[Chongo]

, and Hillary sits back and watches with glee.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, comparing everything under the sun that you disagree with to Nazi Germany and/or Hitler is a weak, insipid rhetorical ploy. Drawing such vague comparisons to the Holocaust is intellectually lazy and comes across as an attempt to brush off a topic without examining the actual details of the situation at hand. That's what Godwin's Law is saying: Nazis are brought up in almost every conversation because it's viewed as an easy out.

It's exactly the sort of debate tactic I'm sure Hitler would have loved. (See what I did there?)

I have to disagree with you there. Summarily rejecting every comparison made to Nazism just because it's a comparison to Nazism is an act of intellectual laziness. Moreover, it's a convenient way to mitigate the subject of Nazism itself: Some likely hope that by shouting "Godwin" they can get people to stop talking about Nazism and eventually forget about the subject. I'm not saying that about you Chuckit, but I think it is part of the Godwin ploy. Many comparisons to Nazism are indeed poorly crafted, but running reflexively to Godwin every single time is a cop-out.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I have to disagree with you there. Summarily rejecting every comparison made to Nazism just because it's a comparison to Nazism is an act of intellectual laziness. Moreover, it's a convenient way to mitigate the subject of Nazism itself: Some likely hope that by shouting "Godwin" they can get people to stop talking about Nazism and eventually forget about the subject. I'm not saying that about you Chuckit, but I think it is part of the Godwin ploy. Many comparisons to Nazism are indeed poorly crafted, but running reflexively to Godwin every single time is a cop-out.

That's true, it's entirely possible something might be most comparable to Nazi Germany. But the point is that it's usually not the most relevant comparison, and there's usually a less "loaded" alternative. In this case, personally, I don't think the situation is especially similar to Nazi Germany and the comparison carries more emotional charge than logical value.

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And a Nazi would say Hitler is taken out of context, too. He was just trying to make a better Germany, right?

You lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by D. S. Troyer 

You lose.

Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

let's go all the way and close this thread

[Dakar the Fourth]

Man, that looks photochopped to hell.

[Chuckit]

You mean Hillary's arm doesn't actually produce its own light?

[Dakar the Fourth]

Contrary to her campaign claims, no it does not.

[Sherman Homan]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Man, that looks photochopped to hell.

That's my guess, too. Hillary always wears pant suits....

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Have you even watched the videos of the sermons? They're pretty hateful.
The man is obsessed with Israel and the Jews as evil, and the US as a close second to that evil.

YouTube - Barack Obama's Mentor, Jeremiah Wright - Anti Israel Sermon

YouTube - Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, US To Blame for 9-11

He's also racially divisive and obsessed with race.

Democrat Taylor Marsh Broadcasts Live Talk Radio and Blogs Politics

So much for wanting to judge people on the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin. So much for MLK Jr. We've got Rev. Wright holding everyone back.

I'm not seeing what you describe in those videos. Are they just poor examples?

Hateful is not the same as oppressed. The US's actions in Israel is not the same as Israel itself, nor as the Jews in general. And saying that the US reaps what it sews is a valid criticism. Again, these clips may be out of context, but judging just by what's in them, I didn't get any impression that he was advocating anything hateful, violent or revolutionary. It's not like he was saying "down with Israel" or "down with whites" or "down with America." The worst I saw was "God damn America," but it wasn't in the context of advocating the downfall of America, it was in the context of "Shame on America." It really does seem like nothing more than a turn of phrase. A bad one, definitely, but not something more than that. I'm sure you disagree with him on many points, but I think "hateful" is too strong. At least based on these clips. Unless you mean it to say he hates the way Blacks are unfairly treated, but that's a real stretch of the word "hateful."

[Big Mac]

You are far, far gone.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So only those personally present at given events are allowed to hold opinions that you will consider valid?

No, but all things being equal first-hand is better than second hand, information-wise. In this case, a first-hand opinion says it was out of context, and your second-hand opinion says it wasn't. You don't win that match-up. If you could provide the context to show otherwise, then you would win it.

I thought you were keeping an open mind. To the contrary, you've drawn just as strong a conclusion as I have

What conclusion did I draw? That people quoted in the news aren't necessarily lying? I'd say that's not as strong a conclusion as yours, which is that they necessarily are lying.

It's called the benefit of the doubt. McCain had it a few weeks ago when people accused him of banging that lobbyist. And Obama and the fellow quoted in the article have it when they say that this preacher's inflammatory rhetoric is just rhetoric, not the actual message and the reason they respect him as a preacher.

I'm still waiting for those links from you, Big Mac. And don't try to say "you get them." "Obama eats babies, prove me wrong" is not a valid discussion tactic.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You are far, far gone.

Let's do a test. I'll say that giving Israel carte blanche with money and weapons is too aggressive a policy for our own national security. Now tell me that I'm an anti-semite for saying so.

That's the heart of what I saw in that clip. He says the US's policies in Israel are indirectly/partly responsible for 9/11, and vmarks called that "hateful" and "Jews are evil." That link has absolutely not been established. Not by those videos at any rate. Did you even watch them?

[zerostar]

I think this may be the first time EVER I agree with some of you guys, Obama has showed SERIOUS mis-judgement and he either is unable to make a good decision, for 20 years! or totally believes what this man stands for. Either way he should be ashamed and Hillary should get the nomination.

The clips of this "Pastor" made me sick on the inside. I heard about 10 of them so-far and AFAIK there are more out there.

HILLARY '08!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Let's do a test. I'll say that giving Israel carte blanche with money and weapons is too aggressive a policy for our own national security. Now tell me that I'm an anti-semite for saying so.

That's the heart of what I saw in that clip. He says the US's policies in Israel are indirectly/partly responsible for 9/11, and vmarks called that "hateful" and "Jews are evil." That link has absolutely not been established. Not by those videos at any rate. Did you even watch them?

I fear you may be expecting common sense to be ... uh well, you know ... common. Unfortunately, when it comes to US foreign policy in the Middle East ... especially with respect to Israel .... this is sadly not the case. Al-Qaeda ... no Osama Bin Laden himself ... can state unequivocally that the reasons for the 911 attacks was US troop presence in Saudi Arabia and US support for Israel against the Palestinians. The 911 Commission Report confirms this no less. But there are still those who believe that "they hate us for our freedoms". There are still those who can't fathom the thought that US foreign policy in the Middle East ... even when that policy results in the deaths and oppression of thousands of people over decades of time ... can actually be a contributing factor in the terrorist attacks against our nation. It's way too easy to just caricature anyone who questions said US foreign policy as an anti-Semite.

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Let's do a test. I'll say that giving Israel carte blanche with money and weapons is too aggressive a policy for our own national security. Now tell me that I'm an anti-semite for saying so.

This is the essence of "identity politics" You say something critical of Obama or you want the borders secured, you are a racist. You challenge Hillary on her "experience", you are a misogynist, the list goes on. By creating these "protected groups" the left has set themselves up for this. As the good reverend would say; "the left's chickens.... have come home to roost"

[Ghoser777]

I can't believe this election is going to come down to things Barack Obama's pastor has said instead of the issues. The funny thing is I doubt any of the actual candidates will do anything actively to use this against him - it will all be the media and "surrogates." I hate politics

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I fear you may be expecting common sense to be ... uh well, you know ... common. Unfortunately, when it comes to US foreign policy in the Middle East ... especially with respect to Israel .... this is sadly not the case. Al-Qaeda ... no Osama Bin Laden himself ... can state unequivocally that the reasons for the 911 attacks was US troop presence in Saudi Arabia and US support for Israel against the Palestinians. The 911 Commission Report confirms this no less. But there are still those who believe that "they hate us for our freedoms". There are still those who can't fathom the thought that US foreign policy in the Middle East ... even when that policy results in the deaths and oppression of thousands of people over decades of time ... can actually be a contributing factor in the terrorist attacks against our nation. It's way too easy to just caricature anyone who questions said US foreign policy as an anti-Semite.

OAW

Brigitte Gabriel would beg to differ
Amazon Online Reader : Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America Online Reader : Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America[/url]

I won't bother with the link, you can go to the State Departments website and find a listing of all the terrorist attacks against the US, long before we had any presence in the middle east. all the way back to the '50's.