So was Hitler. Being a great public speaker doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you're a good role model. Stephen Hawking - not such a great public speaker because it's hard to listen to Teletype for 3 hours. However, if any of my children would pick him as a role model (astrophysicist), then I'd say that's a pretty darn good choice compared to a self righteous liberal hippy.

If Jesus was a good role model, or even existed, no one is really following his example. And for good reason.

In the book of Mathew, Jesus rails against wealthy people and told his followers to give up all of their worldly possessions and follow him. Charles Manson, Jim Jones and David Koresh did the same thing. And then raped and killed and tortured their subjects because they were dumb enough to follow their advice. If we all gave up our worldly possessions and owned nothing, this economy would hit rock bottom, everything would rot and their would be stinky homeless people everywhere, dying of hunger. What an idiotic thing to do. I'm sorry, I'm sure "heaven" as it were is this awesome place where you're just constantly tripping on the psychedelic cosmos and you can fly everywhere, but here on earth and in reality, we live in a material world. I like nice cars, flat screen TV's and hot women. I get the spiritual value of all that religious crap is really important to most people, but I find it hard to believe that if you make tons of money and give tons of it to charity and treat yourself to some fast vehicles, some fine wine and Ben & Jerry's new flavor ice cream that you're going to hell in a hand basket. That's just ridiculous. I mean, look at the Vatican for Christ's sake! (Pun intended.)

I find humor in the phrase "What Would Jesus Do?" because Jesus got his ass nailed to a huge wooden cross with nails the size of railroad spikes. So, no, probably not a good role model. And why did he feel that was necessary to absolve my sins again if we're all still a bunch of sinners? Ridiculous premise in every way.

Glenn Beck has a similar argument that Hitler was a progressive liberal. All this debate is about is assuming by equating Hitler with Liberalism would mean all liberals are Hitlers. So the premise is false in the first place.

First of all, Hitler was a Nazi. The Nazi party had nothing to do with the contemporary political dynamic of today between liberalism and conservatism.

I would not equate Hitler as a liberal OR a conservative in these terms. There are a many people that are not fans of George W. Bush or Barack Obama but neither deserve to be compared to someone who would be capable and willing to murder 6 million Jews, Gays, and political prisoners.

Unfortunately, people like to pick and choose facts or pseudo facts to support their political arguments. I am a libertarian, right smack dab down the middle, so I won't be rooting for or arguing against either side.

Having said that, after reading massive volumes about the Weimar Republic, Germany during WW1, WW2, all the way back to the emperor, Hitler's history of staunch conservatism is pretty clear.

Hitler exemplified extreme far right policies over anything else. In fact, the only way he was elected chancellor and appealed to the public (which he lost the first time he ran because he ran as a conservative) was PRETENDING to be a liberal socialist. Once in power, his policies very quickly shifted to extreme right wing conservatism and fascism. And this is not to say that conservatism has anything to do with fascism, but the history has been clearly stated.