|
|
The witch hunt in US is back - slowly falling back into Dark Ages
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Here
Its so sad that even artists get witchhunted if they don't support Bush. What is happening?
(
Last edited by Hash; Mar 17, 2003 at 05:47 AM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Haha! Yeah, I heard they are changing their name to "The French Chicks" and moving somewhere where there's freedom of speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Face Ache:
Haha! Yeah, I heard they are changing their name to "The French Chicks" and moving somewhere where there's freedom of speech.
you are confusing freedom of speech with freedom from criticism. Criticism of the speech of others is freedom of speech and it has a technical name. It's called "debate."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, but it's much cuter to say "Witch Hunt!" and make it look as though the Left isn't running the media and driving public opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by finboy:
Yeah, but it's much cuter to say "Witch Hunt!" and make it look as though the Left isn't running the media and driving public opinion.
About as cute as to say that a mythical left is running the media and driving public opinion. I thought public opinion was in favour of Bush?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
you are confusing freedom of speech with freedom from criticism. Criticism of the speech of others is freedom of speech and it has a technical name. It's called "debate."
Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Face Ache:
Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
No it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Paris
Status:
Offline
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/arts...ie-Chicks.html
La. Protesters Destroy Dixie Chicks CDs
Using a 33,000-pound tractor to obliterate compact disks and other items, a few hundred protesters, referring to themselves as backers of President Bush and Barksdale Air Force Base, lashed back at lead singer Natalie Maines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lost in the Supermarket
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Hash:
Here
Its so sad that even artists get witchhunted if they don't support Bush. What is happening?
Everybody seems to have a persecution complex these days. Left, right, makes no difference. It's pathetic. So this dixie chick is catching some flack over something she said. Big freaking deal. If she was prepared to take the heat and still decided to speak her mind, I give her credit for that. (Even though I think she's wrong.) But if she was just looking to do a hit and run, well, that's not the way these things work. No witchhunt here. It's dumb to call it that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
_Demonstrations are reported to have taken place in Kirkuk, where an estimated crowd of 20,000 marched on the Ba'ath Party's office demanding Saddam's overthrow. Three posters of the Iraqi leader were torn down, and a grenade was thrown at the government building. One senior Ba'ath official was reported killed.
Link
Slightly more significant, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Freedom of speech. The DC had a right to say what they said, and others have the same right to boycott their works based on what they said.
(I'm curious how the turnout is at their US based tours later this year.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by driven:
Freedom of speech. The DC had a right to say what they said, and others have the same right to boycott their works based on what they said.
(I'm curious how the turnout is at their US based tours later this year.)
Exactly. Just because you have the freedom of speech, doesn't mean you wont have to take the consequences of your actions. Witch hunt, How silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by finboy:
Yeah, but it's much cuter to say "Witch Hunt!" and make it look as though the Left isn't running the media and driving public opinion.
Now, would this be the public opinion you claim to be overwhelmingly behind the President, his mandate and his drive for armed conflict with Iraq? Or would this be some other public opinion being manipulated by the "Liberal Media"? Because, you know, you can't have it both ways.
THis ****ing argument is just paranoiac and absurd.
As I have asked before- where the hell does this come from? Your party has TOTAL control over the government! And I believe it was you who was in total support of the anti "whiner" crusade when folks were angry at the election. Just what is it you are doing now? I am curious. Is it that you are setting up to defend any failures that occur as a result of your party not getting something done?
Help me understand what you are doing, because, idiot that I am, I cannot, to save my life, understand your venom and paranoia.
Why do I hound at YOU, Finboy? Well, because, to be honest, I thought you were smarter than this.
What is the problem? The way I see it, you have NOTHING to rail against. YOur party is in power. You will have your war whether anyone likes it or not. Looks like the first major cannon shot at Roe v. Wade has been fired and the target was squarely hit. The conservative agenda is being furthered like few other periods in history, and still, you are bitching? WTF?
|
I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Honestly, they're the Dixie Chicks! Who gives a f*** what they say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Cipher13:
Honestly, they're the Dixie Chicks! Who gives a f*** what they say?
I was actually thinking the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Thanks for reminding me; I have to stop on the way to work and pick up a couple of their CDs! I've got a bit of country in my collection, and my daughter likes them, so it looks like it's time to add to my collection!
|
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status:
Offline
|
|
(
Last edited by daimoni; Jul 6, 2004 at 10:49 AM.
)
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lost in the Supermarket
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by maxelson:
... Looks like the first major cannon shot at Roe v. Wade has been fired and the target was squarely hit...
Actually, no. You ever read Roe? This is from Justice Potter Stewart's concurring opinion:
"... The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential future human life within her. These are legitimate objectives, amply sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions as it does other surgical procedures, and perhaps sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions more stringently or even to prohibit them in the late stages of pregnancy..." (my emphasis)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status:
Offline
|
|
Rog- you know I have the utmost respect for your opinion. Even though I agree with your political stances so seldom. C'mon. You know as well as I do that this is a stepping stone. I thank you for the glimmer of hope, but I don't believe it. This is a part of a larger project. The Gentleman fro PA made zero consession in cases of health. He can produce pages of documentation all pointing to the procedure NEVER being used in this way? Well, I can say a) NEVER is an absolute and it is dangerous to deal in absolutes and b) I can point to at least two cases I know of personally where this WAS the case (as for it being used as birth control or something just as trivial, well, I got more words than just EVIL to describe the person who would do that). As I read the bill, it is absolute with no provisions. But we are digressing.
My point is that this is a tool. It is a means to an end.
|
I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status:
Offline
|
|
Do radio stations have the right to free speech, just like the Dixie Chicks? If they do, they have the right NOT to play Dixie Chicks records.
This is not a witch hunt. The Dixie Chicks have to be responsible and stand up for what they believe in. If they truly want to publicly speak out against the President, which is their right, then they should be prepared for some backlash. Especially considering most of their fans are probably conservative.
|
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by maxelson:
Rog- you know I have the utmost respect for your opinion. Even though I agree with your political stances so seldom. C'mon. You know as well as I do that this is a stepping stone.
max -
Just curious, how come when there is anti-gun legislation, it's "common sense" but when there is legislation such as this anti-late term abortion bill, it's a "stepping stone?"
Seriously, the only difference I see is that one of the two issues is protected by the Constitution.
(And P.S. for those of you who don't know, I'm pro-Choice... just want to know why one is a slippery slope, the other "common sense.")
|
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by maxelson:
What is the problem? The way I see it, you have NOTHING to rail against. YOur party is in power. You will have your war whether anyone likes it or not. Looks like the first major cannon shot at Roe v. Wade has been fired and the target was squarely hit. The conservative agenda is being furthered like few other periods in history, and still, you are bitching? WTF?
Extreme American conservativism thrives on a siege mentality. It's how they energize their base, by inflating it with the fear that hordes of liberals are out there just waiting to take all their money away and give it to the UN, to outlaw religion and throw Christians into concentration camps, etc.
From a recent article on this year's CPAC conference:
[O]ne theme overwhelmed all others: a quaking, obsessive hatred of the liberals who are still believed to rule the world. CPACers exemplify what historian Richard Hofstadter called "the paranoid style in American politics" in the 1964 essay of the same name. "Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated -- if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention," Hofstadter wrote. "Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes." [My emphasis, as it speaks to Maxelson's question.] And George W. Bush has harnessed their obsession and rage for his own political gain.
The conference was packed with events devoted to denouncing the perfidious left. There were panels titled "Modern Feminism: The Bilking of the Taxpayer," "Real Stories of Real Liberal Bias on Real College Campuses," "NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus and other Professional Victims" and "Myths, Lies & Terror: The Growing Threat Of Radical Environmentalism." Dan Flynn, author of "Why the Left Hates America," was on hand to sign his book. Ann Coulter, there to push her own book, was greeted with a thunderous standing ovation, after which she ripped into the "treason lobby" -- the Democratic Party -- whose platform "consists in breaking every one of the 10 commandments."
|
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.
-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by maxelson:
What is the problem? The way I see it, you have NOTHING to rail against. YOur party is in power. You will have your war whether anyone likes it or not. Looks like the first major cannon shot at Roe v. Wade has been fired and the target was squarely hit. The conservative agenda is being furthered like few other periods in history, and still, you are bitching? WTF?
that's the problem -- the way you see it, there's nothing there. Yet, when I read The Washington Post or Newsweek, they're all about subtle slams of the president and the administration. Peter Jennings and CNN miss no opportunity to spin the news so that it makes the administration look bad.
Newsweek's recent article on Colin Powell? Come on.
Newsweek's special issue on religion in the White House? Come on.
Why am I complaining? Because the propaganda war continues against conservatives. It has been this way for years but continues to get worse, and now it seems acceptable to many, since the Republicans are in power. Democrat candidates and leaders are held to different standards by the media. This is obvious to even a casual observer. Even the reporters at the White House have begun to be more bold, although I don't know when it started. Read the transcripts of one of the press briefings -- they show downright contempt for the briefing and the office of the president. If nothing else, it's poor manners. At the worst, it's an attitude of superiority that allows the media to make up its own rules and play by its own agenda.
Some folks say that it's no big deal -- it's only words. Tell that to the victims of the Holocaust. They lost the propaganda war.
The only way to effectively go up against this stuff is to point it out every time it shows up. Otherwise, the inertia of the lie becomes too great. I'm sure there are some marketing researchers out there who can explain that phenomenon.
You can rest assured, too, that if the White House were controlling the media and getting favorable treatment, I'd be here protesting THAT too. But that won't happen under a Republican.
This is the issue that, many years ago, brought me firmly to the right of center. Prior to recognizing the propaganda for what it was, I had never qualified my political leanings. But once I realized what NPR was spewing every day, I then had to ask the question "why do they need to lie and spin?" That question brought down the house of cards. Years later, it's worse if anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lost in the Supermarket
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by maxelson:
Rog- you know I have the utmost respect for your opinion. Even though I agree with your political stances so seldom. C'mon. You know as well as I do that this is a stepping stone. I thank you for the glimmer of hope, but I don't believe it... <snip>... But we are digressing.
My point is that this is a tool. It is a means to an end.
Listen, I wish this was a stepping stone. I think Roe is bad law and I would like it very much if it was overturned. That said, I honestly don't see this changing things very much. As for the word "NEVER" well, the AMA's Council on Legislation unanimously said this procedure is never medically indicated. What's more the procedure itself poses a health risk.
We are digressing but who cares? The story about the Dixie Chick is lame anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Extreme American conservativism thrives on a siege mentality. It's how they energize their base, by inflating it with the fear that hordes of liberals are out there just waiting to take all their money away and give it to the UN, to outlaw religion and throw Christians into concentration camps, etc.
Every group has its nutcases, and these folks aren't any more representative of the majority of conservatives in America than the hippies who are protesting represent the average Democrat. In no way does the Christian right represent a political "base" for anyone except maybe Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
Again, grouping conservatives in with "Jesus freaks" is just another way to belittle and confuse. The major media does a pretty good job, and the religion aspect, I think, has been picked to be the next point of attack. I don't know who came up with that idea, but it's pretty effective so far.
Plus, I think the "seige" mentality applies to the Left as well. After all, dividing people into little groups and promoting class warfare is a classic tactic of Democrats. "The Man is keeping you down" is a tough argument to go up against. George Bush wants to take away abortion rights. Republicans are revising the justice system and subverting people's civil rights! Either you vote Democrat, or the Republicans will starve your grandparents in their nursing homes. Give me a break.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by finboy:
You can rest assured, too, that if the White House were controlling the media and getting favorable treatment, I'd be here protesting THAT too. But that won't happen under a Republican.
Regan had the media eating out of his hand.
|
If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
We are digressing but who cares? The story about the Dixie Chick is lame anyway.
You got DAT right!
|
I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by boots:
Regan had the media eating out of his hand.
WHAT? All the talk about taking naps and "Mommy"? I think the revisionists have led you astray on this one. They did, however, grant some RESPECT to the office of president, unlike today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by finboy:
... snip...
FInboy, I only have this to say: you can find ANYTHING if you look hard enough.
Propaganda war on a scale similar to the holocaust? You cannot be serious.
Look. They're in total control and, as you point out, they had to get there somehow- in this country it usually means by voting. Usually.
So, I'd say there's a pretty big section of the country that is not buying this supposed propaganda. It seems to me that you are railing against nothing.
|
I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Face Ache:
Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
No, this is Abuse. You're looking for 3B, along the corridor.
Sorry.
[door closes]
Stupid git.
(just another part of the skit that I thought was funny. Nothing personal.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Moved from Ohio's first capital to its current capital
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by finboy:
that's the problem -- the way you see it, there's nothing there. Yet, when I read The Washington Post or Newsweek, they're all about subtle slams of the president and the administration. Peter Jennings and CNN miss no opportunity to spin the news so that it makes the administration look bad.
Newsweek's recent article on Colin Powell? Come on.
Newsweek's special issue on religion in the White House? Come on.
Why am I complaining? Because the propaganda war continues against conservatives. It has been this way for years but continues to get worse, and now it seems acceptable to many, since the Republicans are in power. Democrat candidates and leaders are held to different standards by the media. This is obvious to even a casual observer. Even the reporters at the White House have begun to be more bold, although I don't know when it started. Read the transcripts of one of the press briefings -- they show downright contempt for the briefing and the office of the president. If nothing else, it's poor manners. At the worst, it's an attitude of superiority that allows the media to make up its own rules and play by its own agenda.
Some folks say that it's no big deal -- it's only words. Tell that to the victims of the Holocaust. They lost the propaganda war.
The only way to effectively go up against this stuff is to point it out every time it shows up. Otherwise, the inertia of the lie becomes too great. I'm sure there are some marketing researchers out there who can explain that phenomenon.
You can rest assured, too, that if the White House were controlling the media and getting favorable treatment, I'd be here protesting THAT too. But that won't happen under a Republican.
This is the issue that, many years ago, brought me firmly to the right of center. Prior to recognizing the propaganda for what it was, I had never qualified my political leanings. But once I realized what NPR was spewing every day, I then had to ask the question "why do they need to lie and spin?" That question brought down the house of cards. Years later, it's worse if anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Unknown
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by finboy:
WHAT? All the talk about taking naps and "Mommy"? I think the revisionists have led you astray on this one. They did, however, grant some RESPECT to the office of president, unlike today.
No, I was aware during the Regan era. He was a master of public relations. That is not to say there weren't some jokes about his age, but when it came to policy issues, he could sell ANYTHING (and did) .... The revisionists are more debunking his administration than making it look good. The "Laugher" Curve is pretty much an example of this.
(edit: just for clarity, it is actually spelled "Laffer" but has been dubbed by many "Laugher" because it has been so widely ridiculed.)
(
Last edited by boots; Mar 17, 2003 at 11:00 AM.
)
|
If Heaven has a dress code, I'm walkin to Hell in my Tony Lamas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by finboy:
Even the reporters at the White House have begun to be more bold, although I don't know when it started. Read the transcripts of one of the press briefings -- they show downright contempt for the briefing and the office of the president.
What a f***ing joke.
How dare those White House reporters act "bold" in front of the President! How dare they actually try to hold the man and his administration accountable to the people who elected him! How dare they actually show resentment at being forced to participate in the most farcical and badly-staged press events since the Reagan administration!
Here's some further liberal propaganda about Bush's last press conference (it's from the New York Observer, so feel free to dismiss it):
Somewhere Mike Deaver, Ronald Reagan�s media-fixing P.R. king, was smiling. But reporters on-site were alternately flabbergasted, flailing and embarrassed by the experience. None seemed to have the legs to get into the game. Mr. Bush ran out the clock on his hour of prime time, using it with the focus of Jimmy Dean selling sausage, snubbing tough reporters while calling on buddies, issuing one-size-fits-all talking points to all comers, giving the answers he wanted to the questions he didn�t. He even openly taunted one correspondent, CNN�s John King, for daring to ask a multi-part question.
"I don�t think he was sufficiently challenged," said ABC News White House correspondent Terry Moran. He said Mr. Bush�s hyper-management left the press corps "looking like zombies."
Mr. Bush worked from a podium-pasted pre-determined list of acceptable reporters to call upon. USA Today�s Larry McQuillan, on the White House beat since Jimmy Carter, said Mr. Bush�s homeroom-proctor sheet of preferred questioners managed to insult those didn�t appear on it�and make those who did seem like Karl Rove�s brown-nosers, the camp kids who got the best desserts. "The process in some ways demeaned the reporters who were called on as much as those who weren�t," Mr. McQuillan said.
"They completely played us," added a correspondent for a major daily newspaper. "What�s the point of having a press conference if you�re not going to answer questions? It was calculated on so many different levels."
But to what extent where the reporters themselves to blame? Although some asked reasonably pointed questions, most did with a tone of extreme deference�"Mr. President, sir �. Thank you, sir �. Mr. President, good evening"�that suggested a skittishness, to which they will admit, about being seen as unpatriotic or disrespectful of a commander in chief on the eve of war. Few made any effort to follow up their questions after Mr. Bush�s recitation of arguments that were more speech-like than extemporaneous: Saddam Hussein is a threat to America, Iraq has not disarmed, Sept. 11 must never happen again.
It was a missed opportunity. From the media�s perspective, the purpose of a press conference is to hold a President accountable, to see him work on his feet, to understand his priorities, to give viewers insight into his character, to make a little news, or to allow the President to speak to the people in a responsive and human voice that a formal address doesn�t allow.
That didn�t happen. On Thursday night, Mr. Bush reinforced an image of a scripted man on a tightrope who followed his handlers� cue cards.
|
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.
-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by finboy:
Every group has its nutcases, and these folks aren't any more representative of the majority of conservatives in America than the hippies who are protesting represent the average Democrat. In no way does the Christian right represent a political "base" for anyone except maybe Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.
Hate to break it to you, but this year's conference was keynoted by Vice President Dick Cheney.
You're a fool if you think these folks don't hold significant sway within both the political media and the White House.
|
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.
-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by finboy:
ke up its own rules and play by its own agenda.
Some folks say that it's no big deal -- it's only words. Tell that to the victims of the Holocaust. They lost the propaganda war.
I am really quite stunned that you've got the nerve to compare what you perceive to be the persecution of consevatives to the systematic genocide on 5 million jews.
Quite stunned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Mastrap:
I am really quite stunned that you've got the nerve to compare what you perceive to be the persecution of consevatives to the systematic genocide on 5 million jews.
Quite stunned.
Being stunned obviously has a negative impact on your higher order brain functions. I compared the PROPAGANDA we get today from the Left to the PROPAGANDA of Nazi Germany. Be stunned all you want, but make sure you get it right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status:
Offline
|
|
Oh. I see. You're comparing Liberals to Nazis. Can I be stunned too?
|
I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by finboy:
Being stunned obviously has a negative impact on your higher order brain functions. I compared the PROPAGANDA we get today from the Left to the PROPAGANDA of Nazi Germany. Be stunned all you want, but make sure you get it right.
I am not entirely sure why you think that the above statement makes you look any better?
What you said was tell that to the victims of the Holocaust. They lost the propaganda war. You were implicitly making a connection between what happened to the jews to your perceived unfair treatment of conservatives.
For a professor you're choosing your words rather unwisely. But thanks for caring about my higher brain functions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status:
Offline
|
|
(
Last edited by daimoni; Jul 6, 2004 at 10:49 AM.
)
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Riverside IL, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by finboy:
Being stunned obviously has a negative impact on your higher order brain functions. I compared the PROPAGANDA we get today from the Left to the PROPAGANDA of Nazi Germany.
Odd, I don't remember reading anything about the "Jew peril" in my last ACLU newsletter.
|
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them.
-- Frederick Douglass, 1857
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've never listened to their music, and I have little idea who they are. From the article its clear that they tried to make a political statement. The radio stations are just responding to that statement with one of their own.
I've seen a lot of "celebrities" express their anti-war opinions, etc. I'm don't mind... if they express it in an intelligent manner and are willing to give thoughtful replies to arguments that clearly undermine theirs. Unfortunately, this almost never happens, and instead we get some dumbass rocker shouting "f*ck the government! yeah! i'm a patriot!" or something equally stupid and pointless.
But anyway, I don't see a "witch hunt" here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Reminds me of that street artist who got arrested a bunch of times for drawing and selling pictures of Mayor Guliani with a Hitler mustashe. Each time it was something stupid that they arrested him for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
max -
Just curious, how come when there is anti-gun legislation, it's "common sense" but when there is legislation such as this anti-late term abortion bill, it's a "stepping stone?"
Seriously, the only difference I see is that one of the two issues is protected by the Constitution.
(And P.S. for those of you who don't know, I'm pro-Choice... just want to know why one is a slippery slope, the other "common sense.")
I am only thinking it because this is what this administration has taught me to think- hit the problem one step at a time- nick away at it. This administration has made known that it is going after Roe v. Wade. Why should I think otherwise? THe analysis reports I have been paying attention to (ranging from all over the media spectrum- not just NPR) seem to think it is the same- a shot at taking down R v. W and it is an effective shot.
As for common sense, I am not sure I understand what you mean. I do not see any connection between the two- besides the one you point out.
|
I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by maxelson:
Oh. I see. You're comparing Liberals to Nazis. Can I be stunned too?
No, I'm comparing the propaganda of the Left (not liberals) to the propaganda of Nazis. Propaganda is propaganda. Anything designed to deceive and distort can be grouped together. I'm merely pointing out a historical example of how propaganda was used to kill people -- I didn't draw any explicit analogy between today's conservative right and Jews under Hitler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dis
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by maxelson:
As for common sense, I am not sure I understand what you mean. I do not see any connection between the two- besides the one you point out.
I think that the point is something like this: if liberals are afraid of "creeping doom" with Roe v. Wade attacks, why isn't the gun lobby justified in seeing the same in thing in gun control laws?
BG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by maxelson:
I am only thinking it because this is what this administration has taught me to think- hit the problem one step at a time- nick away at it.
Incrementalism as a political tactic wasn't exactly pioneered by the right. The "slippery slope" isn't an abstract concept -- ask gun owners in California, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lost in the Supermarket
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by maxelson:
I am only thinking it because this is what this administration has taught me to think- hit the problem one step at a time- nick away at it. This administration has made known that it is going after Roe v. Wade. Why should I think otherwise? THe analysis reports I have been paying attention to (ranging from all over the media spectrum- not just NPR) seem to think it is the same- a shot at taking down R v. W and it is an effective shot.
I haven't heard/read anything like that. I know pro-lifers will be happy with this but to me it's more a symbolic victory. And really, max! The procedure is barbaric. There's a reason why it got support from even pro-choice Democrats. Why are you so upset about this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
finboy ate his Wheaties this morning.
he won this debate outright...and I'm not even sure I agree with him. hate when that happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Guidance Counselor's Office
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
I haven't heard/read anything like that. I know pro-lifers will be happy with this but to me it's more a symbolic victory. And really, max! The procedure is barbaric. There's a reason why it got support from even pro-choice Democrats. Why are you so upset about this?
No, I don't really support the procedure. But I don't like the absolutes.
Gimme a little time to find you some links - at least a few of the anaylses I was talking about. At least we can spur on some discussion about it (at least this side of the debate seems to be going on in a more or less civil manner- normally it is this one that has people armed and shooting out of the gate!).
|
I'm going to pull your head off because I don't like your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
finboy ate his Wheaties this morning.
he won this debate outright...and I'm not even sure I agree with him. hate when that happens.
Thanks for the props, but that's not what I'm after.
OK, so you guys think that the Administration gets a pass from the media. I just don't see it that way. We'll continue to disagree.
As for the incrementalism thing, I know that Marx wrote about it, and Lenin, and Mao most of all. Stalin and Castro didn't really think that way as far as I can tell. I think there are discussions of incrementalism in Mein Kampf as well. Every successful political movement has used it, but especially those that subscribe to a theory of politics that involves some type of evolution toward an equilibrium form of society (such as Marxist idea of eventual Communist utopia, or however he referred to it).
The abortion debate ain't going to be scratched by us -- but it's really hard for me to see how "partial-birth" abortion is different from outright murder (the sentiment isn't there, nobody wants to do it, etc., I know), except in cases when carrying the baby is life-threatening for the mother. But if we leave that loophole, some doctor will start writing prescriptions declaring that it's "life-threatening" and we'll go back to unequal access again.
Slippery slope it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|