 |
The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child’s full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance.
Deborah Campbell, 25, said she phoned in her order last week to the ShopRite. When she told the bakery department she wanted her son’s name spelled out, she was told to talk to a supervisor, who denied the request. Spokeswoman Karen Meleta told The Easton Express-Times for Sunday’s editions that the store considered Campbell’s request inappropriate.
The Campbells ultimately got their cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said.
Heath Campbell said he named his son after Adolf Hitler because he liked the name and because “no one else in the world would have that name.” He sounded surprised by all the controversy the dispute had generated.
What do you think this holds for the kid – growing up?
In any case, your worship is noted. ©James Hill, 2008
There, I fixed that for you.
This is discrimination pure and simple. Shops can’t be allowed to choose who they will serve and not serve.
#92. If I am designing cakes, I get to exercise editorial discretion over what I put on them. For example, if I wanted to send the parents a “Fuck You, Nazis!” cake on their anniversary, the store would be justified in refusing to put profanity on it.
#92 – Lyin’ Mike
>>Shops can’t be allowed to choose who they
>>will serve and not serve.
Of course they can be, they are, and they do.
No shoes, no shirt, no service.
#94
Knowing that Mike is a conservative, I’m guessing that he’s being facetious.
Thomas,
Good retort on the book.
Lyin’ Mike,
This is discrimination pure and simple. Shops can’t be allowed to choose who they will serve and not serve.
Very true. BUT, it is legal discrimination. And they can and do discriminate all the time. Of course, they didn’t discriminate on the basis of the couple’s race, religion, sex, ethnicity, disability, or age. They discriminate on what they will write on the cake.
Legal and deserved.
Bobbo,
Please, you are making a fool out of yourself over some nit-picky little piece of bullshit neither you nor Mustard has the slightest interest in.
LET IT GO !!!
“The Campbells’ other two children also have unusual names: JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell turns 2 in a few months and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell will be 1 in April.”
They had a story about Daddy on TV with video footage (man, is he ever an ugly fugly mo fo in real life!), and it turns out “Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell” was named after Hitler’s Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler. But Big Daddy Heath didn’t know how to spell Himmler, and came up with “Hinler”.
The guy’s teeth look like some wax insert you’d buy in a costume store for Halloween. Wowie.
# 96 Mr. Fusion said, “They discriminate on what they will write on the cake.
Legal and deserved.”
Right. Like if some black parent named their kid Idi Amin and wanted that on the birthday cake.
You really should read Pat’s book. It is the WWII folks that have rewriten history starting with the VERY stupit myth that Germany would have gone after the US somehow (‘you would be speaking German).
It really doesn’t get any more ignorant than that.
As far as Poland is concerned, the part of Poland Hitler wanted was taken from Germany after WWI and was full of Germans who wanted, for the most part, to join Germany. The UK and US’ interest in this was nil.
Pat has forgot more about history that you will ever know and just to demonstrate that he knows what he is talking about he was against the Iraq war WAY before most everyone else becuase he knew it would be a disaster for this nation, and he was right.
VERY stupit myth that Germany would have gone after the US somehow (’you would be speaking German).
Yes, this is so true! Germany didn’t even have a navy. They could not land on the British Isles, let alone get to the US.
Oh, and remember how everyone was saying Saddam was the next ‘Hitler’ and that it was 1939 all over again (no appeasement!).
Well, people fell for it. They fell for it at least in part because they are historically ignorant, making bad analysis and analogies, kind of like that given above.
We would all be speaking German!!! What a F-ing hoot.
Get over your neocon-cartoon history and try to get some real depth to your understanding. Get beyond what you learned in your sophomore high school history class.
#97–Fusion. While mostly right, I do have an abiding interest in how people think, how they form opinions, how they change their mind. Its all done with words. I really can’t think of anything more important, the study/understanding/appreciation of psycholinguistics.
I agree Mustard is only trying to sharpen his rapier wit on coming to grips with dictionaries that contain words he doesn’t agree with. Not as sophisticated as #87’s Benjamin’s learned but still wrong approach.
An appeal to “old” authority will by definition miss the healthy green tip of language always growing toward the sun. Woody, decayed, infected, calcified old growth on the bottom looking to the past. Young, supple, flexible green new growth on top.
Words.
Nothing more important.
Trailer park idiots! Fun for the parents on a crack high, but that kid growing up with that name is going to face unbearable pressure… stigmatised beyond imagination.
Lemme guess:
Heath calls to his wife when he comes home from work:
“Heil, honey, I’m home!”
Just to clear up a few misconceptions. Children aren’t blank slates or clay to mold. Trying to do so will almost never produce the ‘desired’ result. Parents (almost in their entirety) are considered to be idiots by their children, I don’t think little Adolf would disagree.
Kids are much more resiliant than most people give them credit. The only way to really screw them up would require abuses that one would hope our society would intervene on.
#105–amodedo==take a few clases, read a few books. You simply are wrong.
I suspect you are thinking “within a certain range” of parental influence, yes, kiddies will one day make their own choices from what they understand to be choices. From where do you think they get their understanding of what their choices are? The fact that some kiddies rebel on a few issues doesn’t negate the majority who don’t.
The skin head kiddies are a good example. “Maybe” they will grow up and not treasure their bloodline, but they are more likely just to find some other group to hate==moreso than people raised to think for themselves, or to have compassion for all people==or even all living things?
What are my range of choices? Rocks??? amodemmdidnaja–should I respect rocks too?
Classes !? Boooks !? BULLSHIT. I’ve got three kids 6, 13, and 20 years old. If they grow up to be like their parents it’s because of the genetic predisposition of their emotional character. Choices are made as combination of character and conditioning, parental influence can play a major factor in the development of qualities or defects through conditioning, but in the end each of us have the responsibility for our own choices.
#107–amamringding===well, I’ll take you at your word that you can’t learn anything from books or classes. Do you recognize you are now disagreeing with your previous post? Ummmmh?
Now you say kiddies are affected by conditioning===and in early years that is primarily from/by parents.
Now–get a dictionary (yea, I know its a book==but give it a try) and look up the DIFFERENCE between causation and responsibility.
In the end, each individual takes responsibility for what they do (unless they are a member of congress or an athlete, or a celebrity, or they have lots of money). Or, reading that again, each individual is forced to take responsibility for what they do. WHY THEY DID IT in the first place is what the parental conditioning is all about.
See the difference. Thank god it was only three. I hope your kiddies revolt and get an education. Now, tonight, read to your youngest ((and maybe the others as well)). Doesn’t matter what it is. Love of reading leads to love of learning.
You have it within you to change things for the better.
#102 – Bobo
“An appeal to “old” authority will by definition miss the healthy green tip of language always growing toward the sun. Woody, decayed, infected, calcified old growth on the bottom looking to the past. Young, supple, flexible green new growth on top.
Words.
Nothing more important.”
Jesus, Bobbo. That’s a mighty hifalutin way of saying “I got a shitty grade in Language Arts”
Give it up, dude. Your “healthy green tip” and “young, supple, flexible green new growth on top” are nothing more than a failure to have assimilated the basic rules of the English language.
There’s a difference between breaking through new lexical, syntactical, and grammatical frontiers; being on the vanguard of language and simply not knowing how to read, write, or do ‘rithmetic.
What you’ve accomplished, son, is to have sunk to the lowest common grammatical denominator (a hyphen is an em-dash is an en-dash is a minus sign).
Do not confuse ignorance with innovation.
Shit, that name won’t get him stopped at the airports at all will it? Not to mention the obvious fact that they are all neo-nazi scum.
#100
Really. It’s not like that had a history of doing so, right? I mean their 1915 policy of unrestricted submarine warfare against the United States contrary to treaty and the sinking of the Lusitania was just an accident right? That whole negotiation between Zimmermann and von Eckhardt to offer US territories to Mexico in return for helping Germany doesn’t really count, right? But wait a minute, I forget that it was the bad ole’ US and Britain that “forced” a war with Germany. It is not like the angel Hitler had actually planned to attack the United States, right (http://www.amazon.com/TARGET-AMERICA-Hitlers-Attack-United/dp/0275966844)? Ignorant indeed.
That Poland was filled with Germans was his excuse. It was the same excuse he used with Czechoslovakia. As if there was a concept of a “historical” Germany. By that logic, the Italians should have demanded Gaul.
I consider myself a conservative and frankly, Pat’s a loon. He has moments of clarity and many more moments clouded by confusion.
#101
> Yes, this is so true!
> Germany didn’t even
> have a navy. They could
> not land on the British
> Isles, let alone get to the US.
I guess the Bismarck really was a herring along with all those U-boats. I suppose Operation Sea Lion planned to use canoes. That really tough Naval code: an urban legend apparently. I guess when the war was at its worst and 30-40% of the merchant marine fleet were being sunk per month, they were just scuttling those ships or the Bermuda Triangle is bigger than we thought.
> We would all be speaking
> German!!! What a F-ing hoot.
Revisionist history indeed. Most people do not realize how close we came to losing WWII.
More on the “myth” that Hitler wanted to attack the United States” :
http://hnn.us/articles/32084.html
Dude, you are really ignorant as the “examples” you cite don’t support your point.
Yeah, Hitler had U-boats. That’s about it. They were the manifestation of his desparation.
They were his attempt to compensate for the fact that he did not have a credible navy or any sort. They could reek havoc at times, but they were not a strategic naval asset and did not allow him to project force in any way.
And yes they sunk the Lusitania. They did so because it was carrying arms to the British – something the US denied at the time – but later was proven to be true as Hitler and the Germans claimed.
Hitler wanted to attack the united states to try to open negotiations. But he was even able to do so. He would have taken a peace treaty at any moment. In fact he tried to negotiate peace with the British many, many times.
Now, I am not saying such offers should have been taken, but he was not on a mission to take over the world nor could he have even if he wanted to.
You sound like the kind of conservative who thought invading Iraq was a good idea and there really were weapons of mass destruction.
And, as is the major thesis of Pat’s book, the reality is that the moves against Germany enabled a MORE murderous and oppressive regime (statistically provable) to take over half of Europe including Poland, the sovereignty of which the British supposedly went to war to protect.
We had about zero probably of losing the war with Germany and in fact Russia essentially beat the Germans on their own, as we came in very late in the game.
> That’s about it. They
> were the manifestation
> of his desparation.
Wow. Take your shoe out of the mouth long enough to listen and learn. Those manifestations sunk something like 40% of the shipping in and out of Britain. It almost bankrupted both the US and Britain. The breaking of the Enigma code was primarily directed at the U-boats because without it the US couldn’t supply the Allies with materials. Without that, the war is over. Rommel was supplied in North Africa primarily by those manifestations. If anything, the Germans proved the superiority of the submarine against surface ships.
What the Germans did not have were numbers in capital surface ships. However, for the type of warfare in the North Atlantic, they weren’t needed.
> But [Hiler]he was even able to do so.
> He would have taken a
> peace treaty [from the US]
> at any moment
Captain Obvious, without the US, Germany conquers Europe. Of course, he would have entertained a treaty at any time.
> but he was not
> on a mission to take
> over the world
Right. Just Europe, Asia and North America and when he got around to it, Africa, South America and Australia but Antarctica was safe.
> We had about zero probably
> of losing the war with
> Germany and in fact Russia
> essentially beat the Germans on
> their own, as we came in
> very late in the game.
Not even remotely true. If a little known Polish communications officer doesn’t escape as the Germans invade we probably never break the Enigma code. That Polish officer was the mathematics wiz that was the first to crack the Army’s Enigma code and show the US and British how to do it as they were still using linguists. If Hitler finishes off or captures the 340K British and French soldiers at Dunkirk we probably lose the war. If Hitler carries through with Operation Sea Lion, we lose the war. If Hitler continues bombing the RAF for another month or two instead of bombing London, we lose the war. If Hitler manages to bomb Bletchley Park even once we probably lose the war. If the Germans convince the Japanese to wait on attacking the US, Britain likely falls before we can enter which likely means they win the war. Specifically, if Britain fell or if the Germans were able to take the oil fields in the Middle East or the Russian oil fields we lose the war.
You sound like a clueless liberal that thinks he knows something about World War II but doesn’t. It is easy to sit back after it has happened and say that there was no chance we couldn’t win. However, when you look at the actual events, you find that there were many chance occurrences which if they happen a different way, would have changed the outcome of the war.
#114–Thomas==seems to me you commit the same error you complain of. I agree it was not “certain” the USA was going to win ON THE SAME BASIS that any of those events you name would not have caused the USA to lose the war.
How about this little fact: “The Bomb.”
End of Story.
daveg’s point was that there was no way we could lose WWII. Simply put, if Britain, the Balkins or Russia fall, we lose. In all three of those cases, it came very, very close but for some mistakes on Germany’s part. Hell, if we had entered the war six months later, Britain would have likely collapsed.
In other words, even once we entered the war, the Germans would have been so entrenched and with sufficient resources that we probably would not have been able to stop them. The Japanese were somewhat doomed once we entered the war but Germany is another matter. By the way, if Britain falls, that means much of the bombing of German factories and research facilities doesn’t happen and it is likely that the Germans also develop the bomb along with bombers capable of reaching the US and jet aircraft.
#116–Thomas==its always good to appreciate the complexity of our History but thinking any combination of different facts means anything is just stroking an ego. History is too complex.
I could counter each point, but I too would be guessing. Pure speculation I think its called–can’t even put odds on the different outcomes, History being so complex.
Fun to think about at times. But to conclude anything is an exercise in ego, or wish fulfillment?
Or–the basis of a book contract just like Bucannan. I look forward to reading your alternative construction.
# 116 Thomas
I agree. Also, WW2 was the only legit war in the 20th, or 21st century, as far as US involvement.
Again, your points to not support your argument.
However, for the type of warfare in the North Atlantic, [boats] weren’t needed.
Yeah, but to invade the US they would be.
That is what we are arguing about – the whole we would be speaking German canard.
And turns out boats were needed just to defeat England, which Germany was never even able to invade.
So seems like they were needed for that ‘type’ of warfare.
All your example of battles in the western front that could have lost the war are also part of the incorrect western centric history of the war. These events were inconsequential, for the most part.
The war was fought and lost on the eastern front. And that ended up being a very sad thing for those in the middle of the battle.
Becuase, while Poland and the other eastern countries did not like being overrun by Germany, the greatly feared becoming satellites of the Soviet Union.
And it turns out they were justified in their fear, both for the horrific acts committed right after the war and the way they lived for the next fifty years behind the iron curtain.
That last part is really the thesis of Pat’s book and it is a very interesting one.
#117
If you are suggesting that to argue could’ve, would’ve, should’ve after the war is over will not change it, then of course. The events happened as they did and here we are.
There are obviously many factors that go into determining the driving force for historical events. The primary point I’m making is that to assume that the outcome of WWII was a forgone conclusion is to ignore the numerous close calls that had they gone differently would have drastically changed the outcome of the war. Of course, we’ll never know for sure and simulations are obviously imperfect because they cannot possibly account for all the variables. Yet, it is not much of stretch to see that if certain events had occurred even slightly different, it would have changed the outcome.