identity of the father, who had to meet similar criteria. They had to swear fealty to Nazism, and were indoctrinated with Hitler's ideology while they were in residence.

Many of the fathers were SS officers with their own families. Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, encouraged his men to sire children outside of marriage as a way of building a German master race.


I cant see that its a good family value to have men making babies OUTSIDE the marriage or the babies who didnt get to grow up in a family or even have the truth about their parentage and circumstances.

[Dilloduck]

Well he got the trains running on time but I dont think he did ANYTHING good to boost family values!

Edit to add this.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9505EFD8113FF934A35752C1A9609C8B63



I cant see that its a good family value to have men making babies OUTSIDE the marriage or the babies who didnt get to grow up in a family or even have the truth about their parentage and circumstances.

So much for her freedom of speech ,huh ? She wasn't praising Hitlers' values anyway. Read closely.


family values that were nurtured in the Nazi era

To insinuate that all Germans subscribed to Hitlers' family values is a mighty big leap.

[Ruby]

So much for her freedom of speech ,huh ? She wasn't praising Hitlers' values anyway. Read closely.

I did read it, she said the "nazi era" as if the family values she holds in high esteem came from NAZIS. The nazi family values were pretty horrendous. She could have said the 40's era, but she claimed it was the NAZI era and gave them CREDIT for the family values she wants back.

She has her freedom of speech, no one is taking her to jail or charging her with a crime. Her employer no longer wants her to work there and represent them as a station.

If she feels that being fired violated any laws then I would guess she should take them to court and enforce whatever legal rights she feels are being violated. I dont know of any legal rights of hers that were violated, do you?




To insinuate that all Germans subscribed to Hitlers' family values is a mighty big leap.

I didnt insinuate that. She claimed it was the family values nurtured in the NAZI era. Apparently she seems to like the family values nurtured and endorsed by the nazis...

[Dilloduck]

I did read it, she said the "nazi era" as if the family values she holds in high esteem came from NAZIS. The nazi family values were pretty horrendous. She could have said the 40's era, but she claimed it was the NAZI era and gave them CREDIT for the family values she wants back.

She has her freedom of speech, no one is taking her to jail or charging her with a crime. Her employer no longer wants her to work there and represent them as a station.

If she feels that being fired violated any laws then I would guess she should take them to court and enforce whatever legal rights she feels are being violated. I dont know of any legal rights of hers that were violated, do you?




I didnt insinuate that. She claimed it was the family values nurtured in the NAZI era. Apparently she seems to like the family values nurtured and endorsed by the nazis...

Did you forget to read her comment about Hitler ?

"It was a horrible time with a manic and dangerous leader who led the Germans into ruin as we all know. But there was at the time also something good, and that is the values, that is the children, that is the families, that is a togetherness -- it was all abolished, there was nothing left,"
She clearly states there was ALSO something good ocurring. How would YOU respond to being fired for saying something that everyone twisted into something that was sure to inflame everyone ?

And no----she did NOT say the family values that she is espousing came from the Nazis.

[Ruby]

Did you forget to read her comment about Hitler ?

She clearly states there was ALSO something good ocurring. How would YOU respond to being fired for saying something that everyone twisted into something that was sure to inflame everyone ?

And no----she did NOT say the family values that she is espousing came from the Nazis.


I read her comment about hitler as well as this one...


she said family values that were nurtured in the Nazi era were cast away by the turmoil of the late 1960s.

"It was a horrible time with a manic and dangerous leader who led the Germans into ruin as we all know. But there was at the time also something good, and that is the values, that is the children, that is the families, that is a togetherness -- it was all abolished, there was nothing left," Herman said.


Specifically she LIKED the nazis family values...and those family values included the youth program where the state indoctrinated the youth, the program that encouraged kids to turn in disloyal parents and breeding programs (many utilized men that were ALREADY MARRIED), and it encouraged racial PURITY in the family.

I bolded the parts clearly for you. She is specific, it was NAZI family values that she wants and there is no denying that nazi family values were horrible and including those things I already listed.

She was CLEAR that it was values endorsed by NAZIS she liked. Germans are very well versed in what "nazi era family values" are and they arent values that the germans want back...thank goodness for that!!!

[Dilloduck]

I read her comment about hitler as well as this one...



Specifically she LIKED the nazis family values...and those family values included the youth program where the state indoctrinated the youth, the program that encouraged kids to turn in disloyal parents and breeding programs (many utilized men that were ALREADY MARRIED), and it encouraged racial PURITY in the family.

I bolded the parts clearly for you. She is specific, it was NAZI family values that she wants and there is no denying that nazi family values were horrible and including those things I already listed.

She was CLEAR that it was values endorsed by NAZIS she liked. Germans are very well versed in what "nazi era family values" are and they arent values that the germans want back...thank goodness for that!!!

It's facinating how people can twist and intentionally misinterpret what has been said. NOWHERE in that quote did she say she liked Nazi values nor that she wants them. She is clearly talking about another phenomenon that was occuring in Germany at the time. She PURPOSELY rejected Nazis to try to dodge misinterpretation but as usual--you managed to do it anyway.

[Trigg]

Last year after the soccer world cup the news agencies were talking about the Germans waving their flag. Apparently it is frowned upon to show national pride.

My point is, she shouldn't have been surprised at the backlash from mentioning the NAZI's. Germans are very sensitive to that issue.

With their birth rate the way it is though they need to do something and if a "Family First" innitiative works than good for them.

Also Ruby,

Her point about family values during that time doesn't have to include all the bad things also. Women were encouraged to stay home and raise their families, that is not a bad thing.

[Ruby]

It's facinating how people can twist and intentionally misinterpret what has been said. NOWHERE in that quote did she say she liked Nazi values nor that she wants them. She is clearly talking about another phenomenon that was occuring in Germany at the time. She PURPOSELY rejected Nazis to try to dodge misinterpretation but as usual--you managed to do it anyway.

Then why did she site the NAZI era. That is quite specific and the nazis DID indeed have a "family values" program as we know. It cant be hard to site a TIME PERIOD if thats all she is talking about, instead she chose to be quite specific and site the "nazi era". Thats not twist at all, thats going with what she said and NOT reading what you WANT into it to help water it down.

She is german and dosent seem to be uneducated and she is a JOURNALIST so she is just fine at choosing her words, afterall, its her profession. She cant possibly be unaware that the "nazi era" contained very specific family values nor do I think she is unaware of what those values were. If she wanted to leave OUT the bulk of the nazi era family values, then why site them at all and why not specify that you arent meaning to include those aspects?

[Ruby]

Last year after the soccer world cup the news agencies were talking about the Germans waving their flag. Apparently it is frowned upon to show national pride.

My point is, she shouldn't have been surprised at the backlash from mentioning the NAZI's. Germans are very sensitive to that issue.

With their birth rate the way it is though they need to do something and if a "Family First" innitiative works than good for them.

Also Ruby,

Her point about family values during that time doesn't have to include all the bad things also. Women were encouraged to stay home and raise their families, that is not a bad thing.

But that isnt what she said. She named a very specific era and specified the Nazis. She is speaking to an audience who is WELL aware of those values and she didnt say a word about excluding those things...she only made reference to leading the country to ruin which was caused by the WARS themselves.

As a writer and career journalist *german one*, I will have to accept that her words were meant as she spoke them.

[Dilloduck]

She was CLEAR that it was values endorsed by NAZIS she liked. Germans are very well versed in what "nazi era family values" are and they arent values that the germans want back...thank goodness for that!!!

Only to the intentionally ignorant.

[Psychoblues]

Family values are exactly family values. Nazi values are exactly Nazi values. Many Americans embrace Nazi values and attempt to claim them as somehow "family values". I reject values that diminish the promises and guarantees of the United States Declaration Of Independence.

[Ruby]

Only to the intentionally ignorant.

That would be you, I am taking her word as specific and as exact as she said them. Its you who try to twist them to mean somthing different than what she said. Its not hard to encourage 40's era values, or encourage moms to go back to the times where they stayed at home as homemakers etc...you dont need to call on the NAZI family policies for that. The nazi family policies were and are quite specific and thats what she specifically pointed to.

[gabosaurus]

Ruby, I have to ask where you have derived your points from. My mothers family is German. Her family lived in Germany during WWII. The Germans of that time period had exceptional family values. Much better than today.
The Germans remain oversensitive to anything related to the Nazi era. It is a glaring fault that needs to be overcome.
By the way, all Germans who lived during WWII were NOT Nazis. The Nazi were a political organization, sort of like Republicans (and Democrats). The Nazi party controlled WWII Germany.
My maternal grandfather and uncle fought in WWII. They were NOT Nazis. They merely defended their country.

[Dilloduck]

That would be you, I am taking her word as specific and as exact as she said them. Its you who try to twist them to mean somthing different than what she said. Its not hard to encourage 40's era values, or encourage moms to go back to the times where they stayed at home as homemakers etc...you dont need to call on the NAZI family policies for that. The nazi family policies were and are quite specific and thats what she specifically pointed to.

She DIDN"T call on Nazi family policies. You claim she said it--specifically and exactly. Show me the quote. (and I bet you one of those who bitch at Bush for not admitting he made a mistake, right?) :laugh2:

[Ruby]

She DIDN"T call on Nazi family policies. You claim she said it--specifically and exactly. Show me the quote. (and I bet you one of those who bitch at Bush for not admitting he made a mistake, right?) :laugh2:

I already did this once, but I will repeat it for you.


While presenting her book "Das Prinzip Arche Noah - warum wir die Familie retten muessen" (Arche Noah principle - why we must save the family), she said family values that were nurtured in the Nazi era were cast away by the turmoil of the late 1960s.

"It was a horrible time with a manic and dangerous leader who led the Germans into ruin as we all know. But there was at the time also something good, and that is the values, that is the children, that is the families, that is a togetherness -- it was all abolished, there was nothing left," Herman said.


I bolded it for ya. The family values nurtured in the nazi era were specific to the nazis and created by the nazis and included breeding programs, hitler youth, encouraging kids and other family members to turn in other family members who were disloyal, eugenics....

The nazi era points to a specific time AND ideology. Its been in your face since the very original post and been bolded for you a few times now. Are you REALLY that dense or are you just playing games?

[Dilloduck]

I already did this once, but I will repeat it for you.



I bolded it for ya. The family values nurtured in the nazi era were specific to the nazis and created by the nazis and included breeding programs, hitler youth, encouraging kids and other family members to turn in other family members who were disloyal, eugenics....

The nazi era points to a specific time AND ideology. Its been in your face since the very original post and been bolded for you a few times now. Are you REALLY that dense or are you just playing games?

I realized that you misinterpreted for me several times now----what you bolded for me DOES NOT come anywhere near saying that she supports Nazi family values. Whatever YOUR interpretation of what went on during the Nazi era in moot.

[Ruby]

Ruby, I have to ask where you have derived your points from. My mothers family is German. Her family lived in Germany during WWII. The Germans of that time period had exceptional family values. Much better than today.
The Germans remain oversensitive to anything related to the Nazi era. It is a glaring fault that needs to be overcome.
By the way, all Germans who lived during WWII were NOT Nazis. The Nazi were a political organization, sort of like Republicans (and Democrats). The Nazi party controlled WWII Germany.
My maternal grandfather and uncle fought in WWII. They were NOT Nazis. They merely defended their country.

Correct, not all germans were nazis and she wants to go back to the NAZI era family values, not german ones of the 1940's but a more specific set that the nazis nurtured.

Are you trying to say the nazis DIDNT have a breeding program that even contained men who were already married to impregnant genetically acceptable girls? Did they not have a youth program that indoctrinated kids with nazi ideology stripping parents of their right to say no to it? Are you saying they didnt encourage kids to turn in parents who were disloyal to the nazis? Did they not encourage the "genetically desirable" to produce LOTS of kids so they could populate the world with the superior race?

Defended their country? They werent really being attacked. They attacked Poland. They waged aggressive wars followed by aggressive and brutal occupations and committed a pretty large scale genocide...those things are not defending your nation.

[Dilloduck]

Correct, not all germans were nazis and she wants to go back to the NAZI era family values, not german ones of the 1940's but a more specific set that the nazis nurtured.

Are you trying to say the nazis DIDNT have a breeding program that even contained men who were already married to impregnant genetically acceptable girls? Did they not have a youth program that indoctrinated kids with nazi ideology stripping parents of their right to say no to it? Are you saying they didnt encourage kids to turn in parents who were disloyal to the nazis? Did they not encourage the "genetically desirable" to produce LOTS of kids so they could populate the world with the superior race?

Defended their country? They werent really being attacked. They attacked Poland. They waged aggressive wars followed by aggressive and brutal occupations and committed a pretty large scale genocide...those things are not defending your nation.

Nazi era family values are NOT necessarily Nazi family values. You ignorantly assume that Nazis were the only game in town. You are wrong.

[Ruby]

Nazi era family values are NOT necessarily Nazi family values. You ignorantly assume that Nazis were the only game in town. You are wrong.


Well if you arent talking about the nazis specifically why not just say 1940s germany? Why point to the nazi era specifically when they know that means the FAMILY policies the nazis implemented?

You are wrong. I dont assume they were the only game in town, thats the SPECIFIC party she brought up and pointed to!

[Ruby]

I realized that you misinterpreted for me several times now----what you bolded for me DOES NOT come anywhere near saying that she supports Nazi family values. Whatever YOUR interpretation of what went on during the Nazi era in moot.

yes it does, The same way that saying " economic values that were nurtured in the Reagan era were cast away by the turmoil of the late 1990s." It would be EASY and make sense to believe I meant I wanted reaganomics back and supported his economic policies.

[Dilloduck]

yes it does, The same way that saying " economic values that were nurtured in the Reagan era were cast away by the turmoil of the late 1990s." It would be EASY and make sense to believe I meant I wanted reaganomics back and supported his economic policies.

RUBY---that is not what she said. What happened to taking what she said at face value as opposed to what someome might believe she said ????

[Ruby]

RUBY---that is not what she said. What happened to taking what she said at face value as opposed to what someome might believe she said ????

It IS what she said and I AM taking it at face value, she sited the NAZI era so you must look to what family values/policies existed in the NAZI era and that includes all those ugly things I brought up. Its you who arent taking what she says at FACE value. Its you who are minusing out many things that WERE PART OF THE NAZI ERA family values to make it acceptable. She could have easily pointed out that the values she was talking about DIDNT include those things. I mean she IS a journalist and she IS aware of what nazi era family values would include....so yes I AM taking what she said at face value, its you who isnt.

[gabosaurus]

By "Nazi era," I meant that the time period where the Nazis were in power. Just like the current time in America is the "Bush era." That doesn't make us all Republicans.

The Nazis did have a program where they sought to breed a genetically pure Aryan race. It was primarily restricted to other countries that Hitler felt were "inferior" to Germany. German families were already thought to be "pure."
This had nothing at all to do with German family life. The typical German family had nothing to do with the policies of the Third Reich. Most average Germans were not members of the Nazi party, which was an elite organization.

The youth policies of the time were part of Goebbels' overall propaganda program. His idea was that the "Hitler Youth" would form the backbone of the future German military and help perpetrate the "Thousand-Year Reich."
Again, this had nothing to do with the German family.

The typical German citizen of the Hitler era was not aware that Germany had invaded Poland. All they knew was what the government wanted them to know. Which was that Germany was threatened and had to defend itself. They knew nothing of occupations or death camps. Nazi Germany had state run media. There was no other source.

Ruby, I hope you are not trying to pass yourself off as German. If you are, then you have an extremely poor understand of your homeland.

[Dilloduck]

It IS what she said and I AM taking it at face value, she sited the NAZI era so you must look to what family values/policies existed in the NAZI era and that includes all those ugly things I brought up. Its you who arent taking what she says at FACE value. Its you who are minusing out many things that WERE PART OF THE NAZI ERA family values to make it acceptable. She could have easily pointed out that the values she was talking about DIDNT include those things. I mean she IS a journalist and she IS aware of what nazi era family values would include....so yes I AM taking what she said at face value, its you who isnt.


she said family values that were nurtured in the Nazi era were cast away by the turmoil of the late 1960s.

She DID NOT say they were nutured BY the NAZIs. Yes--she is a journalist and is she meant she loved NAZI family values she would have said so. You look silly trying to do the Swedish back peddle. :laugh2:

[Said1]

I already did this once, but I will repeat it for you.



I bolded it for ya. The family values nurtured in the nazi era were specific to the nazis and created by the nazis and included breeding programs, hitler youth, encouraging kids and other family members to turn in other family members who were disloyal, eugenics....

The nazi era points to a specific time AND ideology. Its been in your face since the very original post and been bolded for you a few times now. Are you REALLY that dense or are you just playing games?

You honestly think she supports breeding programs, Hitler youth programs etc, etc and wishes they were still practiced today? You really, honestly believe she meant that and not family values that were societal norms in most developed nations during the pre/post depression era?

*sigh* I think it's you who is playing games. No, I KNOW you are playing games. Why? Why are you doing that?

[Hugh Lincoln]

People fear Hitler not because he was wrong, but because he was RIGHT. The truth is that some races ARE better than others, some characteristics ARE better than others, and it's insanity not to prefer the propagation of one over the other. Tall is better than short. Attractive is better than ugly. Fast is better than slow. And so on. Dare I say "good" is better than "bad"? Even the most liberal piece of shit crawling doesn't deny this in their heart of hearts.

Nothing is scarier than the truth.

[Trigg]

By "Nazi era," I meant that the time period where the Nazis were in power. Just like the current time in America is the "Bush era." That doesn't make us all Republicans.

The Nazis did have a program where they sought to breed a genetically pure Aryan race. It was primarily restricted to other countries that Hitler felt were "inferior" to Germany. German families were already thought to be "pure."
This had nothing at all to do with German family life. The typical German family had nothing to do with the policies of the Third Reich. Most average Germans were not members of the Nazi party, which was an elite organization.

The youth policies of the time were part of Goebbels' overall propaganda program. His idea was that the "Hitler Youth" would form the backbone of the future German military and help perpetrate the "Thousand-Year Reich."
Again, this had nothing to do with the German family.

The typical German citizen of the Hitler era was not aware that Germany had invaded Poland. All they knew was what the government wanted them to know. Which was that Germany was threatened and had to defend itself. They knew nothing of occupations or death camps. Nazi Germany had state run media. There was no other source.

Ruby, I hope you are not trying to pass yourself off as German. If you are, then you have an extremely poor understand of your homeland.


I usually disagree with you, but not now.

The media I agree was probably severely limited.

[gabosaurus]

Severely limited is not the word. My uncle said there was only state radio. People were instructed when to listen. There were basically two types of message -- The Fatherland had security a great victory, or The Fatherland was being threatened by an evil enemy.
If you were caught listening to an unapproved station, or reading an unauthorized publication, you could be executed on the spot.

[Psychoblues]

The lemmings would rather not hear you say that, gabby.



Severely limited is not the word. My uncle said there was only state radio. People were instructed when to listen. There were basically two types of message -- The Fatherland had security a great victory, or The Fatherland was being threatened by an evil enemy.
If you were caught listening to an unapproved station, or reading an unauthorized publication, you could be executed on the spot.

All of their faith is in the IIC (Idiot In Chief) and they will have it no other way. It's a digging thing and these cats just ain't digging. Dig it?

[Dilloduck]

The lemmings would rather not hear you say that, gabby.




All of their faith is in the IIC (Idiot In Chief) and they will have it no other way. It's a digging thing and these cats just ain't digging. Dig it?

Dig deep in your pocket and pay someone to drive you home. :poke:

[Psychoblues]

I am at home, dd.



Dig deep in your pocket and pay someone to drive you home. :poke:

Dig deep in your mind and refute anything, anything at all.

:pee:

[Ruby]

By "Nazi era," I meant that the time period where the Nazis were in power. Just like the current time in America is the "Bush era." That doesn't make us all Republicans.

The Nazis did have a program where they sought to breed a genetically pure Aryan race. It was primarily restricted to other countries that Hitler felt were "inferior" to Germany. German families were already thought to be "pure."
This had nothing at all to do with German family life. The typical German family had nothing to do with the policies of the Third Reich. Most average Germans were not members of the Nazi party, which was an elite organization.

The youth policies of the time were part of Goebbels' overall propaganda program. His idea was that the "Hitler Youth" would form the backbone of the future German military and help perpetrate the "Thousand-Year Reich."
Again, this had nothing to do with the German family.

The typical German citizen of the Hitler era was not aware that Germany had invaded Poland. All they knew was what the government wanted them to know. Which was that Germany was threatened and had to defend itself. They knew nothing of occupations or death camps. Nazi Germany had state run media. There was no other source.

Ruby, I hope you are not trying to pass yourself off as German. If you are, then you have an extremely poor understand of your homeland.

Again she didnt point to GERMAN LIFE or GERMAN VALUES she pointed quite directly to NAZI VALUES. I would agree they are two different things which is why her pointing to the NAZI's is a problem. It seems many posters here dont want to seperate the two and are allowing her to interchange the term nazi with german when she discusses particular values. I DO see them as different which is why I recognize here comments for what they are....

I havent talked about my "ethnicity" nor would I need to, it would be completely irrelevant. Secondly, what specifically have I shown a poor understanding for?

[Ruby]

You honestly think she supports breeding programs, Hitler youth programs etc, etc and wishes they were still practiced today? You really, honestly believe she meant that and not family values that were societal norms in most developed nations during the pre/post depression era?

*sigh* I think it's you who is playing games. No, I KNOW you are playing games. Why? Why are you doing that?

No I am not playing games....other are and are trying to pretend that german values and nazi values are one in the same.

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/256397


This week, however, in promoting her latest book, The Noah's Ark Principle: Why We Must Save the Family, Herman claimed that all those lefties who controlled the political agenda in the 1960s destroyed the – deep breath! – family "values" cultivated by the Third Reich.


and


Maybe Herman would like to resurrect the Cross of Honour of the German Mother, awarded to mamas who had four or more healthy babies – who would, presumably, grow up to be the storm troopers and breeders of the future. The Nazis also gave young couples high marks (as in money) for marriage and babies. And what about that Hitler Youth? Talk about state-funded daycare!


If she didnt want to point to the specific family values of the nazis then she shouldnt have pointed to the nazis. It cant be hard to talk about time periods when women were encouraged to stay at home and produce larger families etc. She was QUITE specific, its playing a game to IGNORE that.

[Dilloduck]

No I am not playing games....other are and are trying to pretend that german values and nazi values are one in the same.

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/256397



and



If she didnt want to point to the specific family values of the nazis then she shouldnt have pointed to the nazis. It cant be hard to talk about time periods when women were encouraged to stay at home and produce larger families etc. She was QUITE specific, its playing a game to IGNORE that.

Obviously she needs to do something different if there are readers who think she supports Nazis. Then again she might be against dumbing down what she writes.

[Said1]

No I am not playing games....other are and are trying to pretend that german values and nazi values are one in the same.

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/256397



and



If she didnt want to point to the specific family values of the nazis then she shouldnt have pointed to the nazis. It cant be hard to talk about time periods when women were encouraged to stay at home and produce larger families etc. She was QUITE specific, its playing a game to IGNORE that.


Also from your article
After all, the popular 48-year-old broadcaster merely reiterated what she had been long espousing, in articles and books such as last year's The Eva Principle. Her thing is that women are putting too much emphasis on their careers and not enough on getting married and begetting children.


And


"It was a horrible time with a manic and dangerous leader who led the Germans into ruin, as we all know," she said. "But there was at the time also something good, and that is the values, that is the children, that is the families, that is a togetherness – it was all abolished, there was nothing left."


What you quoted above was purely the AUTHOR's INTERPRETATION. Like an OP-ED peice, which refelct ONE person's views/opinions on any given issue. The AUTHOR didn't point out which specific values Herman was referring too as well, that is left for us to assume.

You also didnt quote any of Herman's words, from anywhere. Typical.



Anyway, I stand by my initial assessment of you; you are indeed playing games.

[Said1]

Again she didnt point to GERMAN LIFE or GERMAN VALUES she pointed quite directly to NAZI VALUES. I would agree they are two different things which is why her pointing to the NAZI's is a problem. It seems many posters here dont want to seperate the two and are allowing her to interchange the term nazi with german when she discusses particular values. I DO see them as different which is why I recognize here comments for what they are....

Yes we have separated the two. There were lots of things happening all over the world during the Nazi ERA, which is what I do believe she is referring to. I don't recall reading anywhere that she specifically said ANYTHING about Nazi Programs designed specifically for families with the sole purpose of furthering the Nazi agenda. Perhaps you could find a quote, directly from the horses mouth.

I think you will find other people making similar comments with respect to family values at that time, only they are more inclined to refer to the depression and WWII, which also happened to be during the Nazi Era.

[Ruby]

Yes we have separated the two. There were lots of things happening all over the world during the Nazi ERA, which is what I do believe she is referring to. I don't recall reading anywhere that she specifically said ANYTHING about Nazi Programs designed specifically for families with the sole purpose of furthering the Nazi agenda. Perhaps you could find a quote, directly from the horses mouth.

I think you will find other people making similar comments with respect to family values at that time, only they are more inclined to refer to the depression and WWII, which also happened to be during the Nazi Era.


It was SHE that specified the nazi regimes policies, she was quite specific and its playing games to IGNORE that. You are reading INTO what she said and ignoring the fact that she was specific when she pointed to NAZI REGIME POLICIES.

The 40's were not the "nazi era".....they were the 40's era and there were many things going on then, not just the nazis. It was she who decided to point to them specifically and say their regime had family values that were good and that part should have remained. She was clear they did many things she didnt agree with BUT their family policies she LIKED.

[Ruby]

Also from your article


And




What you quoted above was purely the AUTHOR's INTERPRETATION. Like an OP-ED peice, which refelct ONE person's views/opinions on any given issue. The AUTHOR didn't point out which specific values Herman was referring too as well, that is left for us to assume.

You also didnt quote any of Herman's words, from anywhere. Typical.



Anyway, I stand by my initial assessment of you; you are indeed playing games.


Her specific quote was already in the first link in this thread and she points to the nazis specifically....she didnt need to, but she did.

[Said1]

Her specific quote was already in the first link in this thread and she points to the nazis specifically....she didnt need to, but she did.

Mmmkay. I guess I missed that when I posted the article. Silly me. Teehee.

[Dilloduck]

Her specific quote was already in the first link in this thread and she points to the nazis specifically....she didnt need to, but she did.

Give up, Ruby!


"It was a horrible time with a manic and dangerous leader who led the Germans into ruin, as we all know," she said. "But there was at the time also something good,

Please read this part carefully
"But there was at the time also something good.
The word also is key here in seeing that she CLEARLY was speaking of something other than the BAD things that she had just referred to.

[Psychoblues]

I think the article clearly reflects that Nazi values and current American right wing values are similar in very many ways. I don't think it in any way reflects current mainstream German ideology as being comparable to Nazi interpretation of society or it's subsequent control of same. There are credible examples of latter day Nazi-ism in Germany but they are very few and very far between. I think the concern is pointed more directly towards the Nazi-ism as being presently demonstrated by the US president and his minions and backed up by his military and supported by only the most reich wing of his political party.

[Said1]

I think the article clearly reflects that Nazi values and current American right wing values are similar in very many ways. I don't think it in any way reflects current mainstream German ideology as being comparable to Nazi interpretation of society or it's subsequent control of same. There are credible examples of latter day Nazi-ism in Germany but they are very few and very far between. I think the concern is pointed more directly towards the Nazi-ism as being presently demonstrated by the US president and his minions and backed up by his military and supported by only the most reich wing of his political party.


Conservative values with respect to families. The reference to the 60's being the women's movement? That's what I'm thinking about her remarks.

[Psychoblues]

Conservative values with respect to families? Is it not clear yet to you that there is no repect for families amongst conservatives beyond anything that either of us have ever seen including the '60's?

[Said1]

Conservative values with respect to families? Is it not clear yet to you that there is no repect for families amongst conservatives beyond anything that either of us have ever seen including the '60's?

*sigh* I was referring to Heman's comments.

But, in any case, please define your opinion of conservatives not having family values with examples, too. Pls don't use politicians as examples, use everyday shmucks, like yourself.

There's no rush, take your time. I'm having a drink myself. Thanks.

[Psychoblues]

I don't think I want to become your source for medical opinions, definitions or expounding province of information, Said1.

If you have a single question or complaint I would suggest you involve yourself in the conversation as you request any clarifications.

And a tip of the bottles to you, Senor'.

[TheSage]

Then why did she site the NAZI era. That is quite specific and the nazis DID indeed have a "family values" program as we know. It cant be hard to site a TIME PERIOD if thats all she is talking about, instead she chose to be quite specific and site the "nazi era". Thats not twist at all, thats going with what she said and NOT reading what you WANT into it to help water it down.

She is german and dosent seem to be uneducated and she is a JOURNALIST so she is just fine at choosing her words, afterall, its her profession. She cant possibly be unaware that the "nazi era" contained very specific family values nor do I think she is unaware of what those values were. If she wanted to leave OUT the bulk of the nazi era family values, then why site them at all and why not specify that you arent meaning to include those aspects?


Hey stupidass. If Hitler said 2+2=4, would that make it wrong?

[Said1]

Hey stupidass. If Hitler said 2+2=4, would that make it wrong?

Duh. Where did you go to school.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont think the nazi's had any family values.

Free speech should be allowed, and germany should be allowed and embrace their national pride, they are an excellent country now, and the world should remember, but not obsess about the holocaust.

The turks, and japanese on the other hand, wont even acknowledge the evil they committed.

Germany is in 2007, not 1945, while turkey and japan, believe 1915, and 1930-1940 never happened.

Oh, and let people say whatever they want, nobody is forcing people to watch tv.

[Immanuel]

So much for her freedom of speech ,huh ?


A few years ago we had several cases here in the USA where celebrities were fired by corporate directors for things they said. One in particular that I can remember was Whoopi Goldberg fired by Slimfast. Although, I was not offended by Whoopi's comments, if we can't laugh at ourselves (and I was a Bush supporter at the time) then we should not laugh at others, and felt the board was wrong in firing her, I supported the board's decision because they have the right to hire and fire whomever they choose to represent their company.

Liberals on the boards I posted on at the time were upset that I would have the audasity to support the "corporate elite" (just ask TM) and claimed that I was an enemy of the freedom of speech. Which is nothing short of bullsh.. er hogwash.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/07/14/slimfast.whoopi/

"We at Slim-Fast trust the public understands that the way in which Whoopi Goldberg chose to express her own personal beliefs at the recent fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall does not reflect the views and values of Slim-Fast," said a statement from Terry Olson, general manager and vice president of marketing.

There were several other cases, I think Disney was involved in one at the time, but I can't really remember who were involved and don't want to take the time to search it out.

I would ask you, do you feel that Whoopi's rights were violated? If you remember these cases, did you support the celebrity or the board of directors?

Ignoring the fact that this current case is in Germany, and I really do not know their laws, are Ms. Herman's rights being violated in this case or does the board of directors have the right to chose whom they will employ and whom they choose not to employ?

Immie

[actsnoblemartin]

immaneul, forgive me for changing the subject slightly.

Rosie o donnell brought up a question. Should someone be fired for lying (in my opinion), and shouldnt contreversial opinions, on either side be challenged with conterversial opinions from the other side.

If you have one bully on one side, and one tame one on the other, how is that exactly fair.

Maybe im wrong, it wouldnt be the first time.

But firing over opinions is wrong, look at bill maher, we fired him, cause we didnt like what he said.

I think he is a dousche, but he should NOT have been fired


A few years ago we had several cases here in the USA where celebrities were fired by corporate directors for things they said. One in particular that I can remember was Whoopi Goldberg fired by Slimfast. Although, I was not offended by Whoopi's comments, if we can't laugh at ourselves (and I was a Bush supporter at the time) then we should not laugh at others, and felt the board was wrong in firing her, I supported the board's decision because they have the right to hire and fire whomever they choose to represent their company.

Liberals on the boards I posted on at the time were upset that I would have the audasity to support the "corporate elite" (just ask TM) and claimed that I was an enemy of the freedom of speech. Which is nothing short of bullsh.. er hogwash.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/07/14/slimfast.whoopi/

"We at Slim-Fast trust the public understands that the way in which Whoopi Goldberg chose to express her own personal beliefs at the recent fund-raiser at Radio City Music Hall does not reflect the views and values of Slim-Fast," said a statement from Terry Olson, general manager and vice president of marketing.

There were several other cases, I think Disney was involved in one at the time, but I can't really remember who were involved and don't want to take the time to search it out.

I would ask you, do you feel that Whoopi's rights were violated? If you remember these cases, did you support the celebrity or the board of directors?

Ignoring the fact that this current case is in Germany, and I really do not know their laws, are Ms. Herman's rights being violated in this case or does the board of directors have the right to chose whom they will employee and whom they choose not to employ?

Immie

[Immanuel]

immaneul, forgive me for changing the subject slightly.

Rosie o donnell brought up a question. Should someone be fired for lying (in my opinion), and shouldnt contreversial opinions, on either side be challenged with conterversial opinions from the other side.

If you have one bully on one side, and one tame one on the other, how is that exactly fair.

Maybe im wrong, it wouldnt be the first time.

But firing over opinions is wrong, look at bill maher, we fired him, cause we didnt like what he said.

I think he is a dousche, but he should NOT have been fired

Should debate ever be stiffled?

I supported the right of the board to choose whomever they want to employ. I did not agree with their decision. I would not have fired Whoopi. For one reason, she spoke her opinion on her own time and right or wrong she had that right. The board does not have the right to prevent her from speaking her mind, however, they do have the right to hire her or fire her.

The same thing applies to Ms. Herman in my humble opinion. She has the right to say what she thinks whether she is right or wrong. The Board of Directors of the news station also has the right to hire whomever they want to fill the spot she has. As wrong as it appears to me, they do still have that right. If they believe that continuing to employ her will affect the profits of the company, then they have an obligation to the owners to prevent that from happening.

Immie