[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
How about you try answering my question?

I answered your question, and in return I was told my head was stuck up my butt. That's not real good incentive to anyone else to make the attempt, eh?

[typoon]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Where are all of the Republicans here? All I hear are left wing, liberal view points. How about some good old conservative ideals? I wish this country would go back to its roots...otherwise we will be certainly destroyed. There is to much liberalism going on in this country. If you agree, speak up!

Oh and liberals, you can speak up to, I rarely take offense to things said in cyberspace.....

Don't worry We are here. I've just been taking a break from the politics forums for a while.

[wolfen]

The terms are perpetuated to prop up weak minded people who need a term to lean against. Heaven forbid they should think through problems issue by issue, bill by bill...no no ...they've got to have an US and a THEM. Frickin' cannibalism, that's all it is.

Stand up for yourself and have your own views. If you have to align yourself with liberal or conservative, you're just a number. When I hear people use these terms I tune them out. "Oh, you're one of those." We might as well be the Catholics and Protestants in 1800's Ireland, for Pete's sake. They trot through town waving some stupid banners and all of a sudden there's a riot. What a waste.

Besides their efficiency in dividing people, these terms lack any worthwhile universal political meaning or application. They exist purely for egomaniacs and the lazy masses who follow them. If you're self-respecting individual I encourage you to purge this terminology from your repertoire.



wolfen

[olePigeon]

I'll let you guys in on a little secret about politicians. Now, I know this will be some sort of shock to everyone. Take a deep breath... relax. Here we go.



Politicians lie.



There, I said it. Now everyone knows. I'm sure this information will change the face of politics for ever.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I answered your question, and in return I was told my head was stuck up my butt. That's not real good incentive to anyone else to make the attempt, eh?

Boo hoo. Here's a clue: every time you try to compare Bush with Hitler (or necons with Nazis), I'll respond with contempt. You can bank on it.

And please don't waste my time and yours trying to "educate" me about the neocons. I've been reading Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, et alia for years. I know what they believe and advocate. The simple fact is the overwhelming majority of Republicans support Bush's foreign policy. Not all of them can be neocons. Neoconservatives joined with conservatives because they were animated by the SAME ideals about the US and her role in the world. During the Cold War conservatives used to speak of rollback as opposed to containment. The only real difference between then and now is who's on the other side. During the Cold War it was communism. Now it's a radical variant of Islam.

What distinguishes neoconservatives and conservatives isn't foreign policy. It's domestic issues. Neocons happily embrace the idea of big government. Bill Kristol calls himself a "big government conservative" all the time.

Here's a question for you: who is James Nuechterlein? How about Richard John Neuhaus? If you don't know who they are, you really don't know anything about neoconservatism.

edit: spelling

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Boo hoo. Here's a clue: every time you try to compare Bush with Hitler (or necons with Nazis), I'll respond with contempt. You can bank on it.

You are not your political party. You are not the country you live in. You are not the contents of your wallet. You are not the man/woman you voted for. You are not your talking points. You are certainly not your damned khakis. You are not the all-knowing, all-seeing ruler of the world. You are not a unique snowflake. Snowflakes can't type.

---

First rule of the Political Lounge: No personal attacks.

Second rule of the Political Lounge: No personal attacks.

Third rule of the Political Lounge: Don't take it personally.

Fourth rule of the Political Lounge: All other forum rules apply.

Fifth rule of the Political Lounge: Think before you post.

Sixth rule of the Political Lounge: No shirt, no shoes, no service. Wait..scratch that. Clothing is completely optional. Just don't tell us.

Seventh rule of the Political Lounge: Threads go on as long as they have to. Lockination shouldn't occur too often if the other rules are followed.

Eighth and final rule of the Political Lounge: If this is your first time at the Political Lounge, good luck. You'll need it.

If I compare the hegemony objectives of the neocons to the world domination objectives of another person with the same objectives, that is within the rules of this forum. When you attack me personally for doing so, that is outside the rules of this forum.

You need to mature to the point where you are able to differentiate between a criticism of Bush and an attack on you personally. You do not need to be so ultrasensitive that you take it personally when I criticize the government. You need to stop whining so much because your sensibilities cannot withstand criticizism of your political party.
You need to address people's arguments and stop trying to threaten them with your "contempt".

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If I compare the hegemony objectives of the neocons to the world domination objectives of another person with the same objectives, that is within the rules of this forum. When you attack me personally for doing so, that is outside the rules of this forum.

You need to mature to the point where you are able to differentiate between a criticism of Bush and an attack on you personally. You do not need to be so ultrasensitive that you take it personally when I criticize the government. You need to stop whining so much because your sensibilities cannot withstand criticizism of your political party.
You need to address people's arguments and stop trying to threaten them with your "contempt".

Every time you try to compare Bush with Hitler, I'll respond with contempt. That's not a threat. Nothing unltasensitive about it. All it means is I have a functioning brain.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Every time you try to compare Bush with Hitler, I'll respond with contempt. That's not a threat. Nothing unltasensitive about it. All it means is I have a functioning brain.

Why is it a personal issue to you if someone compares Bush with Hitler? Obviously people compare Bush with Hitler. I hear it all the time. Are you worried that you'll be characterized as a nazi for supporting someone who is compared with Hitler? So what if you are? The only people who are going to think that are the people who are already going to think that. There's no point in being upset over someone else's opinion.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Every time you try to compare Bush with Hitler, I'll respond with contempt. That's not a threat. Nothing unltasensitive about it. All it means is I have a functioning brain.

but you are responding to my criticism of bush policy with a personal attack against me. With your "functioning brain" can you discern the difference in targeting?

who is discussing politics, and who is operating against the rules of the forum?

now, let's see how well your brain functions.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Why is it a personal issue to you if someone compares Bush with Hitler?

It isn't personal. It's moronic. If I were to have a discussion about something to do with math and someone kept insisting 2+2=3, I wouldn't respect that person too. I also would probably just walk away from the "discussion" which is what I usually do when people try to peddle this nonsense about Bush and Hitler. 99% of this stuff I ignore. This time Lerk addressed me directly with it and I responded.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
It isn't personal. It's moronic. If I were to have a discussion about something to do with math and someone kept insisting 2+2=3, I wouldn't respect that person too. I also would probably just walk away from the "discussion" which is what I usually do when people try to peddle this nonsense about Bush and Hitler. 99% of this stuff I ignore. This time Lerk addressed me directly with it and I responded.

If you can't see the qualitative difference between someone claiming something provably false and stating an opinion that you happen to disagree with, then you really shouldn't be involved in serious discussion.

The same goes for an inability to respond to statements you don't like in a mature and constructive manner.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You may want to make sure you are thick-skinned enough to hang in here, because you will undoubtedly be attacked, smeared, and demonized for having opinions and positions that differ from the other 90% of loungers here who are liberal.

Poor wittle baby. Boo ****ing hoo.

And Instead of developing and pushing for well-planned solutions, they will spend the majority of their time running to all corners of the internet to find hack-job blog posts and articles that helps them paint Bush, Cheney, Republican congressmen, senators, and justices, and anyone else with a sense of morality as dumb, stupid, ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, and just plain evil.

Actually, no need for us to do that... you've been doing a pretty good job doing it for us.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
If you can't see the qualitative difference between someone claiming something provably false and stating an opinion that you happen to disagree with, then you really shouldn't be involved in serious discussion...

If you think a comparison between Bush and Hitler is somehow valid, you really shouldn't be involved in serious discussion.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
If you think a comparison between Bush and Hitler is somehow valid, you really shouldn't be involved in serious discussion.

Try being objective for just one second and thinking about that. They're both leaders of large countries. They're both very charismatic and good at inspiring people. And they both took advantage of a perceived threat to their people (real or imagined) to launch a war and institute laws restricting civil rights.

Nothing I said there was false. Those are all perfectly valid parallels between Bush and Hitler. Obviously there is some merit to the comparisson. This doesn't mean that Bush is as bad as Hitler. Nor does it mean Bush is going to follow the same path as Hitler. But to ignore the parallels discount out of hand the possibility that there could be similarities between the two is dishonest and irresponsible.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Try being objective for just one second and thinking about that...

One can say many true things and still lie. Everything you said about Bush can be said in spades about FDR. FDR was a much better speaker and probably did a better job inspiring people. Moreover, the Patriot Act is small potatoes compared to the internment of Japanese-Americans. But so what? Any attempt at drawing parallels between FDR and Hitler would have nothing to do with being objective and everything to do with trying to smear FDR which is what you're trying to do to Bush.

Where's the Muslim Kristallnacht? Where are the death camps? The crematoria? The piles of gold fillings harvested from the teeth of dead Muslims? Where's the soap made from their bodies? The lampshades made from their skin? Are Muslims being used for medical experiments in Bush's America?

Play these games all you want. I won't. WHAT do you think you're accomplishing? Your "argument" is a dishonest, grotesque hatchet job. I don't respect it. I NEVER will.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
One can say many true things and still lie. Everything you said about Bush can be said in spades about FDR. FDR was a much better speaker and probably did a better job inspiring people. Moreover, the Patriot Act is small potatoes compared to the internment of Japanese-Americans. But so what? Any attempt at drawing parallels between FDR and Hitler would have nothing to do with being objective and everything to do with trying to smear FDR which is what you're trying to do to Bush.

Where's the Muslim Kristallnacht? Where are the death camps? The crematoria? The piles of gold fillings harvested from the teeth of dead Muslims? Where's the soap made from their bodies? The lampshades made from their skin? Are Muslims being used for medical experiments in Bush's America?

Play these games all you want. I won't. WHAT do you think you're accomplishing? Your "argument" is a dishonest, grotesque hatchet job. I don't respect it. I NEVER will.

welcome to my ignore list.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
One can say many true things and still lie. Everything you said about Bush can be said in spades about FDR. FDR was a much better speaker and probably did a better job inspiring people. Moreover, the Patriot Act is small potatoes compared to the internment of Japanese-Americans. But so what? Any attempt at drawing parallels between FDR and Hitler would have nothing to do with being objective and everything to do with trying to smear FDR which is what you're trying to do to Bush.

Where's the Muslim Kristallnacht? Where are the death camps? The crematoria? The piles of gold fillings harvested from the teeth of dead Muslims? Where's the soap made from their bodies? The lampshades made from their skin? Are Muslims being used for medical experiments in Bush's America?

Play these games all you want. I won't. WHAT do you think you're accomplishing? Your "argument" is a dishonest, grotesque hatchet job. I don't respect it. I NEVER will.

But it's true, and you just admitted it. That's all I was saying. That the comparison is valid. I don't deny that the comparison is valid with other presidents as well, and I specifically said that just because the comparison is valid that doesn't mean Bush is as bad as Hitler. It is not a hatchet job. It is an analyses of current events based off historical events, and because there are parallels it behooves us to examine them so that we can be sure that history won't repeat itself and we can try to learn from our past mistakes. Flat-out denying any connection with history when one obviously exists is a dangerous thing to do, even if that connection amounts to nothing this time.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
One can say many true things and still lie. Everything you said about Bush can be said in spades about FDR. FDR was a much better speaker and probably did a better job inspiring people. Moreover, the Patriot Act is small potatoes compared to the internment of Japanese-Americans. But so what? Any attempt at drawing parallels between FDR and Hitler would have nothing to do with being objective and everything to do with trying to smear FDR which is what you're trying to do to Bush.

Where's the Muslim Kristallnacht? Where are the death camps? The crematoria? The piles of gold fillings harvested from the teeth of dead Muslims? Where's the soap made from their bodies? The lampshades made from their skin? Are Muslims being used for medical experiments in Bush's America?

Play these games all you want. I won't. WHAT do you think you're accomplishing? Your "argument" is a dishonest, grotesque hatchet job. I don't respect it. I NEVER will.

BINGO

[nonhuman]

Yes, truth is lies. Good job. Gee, why does that sound familiar? Oh well, it doesn't matter, at least we'll have peace thanks to the war.

Hey Lerk, do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to? The more things progress, the more inclined I am to believe you've been right about everything.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
One can say many true things and still lie. Everything you said about Bush can be said in spades about FDR. FDR was a much better speaker and probably did a better job inspiring people. Moreover, the Patriot Act is small potatoes compared to the internment of Japanese-Americans. But so what? Any attempt at drawing parallels between FDR and Hitler would have nothing to do with being objective and everything to do with trying to smear FDR which is what you're trying to do to Bush.

Where's the Muslim Kristallnacht? Where are the death camps? The crematoria? The piles of gold fillings harvested from the teeth of dead Muslims? Where's the soap made from their bodies? The lampshades made from their skin? Are Muslims being used for medical experiments in Bush's America?

Play these games all you want. I won't. WHAT do you think you're accomplishing? Your "argument" is a dishonest, grotesque hatchet job. I don't respect it. I NEVER will.

*SMACKDOWN*

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Where's the Muslim Kristallnacht? Where are the death camps? The crematoria? The piles of gold fillings harvested from the teeth of dead Muslims? Where's the soap made from their bodies? The lampshades made from their skin? Are Muslims being used for medical experiments in Bush's America?

yeah, nothing to see here folks...move along!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Hey Lerk, do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to? The more things progress, the more inclined I am to believe you've been right about everything.

I"d have rather been wrong, to be honest. I saw the writing on the wall, and I wasn't happy with what it said. The only thing that confused me is why the writing was clear to me but very few others, in the beginning. *shrugs*

[3gg3]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
*SMACKDOWN*

Hardly. More like D.B.S.F.T.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I"d have rather been wrong, to be honest. I saw the writing on the wall, and I wasn't happy with what it said. The only thing that confused me is why the writing was clear to me but very few others, in the beginning. *shrugs*

I think most people just didn't take the trouble to read it. I certainly saw that there was something, but didn't think about it enough to have a real idea of what. Most people seem to have ignored it in some blind hope that their elected leaders actually do represent their interests.

[vmarks]

Our Republic has withstood an awful lot:

The horrors of FDR, quite possibly the worst President America has ever had.

Hoover's FBI and intimidation.

McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Affairs.

Comparatively, what we're seeing now pales in comparison.

Is the response we've seen to attacks within her borders the correct one? Law is rarely the right tool in the right measure- oftentimes it's the equivalent of using a jackhammer to drive screws. Is there some value in the response as it was executed? Absolutely. Will the pendulum swing back the other way? Undoubtedly.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
welcome to my ignore list.

pfft!

Roger should wear it as a badge of honor to make your ignorance list.

You can't counter a single point he made. You can't respond with anything other than: "Gee, since I can't refute a single point, have nothing of substance to counter with besides more silly prongs and self-back pats about how 'right' I am all the time, and he blows all the stupid Bush=Hitler leftist nonsense COMPLETELY out of the water, I'll just add him to my ignorance list. Problem of being challenged with actual fact and substance over fluff solved."


Typical.

Spliffdaddy, I'd like to nominate Roger's post for the "Smackdown Of The Year", judging by the 'instant heads firmly buried in the sand' reaction it generated!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
pfft!

Roger should wear it as a badge of honor to make your ignorance list.

You can't counter a single point he made. You can't respond with anything other than: "Gee, since I can't refute a single point, have nothing of substance to counter with besides more silly prongs and self-back pats about how 'right' I am all the time, and he blows all the stupid Bush=Hitler leftist nonsense COMPLETELY out of the water, I'll just add him to my ignorance list. Problem of being challenged with actual fact and substance over fluff solved."


Typical.

Spliffdaddy, I'd like to nominate Roger's post for the "Smackdown Of The Year", judging by the 'instant heads firmly buried in the sand' reaction it generated!

Are you reading the same thread I am? doesn't appear so.

[Spliffdaddy]

^ on the receiving-end of countless *SMACKDOWNS*.

[Lerkfish]

ok, apparently I'm going to have to get remedial for the debate-challenged.


If I say that Larry Bird and Magic Johnson are both tall professional basketball players, that's a valid comparison.
If someone comes up later and claims the comparison is invalid because they are not both African American or Caucasian, they both don't live in Boston, they both don't drive the same car, etc, etc. that is setting up pointless straw man arguments. That is where one intentionally ignores the actual comparison I'm making, which is valid, and expands the comparison to extreme hyperbole where it obviously doesn't jive, then claiming the original comparison doesn't jive because of the bogus points set up as "straw men", and shoot down the straw men and declare victory. It may allows one to feel smug, filled with contempt or whatever, but its hardly debating my actual point.

If I say that both the current administration and Hitler had the goal of reshaping (regime changing) other countries preemptively.....that's a valid comparison. If I say there is little difference between the "global leadership" goal of the neocons, wherein America pursues its own interests through hegemony, and the world domination goal of the third reich, that IS my opinion, but it is also based on a valid comparison.....as far as it is narrowly stated.
For someone to come in later and say "where is the genocide, concentration camps, etc," -- they're setting up straw man arguments that are obviously not valid in an attempt to erase the valid comparisons I've made.

It is also ludicrous to then claim I've lost the debate because I am not addressing the straw man points: I never made those claims so I have no need to defend them. Others are making those claims, attempting to attributing them to me, and then demanding I address them. Homey don't play dat. I will defend my own points, if need be, but I"m not going to be drawn into a protracted battle over trumped up straw man comparisons....understand?

Also, someone got put on my ignore list because THEY couldn't debate the issue without personal attack, and for insisting on taking my criticism or discussion of the administration PERSONALLY. Since they could not elevated themselves above that, I see no point in being drug down to their level.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

If I say that Larry Bird and Magic Johnson are both tall professional basketball players, that's a valid comparison.

Extremely lame example that doesn�t relate to this subject in any meaningful way. There�s nothing as remotely controversial about either Larry Bird or Magic Johnson as there is dredging up the name �Adolph Hitler�. A more valid example as pertains to this issue, would be saying �Kofi Annan is like Idi Amin.� Grasp the difference?

If someone comes up later and claims the comparison is invalid because they are not both African American or Caucasian, they both don't live in Boston, they both don't drive the same car, etc, etc. that is setting up pointless straw man arguments.

This is just how bizarre your �arguments� are. You�re the one making straw man arguments, and pawning it off on others. No one is comparing mere occupations, nor comparing two men based on their race or where they lived. Any lame comparisons between Bush and Hitler have NOTHING what-so-ever to do with anything so trivial.

If I say that both the current administration and Hitler had the goal of reshaping (regime changing) other countries preemptively.....that's a valid comparison. If I say there is little difference between the "global leadership" goal of the neocons, wherein America pursues its own interests through hegemony, and the world domination goal of the third reich, that IS my opinion, but it is also based on a valid comparison.....

Good grief. What a sorry lack of understanding or knowledge of world events and history you display. Sad on so many levels.

For someone to come in later and say "where is the genocide, concentration camps, etc," -- they're setting up straw man arguments that are obviously not valid in an attempt to erase the valid comparisons I've made.

Number one, you haven�t made any valid comparison, because there isn�t one.

Number two, it�s REDICULOUS to try and float that it�s possible to separate a figure like Adolph Hitler with �genocide, concentration camps, etc�. Your pretense that it is, (along with other leftists who attempt this) is just ludicrous. Invoking the name �Hitler� is not just saying �oh you know, he�s another world leader, and he preemptively did this and yada yada�� Sorry, the name has come to signify and stand for far more than just the narrow range of BULLCRAP that you�re trying to ascribe to it, and it positively CAN�T be separated from an entire range of historical realities. TOUGH CRAP if those historical realities blow your lame �comparison� out of the water. It�s just pure NONSENSE trying to pretend that everyone is just going to separate the REALITIES of the real Adolph Hitler and the REALITIES of the real Nazi Germany (both of which you�ve displayed a complete lack of understanding of, in your childish pretense that anything happening today is anywhere near the same thing) for the sake of convenience of your non-argument.

It�s also PURE BULLCRAP to pretend that people motivated by Bush hatred to make a lame comparison to Hitler, don�t themselves understand the full ramifications of such a comparison, and that they don�t know who Hitler was or what he was responsible for, and are all just falling back on lame cherry-picked nonsense to make the comparison.

If I compared someone to Ted Bundy, it would be ludicrous to then fall back on the chicken$hit pretense that I�m merely saying: �Oh you know, he was a white male, lived in the US, went to law school.� And then if I had the gall to claim that someone pointing out that I�m in reality making an unfair comparison to a brutal, sadistic serial killer, is the one floating the straw argument! Oh no gee whiz, the ONLY reason someone would compare anyone with an emotionally charged figure like Ted Bundy is because of some bullcrap cherry-picked nonsense like his occupation, not that whole UNRELATED serial killer/murder thing! Right! That�s leftist �logic� for you.

This whole example of the Bush-Hitler things just goes to prove how absolutely far some on the left have allowed their Bush-hatred to drag them. To the absolute DEPTHS of intellectual dishonesty. It�s sad to see, but somehow it�s not all that surprising.

It is also ludicrous to then claim I've lost the debate blather blather..

Not to worry, you lost the debate with the very FIRST lame Hitler comparison.

[3gg3]

Well, the Republicans have spoken out.

So wrong, so misguided, so...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by 3gg3:
Well, the Republicans have spoken out.

So wrong, so misguided, so...

it is indeed sad.

[phoenixboy]

bush = hitler (1930)

now bring on the lampshades, the kzs, auschwitz, ghettos, ww II, kristallnacht...

yeah, didn't think so! why? because hitler (and the nazis) were such great guys in 1930!

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
welcome to my ignore list.

Lerkfish: master of the empty gesture. Guess I'm going to have to start posting more so you'll have something to ignore.

[Zimphire]

I read the post that made him put you on the list.

I couldn't find anything other than you were dead on.

The Hitler comparisons are not only silly and hateful, but very transparent.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
But it's true, and you just admitted it. That's all I was saying. That the comparison is valid...

No, I was saying exactly the opposite. The comparison is NOT valid. It's like comparing a head cold to cancer. You don't say anything meaningful about the cold and you end up trivializing the cancer.

[things]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You may want to make sure you are thick-skinned enough to hang in here, because you will undoubtedly be attacked, smeared, and demonized for having opinions and positions that differ from the other 90% of loungers here who are liberal. And Instead of developing and pushing for well-planned solutions, they will spend the majority of their time running to all corners of the internet to find hack-job blog posts and articles that helps them paint Bush, Cheney, Republican congressmen, senators, and justices, and anyone else with a sense of morality as dumb, stupid, ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, and just plain evil.

[dialo]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Every time you try to compare Bush with Hitler, I'll respond with contempt. That's not a threat. Nothing unltasensitive about it. All it means is I have a functioning brain.

Do you respond that way to all of the many comments made equating democrats to hitler?

How about all of the comments equating dems/liberals to terrorists, too?

[NosniboR80]

First, to the conservatives out there who are bashing the Bush=Hitler people:

Stop trying to get anywhere by calling them names and calling their posts ridiculous, even though you think they are. If you really cared about changing their minds, you'd be more constructive. If you don't care about that, then don't post. If you only care about changing the minds of 'neutral' observers, then being polite and systematic with your responses is your best bet.

So far, CRASH HARDDRIVE is the only one trying to really address why such a comparison is a bad idea, but it could be better.

Lerk: the fact that CRASH spent so much time trying to argue with you tells me that you should be a little flattered at least that he thinks you might still have an open mind. In all of my reading, I have considered you an open-minded and fair person, though I often disagree with you and I have found you not to be so in this thread.

Some of yours and others' points defending the comparison of Bush and Hitler are valid. I suppose that it would be useful to note the fact that Bush and Hitler both waged 'pre-emptive' wars and some other valid similarities.

But, what you are leaving out to make that comparison is very important. In the Larry Bird example, you are right that adding other stipulations enlarges the comparison to unwieldy extents. But CRASH is right that there is something more going on with Bush and Hitler.

The intentions behind Hitler's and Bush's invasions were quite different. You may doubt Bush's intentions, but you have much less reason to do so than 1930's Germans and Europeans. Hitler laid out his desires well before invading, but people wilfully looked away. Our closest connection for Bush is that he labelled Iraq an Evil regime, as he did Iran and NKorea. Hardly a game plan. He's already shown two totally different policy plans for them.

Of course, as you say, there are plenty of other things to distinguish Bush from Hitler, but I think the intentions part makes the comparison VERY trivial. So trivial, that the connotations of comparing anyone to Hitler or a Nazi should outweigh it. And, if you don't agree, then at least qualify your comparisons heavily.

Just because other conservative gasbags in here compare liberals and Left-Wingers to Mao and Stalin, that doesn't make it OK to go that far yourself. It takes us away from more interesting discussions, like the Neo-Con, the freedom, and the social security ones.

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I just can't understand why libertarians identify so much more with conservatives in the US than liberals, when the reality of the political situation in the US today demands the opposite, IMO.

Libertarians can be 'conservative' or 'liberal'. You identify yourself as a left-leaning libertarian, but others think that people should have the right to life (whether or not their mothers want to care for them and give birth to them), to religion (and this can mean prayer in school and such), to bear arms, to lower taxes and economic regulation (which nixes the possibility of any sort of national health care), etc etc.

I consider myself a conservative with a libertarian bent. I'm pro-life and lots of that stuff, but I'm pretty sure that I'm pro homosexual civil marriages, even though I am very anti gay marriage in the church. (If the world was reversed, I would be pissed if I was only allowed to marry another man.)

Also, a distinction needs to be made. Liberal, with a capital L, is a word used at the beginning of modern political thought. It meant rights-based. Locke was a quintescential Liberal. Nowadays, he'd be a libertarian (maybe of a conservative bent). Liberals (capital L) like capitalism, because it leaves economic decisions to private individuals and groups. It likes the right to all the things we take for granted today.

Todays liberals are not necessarily anti-capitalism (though some are very much so), but they think that some of its aggregious failings, such as long-term institutionalized unemployment and a stigmatized working class, need to be remedied. These problems are addressed, naturally, with what they often think is the best tool to do so - the federal government. This requires economic regulation and more taxing.

Now, obviously today, conservatives are using the federal government. On the Hill, where I just spent this past fall, people in the GOP know that most of this use of the govt (Vet disability pay, Medicare, etc) is simply to keep the swing vote on our side. The success of this strategy politically is debatable, and of course remains to be seen, but I doubt that it will be any good at all for our country.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
First, to the conservatives out there who are bashing the Bush=Hitler people:

Stop trying to get anywhere by calling them names and calling their posts ridiculous, even though you think they are. If you really cared about changing their minds, you'd be more constructive. If you don't care about that, then don't post. If you only care about changing the minds of 'neutral' observers, then being polite and systematic with your responses is your best bet.

So far, CRASH HARDDRIVE is the only one trying to really address why such a comparison is a bad idea, but it could be better.

Lerk: the fact that CRASH spent so much time trying to argue with you tells me that you should be a little flattered at least that he thinks you might still have an open mind. In all of my reading, I have considered you an open-minded and fair person, though I often disagree with you and I have found you not to be so in this thread.

Some of yours and others' points defending the comparison of Bush and Hitler are valid. I suppose that it would be useful to note the fact that Bush and Hitler both waged 'pre-emptive' wars and some other valid similarities.

But, what you are leaving out to make that comparison is very important. In the Larry Bird example, you are right that adding other stipulations enlarges the comparison to unwieldy extents. But CRASH is right that there is something more going on with Bush and Hitler.

The intentions behind Hitler's and Bush's invasions were quite different. You may doubt Bush's intentions, but you have much less reason to do so than 1930's Germans and Europeans. Hitler laid out his desires well before invading, but people wilfully looked away. Our closest connection for Bush is that he labelled Iraq an Evil regime, as he did Iran and NKorea. Hardly a game plan. He's already shown two totally different policy plans for them.

Of course, as you say, there are plenty of other things to distinguish Bush from Hitler, but I think the intentions part makes the comparison VERY trivial. So trivial, that the connotations of comparing anyone to Hitler or a Nazi should outweigh it. And, if you don't agree, then at least qualify your comparisons heavily.

Just because other conservative gasbags in here compare liberals and Left-Wingers to Mao and Stalin, that doesn't make it OK to go that far yourself. It takes us away from more interesting discussions, like the Neo-Con, the freedom, and the social security ones.

good post. I agree somewhat.
I think it got blown out of proportion when I was trying to make one small comparison re: the idea of "global leadership" not being much different than imperialism and conquest. I think, in retrospect, I could have used napoleon or the roman empire as an example that would have been less emotionally charged (I'll try to remember that in the future)
The only thing I was trying to borrow from the comparison was the pre-emptive nature of the invasions of other countries that had not fired first.

meh. I'll admit to my end of the problem and move on....

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
First, to the conservatives out there who are bashing the Bush=Hitler people...

<snip>

Let�s see... You describe those who compare liberals to Mao and Stalin as �gasbags� (which doesn�t really bother me) but you complain about conservatives calling people names. How does that work anyway? One rule for you and another for others?

As for those who compare Bush with Hitler, I don�t merely find such posts ridiculous. I find them offensive. And I get to say that. Change your mind; don't change your mind. I don't care. I've made it abundantly clear how I view this matter. If you have a problem with that, too bad.

As for any �neutral� observers, THAT�S ridiculous. If you think you�re neutral about whether or not it�s fair to compare Bush with Hitler, you�re not.

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Let�s see... You describe those who compare liberals to Mao and Stalin as �gasbags� (which doesn�t really bother me) but you complain about conservatives calling people names. How does that work anyway? One rule for you and another for others?

Ah, yes. You are right to a degree. I'd like to think that I can hold fellow conservatives to a higher standard ...

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
As for those who compare Bush with Hitler, I don�t merely find such posts ridiculous. I find them offensive. And I get to say that. Change your mind; don't change your mind. I don't care. I've made it abundantly clear how I view this matter. If you have a problem with that, too bad.

As for any �neutral� observers, THAT�S ridiculous. If you think you�re neutral about whether or not it�s fair to compare Bush with Hitler, you�re not.

I'm not claiming to be neutral. I do think that the comparison is ridiculous, though using Hitler's example for VERY clear and limited comparisons can be useful, I suppose. I don't think Hitler should be off-limits in political or historical discussion, but his example should be used sparingly and with great reservation.

As for the changing of minds, I was just writing to the idea that it is useless to yell at people on the boards.

1) It won't change anyone's minds. No one is going to say to themselves, "well, he sure is pissed, maybe there IS something to his argument."

2) Those who haven't made up their minds aren't going to be leaning in your direction when you get upset about something and use it to block any other useful discussion.

3) If you don't care about those with different opinions OR those without opinions yet, then you are wasting your time and ours. Your posts are merely for your emotional comfort and, frankly, I don't think it would be helpful for anyone to let themselves get so worked up about something when they don't really even care what others on the board think.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
Ah, yes. You are right to a degree. I'd like to think that I can hold fellow conservatives to a higher standard ...

So you're holding me to a standard you have no interest in maintaining for yourself.

As for the changing of minds, I was just writing to the idea that it is useless to yell at people on the boards.

1) It won't change anyone's minds. No one is going to say to themselves, "well, he sure is pissed, maybe there IS something to his argument."

2) Those who haven't made up their minds aren't going to be leaning in your direction when you get upset about something and use it to block any other useful discussion...

You mean those who haven't made up their minds as to whether or not it's fair to compare Bush with Hitler. Sorry, but that's NEVER going to lead to a useful discussion.

This isn't about "those with different opinions". It's about an attempt to smear President Bush. You don't seem to have any problem understanding how using Mao or Stalin to make a similar smear of liberals would be out of bounds. Please explain why it's so inappropriate to make that SAME judgement when it comes to a smear of the president.

This ISN'T complicated. If you want a useful discussion, you need a different starting point.

[lurkalot]

Republicans speaking out:

Log Cabin

[benb]

In case it was missed the first time, now it is all in bold.

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Extremely lame example that doesn�t relate to this subject in any meaningful way. There�s nothing as remotely controversial about either Larry Bird or Magic Johnson as there is dredging up the name �Adolph Hitler�. A more valid example as pertains to this issue, would be saying �Kofi Annan is like Idi Amin.� Grasp the difference?


This is just how bizarre your �arguments� are. You�re the one making straw man arguments, and pawning it off on others. No one is comparing mere occupations, nor comparing two men based on their race or where they lived. Any lame comparisons between Bush and Hitler have NOTHING what-so-ever to do with anything so trivial.

Good grief. What a sorry lack of understanding or knowledge of world events and history you display. Sad on so many levels.


Number one, you haven�t made any valid comparison, because there isn�t one.

Number two, it�s REDICULOUS to try and float that it�s possible to separate a figure like Adolph Hitler with �genocide, concentration camps, etc�. Your pretense that it is, (along with other leftists who attempt this) is just ludicrous. Invoking the name �Hitler� is not just saying �oh you know, he�s another world leader, and he preemptively did this and yada yada�� Sorry, the name has come to signify and stand for far more than just the narrow range of BULLCRAP that you�re trying to ascribe to it, and it positively CAN�T be separated from an entire range of historical realities. TOUGH CRAP if those historical realities blow your lame �comparison� out of the water. It�s just pure NONSENSE trying to pretend that everyone is just going to separate the REALITIES of the real Adolph Hitler and the REALITIES of the real Nazi Germany (both of which you�ve displayed a complete lack of understanding of, in your childish pretense that anything happening today is anywhere near the same thing) for the sake of convenience of your non-argument.

It�s also PURE BULLCRAP to pretend that people motivated by Bush hatred to make a lame comparison to Hitler, don�t themselves understand the full ramifications of such a comparison, and that they don�t know who Hitler was or what he was responsible for, and are all just falling back on lame cherry-picked nonsense to make the comparison.

If I compared someone to Ted Bundy, it would be ludicrous to then fall back on the chicken$hit pretense that I�m merely saying: �Oh you know, he was a white male, lived in the US, went to law school.� And then if I had the gall to claim that someone pointing out that I�m in reality making an unfair comparison to a brutal, sadistic serial killer, is the one floating the straw argument! Oh no gee whiz, the ONLY reason someone would compare anyone with an emotionally charged figure like Ted Bundy is because of some bullcrap cherry-picked nonsense like his occupation, not that whole UNRELATED serial killer/murder thing! Right! That�s leftist �logic� for you.

This whole example of the Bush-Hitler things just goes to prove how absolutely far some on the left have allowed their Bush-hatred to drag them. To the absolute DEPTHS of intellectual dishonesty. It�s sad to see, but somehow it�s not all that surprising.


Not to worry, you lost the debate with the very FIRST lame Hitler comparison.

[NosniboR80]

Look, you don't seem to be getting any of my points, and I'm not sure whether it is wilfull or not.

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
So you're holding me to a standard you have no interest in maintaining for yourself.

You called me out on a good point, but I'm just saying that I hope that people on my side (and I DO think that a Bush=Hitler comment is ridiculous, unless it is with strong reservations) would be able to be consistent themselves. If you or I were to compare Clinton to Mao without equally strong reservations, then we certainly shouldn't be getting all indignant about someone doing the same to Bush. If they are, then I'm calling them gasbags, as I did earlier in the thread. You called me out on it. I should probably just say that they are not doing anything good for their side of the argument and leave it at that.

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
You mean those who haven't made up their minds as to whether or not it's fair to compare Bush with Hitler. Sorry, but that's NEVER going to lead to a useful discussion.

This isn't about "those with different opinions". It's about an attempt to smear President Bush. You don't seem to have any problem understanding how using Mao or Stalin to make a similar smear of liberals would be out of bounds. Please explain why it's so inappropriate to make that SAME judgement when it comes to a smear of the president.

This ISN'T complicated. If you want a useful discussion, you need a different starting point.

My simple point is that just saying something is ridiculous is a waste of everyone's time. You aren't convincing anyone of anything, but you ARE drawing people further away from what could have been a decent discussion (btw: even if we think that they were the first to draw us away from the discussion with silly comparisons, that doens't mean we should stoop to the same level).

The point is that either you are making arguments with the hope of influencing and persuading or you are yelling for the sake of it and wasting our time.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
Look, you don't seem to be getting any of my points, and I'm not sure whether it is wilfull or not...

I got your points and I think you don't have any business telling me what I should post.

You called me out on a good point, but I'm just saying that I hope that people on my side (and I DO think that a Bush=Hitler comment is ridiculous, unless it is with strong reservations) would be able to be consistent themselves. If you or I were to compare Clinton to Mao without equally strong reservations, then we certainly shouldn't be getting all indignant about someone doing the same to Bush.

I didn't make any comparisons of anyone to Mao or Stalin even with strong reservations. Nor have I condoned such tactics, so, WHERE am I being inconsistent?

...You called me out on it...

I called you on the hypocrisy of you complaining about name-calling and then turning around and name-calling. I really don't have a problem with you calling them gasbags. It's just that if you're going to do that, who are you to wag your finger at others?

... I should probably just say that they are not doing anything good for their side of the argument and leave it at that.

Ya think? Same goes for the other side when they compare Bush with Hitler. So why should I care whether or not I change anyone's mind on this? If I do, that's good. If I don't, they're not doing their side of the argument any good.

My simple point is that just saying something is ridiculous is a waste of everyone's time.

No, discussing such a point of view is a waste of everyone's time. There's nothing to discuss. It's a dishonest argument. It's a smear tactic. I get to call it that whether you like it or not.