The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Dems want proof, facts, links, whatever- they want to be informed.

How did you get all the way through that with a straight face?

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Alex

How did you get all the way through that with a straight face?

It wasn't easy. The Botox helps.

[wendybeth]

Here is the Goering quote, which Byrd invoked when explaining how we got to this weird state we find ourselves in:

Byrd in his quest to put the current administration in the strongest possible light thus proving that the Emperor Has No Clothes even cites an infamous quotation by Hermann Goering on how to sell a war to the citizenry; it is:

“Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither did Russia, or England or America, nor for that matter Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leader of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship…[V]oice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”—Hermann Goering, quoted in the Nuremberg Diary (1947) by G.M. Gilbert

That is hardly calling Bush 'Goering'- he simply uses Goering's quote to illustrate a point. I doubt very much Bush has ever read the Nuremburg Diary- he, by his own admission, is not a readerer. (Sorry, couldn't resist).

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Perhaps this post sums up our differences in a nutshell. Dems want proof, facts, links, whatever- they want to be informed.

Obviously JW was not informed on the issue. Yet you indict me. Hmm. Wonder why. JW made a blanket statement that was false, but apparently what I wrote it far more eggregious to you. I might suspect JW is a dem, not a republican.

If I am to be criticized for not purchasing Byrd's book, scanning a page, and posting the image, rather than simply posting a link (admittedly not at first until I was chastized for that) to direct quotes from the book, then whatever.

I did not actually read the entire content of the page, no. I was criticized for posting info without a link, so I found something that directly quoted the book, yet that's not good enough either. I could have posted any number of links with the same info. You would rather quibble about the review than about what was in the book when the subject was clearly about leaders of parties either referring to or agreeing with comparison to nazis.

[wendybeth]

Actually, I was just curious as to your thoughts on the subject matter. Seems more interesting than continuing this same boring line of "Oh, yeah....well, you guys do it, too!". My bad. Wake me up when the conversation gets reasonably intelligent.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Actually, I was just curious as to your thoughts on the subject matter. Seems more interesting than continuing this same boring line of "Oh, yeah....well, you guys do it, too!". My bad. Wake me up when the conversation gets reasonably intelligent.

Thank you!

I was taught as a child that it it's not ok to do stupid or immoral things just because others have done them. My mother would never let us get away with that one! Some people obviously never learned that lesson.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Obviously JW was not informed on the issue. Yet you indict me. Hmm. Wonder why. JW made a blanket statement that was false, but apparently what I wrote it far more eggregious to you. I might suspect JW is a dem, not a republican.

If I am to be criticized for not purchasing Byrd's book, scanning a page, and posting the image, rather than simply posting a link (admittedly not at first until I was chastized for that) to direct quotes from the book, then whatever.

I did not actually read the entire content of the page, no. I was criticized for posting info without a link, so I found something that directly quoted the book, yet that's not good enough either. I could have posted any number of links with the same info. You would rather quibble about the review than about what was in the book when the subject was clearly about leaders of parties either referring to or agreeing with comparison to nazis.

I did not make a false blanket statement. Just because you don't happen to agree with it, and choose to support your party no matter what, does not make what I said (what I actually said, not what you are pretending to think I said) any less true.

[JWBear]

Sorry Leo (and GD)... Not the same. Show me a democratic leader who directly compared bush to Hitler himself, or directly supported or approved of someone who did.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Not a hair worth splitting, imo.

Anyone throwing around Hitler, Goering, Goebels, eugenics, naziism, etc. in any form in any supposedly rational political debate puts themself straight into my ignore file. Precisely which ludicrous comparison they choose is a level of detail that is irrelevant to the ludicrousness of their supposed debate rhetoric.

I have no problem observing that it comes from the right substantially more often, at louder volume, and more vehemently than from the left. But I am under no illusion that the left is squeaky clean.

[Ghoulish Delight]

"with silence"? In that case, every dem leader is guilty, as no one seemed to bother to denounce Vanity Fair's depiction of Richard Perle as Goebbels. Or their failure to say anything about the people carrying Bush-as-Hitler signage at war protests for 7 years.