I hope that Moveon.org is ashamed of them selves
Sunday, January 4th, 2004 - 4:39pm
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
"When you say that anything George Bush has done is akin to what Hitler did, you make the Holocaust into nothing more than an example of partisan excess." I don't recall were I got this quote.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
Partisans have a history of exaggeration, and it exists on both
sides. But it''s hard to look at the treatment of liberals in the
conservative media in the last 15 years, then turn around and
get upset when something similar happens, just reversed. I
mean, with Anne Coulter calling us all traitors and yet still being
published all over the country, something is definitely wrong.
I''m so sick of being told that I''m unhappy with my life, that
I hate my country, that I''m a traitor, that I''m evil, and all the
other stuff, that I''m sort of resigned to the fact that our
national discourse has been lowered tremendously since
the early 1980''s. That can of worms is already open. I can
literally - and do literally - hear this stuff on Rush or Sean''s
show every freaking day. They motivate a political base
just like MoveOn. But it''s not worth a post, from me or you,
until it interferes with our personal beliefs? That''s sad.
This is a much larger problem for us as a country than any
one incident on any one side. (And this is not meant to spark
a tit-for-tat, he-said-she-said discussion. What''s dismaying is
not what''s said by whom, but that it''s said by anyone at all.
I''m also ashamed that I''m so dismayed by what''s said about
me, that I''ll tolerate it about people who disagree with me.
That''s bad, but I guess it''s human nature - something to work
to fix, I guess.)
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
The gist of Ann Coulter''sTreasonis to call those liberals who supported Communists during the Cold War traitors. Aiding or supporting the enemies of the United Statesistreason. Now is it fair to label these people traitors, when they support our enemies without malice or as dupes? Maybe not, but it''s the difference between murder and manslaughter - call it what you want, but it doesn''t improve the situation much for the corpse.
Compare this to the nonsense in the Moveon.org and you see a real difference. This is not tit-for-tat. This ad has exactly as much validity as putting up a picture of Winston Churchhill and calling him Hitler.
I''m reminded of Dennis Miller, explaining why he switched to the Republican party (to paraphrase): ""I realized that the left just doesn''t get it. The left is so busy saying George Bush is Hitler and John Ashcroft is Hitler, that the only person they won''t call Hitler is the foreign dictator with the moustache throwing people into the wood-chipper.""
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Page 16 in Treason.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
I think that I would have to agree that someone defending the Soviet Union or Saddam Hussein is indeed against America, as both the USSR and Saddam were enemies of the US. Given that, her statement isn''t even an exaggeration - though it could be read as if it applied to all liberals, including those who don''t support America''s enemies, which would be unfair.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Yes, it''s the beating into people''s heads of ""all liberals"", all
the time, that''s getting tiresome. There''s also the blanket
assumption that all liberals were/are doing this stuff.
I guess the tone of times is anti-liberal, and I need to learn
to deal. It''s just I remember when civility was part of
public discourse, and it''s hard not to miss that when I listen
to the most popular radio shows out there. Sigh.
I always wince when an interesting line of argument is capped
with some statement like ""Of course, liberals all hate the USA,
so they won''t understand this."" (Not talking about you, Ral,
that''s an Excellence In Broadcasting tag line.)
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
I''m glad you didn''t attribute that to me. I know liberals hate the USA, but I also know that they fully understand and should know better...
Seriously, though, I''m not sure how you get the impression that ""the tone of the times is anti-liberal"" - although the fact that you apparently listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity might have colored your views on this matter.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
I''m talking about Moveon.org comparing Bush to hitler. That has nothing to do with The Wicked Witch of the Right.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
I think, Ulairi, his point (for those not wearing blinders on the matter) is that Ann Coulter is the same degree of extremism only on the opposite side. He''s taking it for granted that we should ignore Moveon.org''s stupidity in much the same way we should ignore Ann. After all, to defend Ann Coulter is the right equivalent to defending moveon.org. They are similar.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
Hardly. I''ve said it before - you can disagree with Coulter''s conclusions or rhetoric, but her basic premises about many on the Left''s support for Communism or the prevalance of media bias against the right are based on lots and lots of unrefuted evidence. Does she paint in broad strokes? Yes. But what she does that is unfair is apply to all liberals traits that are common to many - kind of like assuming all two year-olds are spoiled brats, when there are many who are well-behaved angels. That''s not quite the same thing as saying that all two year-olds are jew-killing war-mongerers.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
oops they did it again. They published another Bush/Hitler ad.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
You can support communism without willingfully subverting the national interests of the United States.
Id like to know where there is a law in the books that says communism is illegal.
To my recollection, there is no law forbidding support for Saddam Hussein. Are you saying that I couldnt make a sign saying,""Free Saddam"" and march in the local park? I may be arrested for protesting without a permit and probably beaten or had rocks thrown at me, but I wouldnt be arrested for treason.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
What about the bin Ladens? Can you support the family without supporting Osama?
There are all sorts of laws against supporting Saddam and the Soviets. You are correct that you won''t face any real penalty for opining on the beauty of Communism or wearing a ""Free Saddam"" t-shirt, but when I say ""support"", I mean more than moral support.
From Michelle Malkin:
Coulter''s book,Treason,documents the prevalance of Communist spies in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations and credits them with enabling the USSR to obtain nuclear weapons.
The line between philosphy and action is a blurry one in practice. Not only are those who espouse a philosophy like Communism or radical Islam more easily recruited to attacking the enemies of that philosophy (ie the United States), but they are also more likely to turn a blind eye to those taking action even if they take no actions themselves.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Nixon went to China.
First of all, Ann Coulter is both an ass and a piece of ass.
Second, due consideration should be given to the Simon Weisenthal Center''s position on this matter:
http://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pr_item.cfm?ItemID=8720
"Politics and preparing for a presidential election is one thing, but comparing the Bush Administration's fight against Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein with the policies of Adolf Hitler is shameful, beyond the pale and has no place in the legitimate discourse of American politics," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the Center's founder and dean. "Adolf Hitler was responsible for the greatest crime in the history of mankind – the Holocaust. To compare Hitler to an American President is not only ludicrous, but defames the Holocaust," he added.
Do you really want to compare using the image of Hitler as an advertisement to get Bush replaced to the inane ramblings of the sex kitten, Ann Coulter?
There are many who have suffered from the holocaust who deem the event to be a sacred thing and not to be taken lightly. Moveon, who has the support of many prominent liberals such as Al Gore and James Carville, have caused pain to holocaust survivors and should apologize. I know they want the White House back, but this is not the way to do it. And yes, I would feel the same way if the Republicans claimed blacks were ""economic slaves"" to the Democrat Party.
I'm bringing sexy back!
Really? That''s too bad... You''re missing out on some great books.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Ral, are they not mainstream? I mean, Rush is the most
listened-to guy on the radio, and Mr. Hannity is a commentator
for Fox as well as a radio personality. Are they not good
representatives of modern Republican (as opposed to
conservative) thought?
I had assumed that since most of my Repub friends swear by
them, listen at work, in the car, while having...dinner, etc,
that they were good to be familiar with. I always figured that when
the Big Day comes, I can get a few hours head start before the
Committees come after me, by hearing the callup on the EIB
Network go out to the faithful...
Should I change my plans?
Seriously, do you consider these
guys thought leaders or whackos?
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Both Rush and Hannity are mainstream and good representations of Republican thought both among the party base and activists.
But to take two radio shows, no matter how popular, and consider their content to be ""the tone of the times"" is a bit of a stretch...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Well, they do give me a feel for viewpoints that I don''t normally
encounter in daily life (except for a few friends who like to
""debate the liberal""). Funny thing is, I''m not a Democrat, I''m
an independent, and in fact on some issues I''m pretty
conservative, but the Republicans have gone into some kind
of weird political space that I just don''t understand. Big
government? Spend like mad? Eliminate state''s rights and
individual rights?
I listen to these guys and I do hear *some* muted criticism
of this kind of thing, but more on the ""don''t let the evil liberals
teach your kid the wrong things"". That''s the jingoistic part,
and that''s the ""tone of the times"", since I can hear the same
conversations in parking lots, restaurants, at work, etc. It''s
like it''s okay to talk banally about evil, treason, hatred of the
country, as long as you put the word ""liberal"" nearby. This
is something that is fairly new for this country, and quite
worrying if it keeps up for the long run. If we teach our kids
that opposing a *political* viewpoint is evil, well, that''s not a
good way to be, as a country.
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Anne Coulter is a sex kitten?!
I guess I must be the odd man out, as a woman''s personality has a great influence on her physical appeal to me. You can be, objectively speaking, an absolute hottie, but if you''re a nasty person, I can''t look at you without seeing that nastiness overlaid on the physical looks.
For example, there''s a young lady at my office who most of the guys drool over. She''s a bitch, though, and everytime I see her, it''s like she becomes the Avatar of the Bitch Goddess and she''s simply unattractive to me.
Sorry for the hijacking; just had to say that.
No it isn''t new. Liberals have been demonizing conservatives for years for not blindly supporting their government programs that feed more beaurocrats than needy.
I gotta agree on the big government part though.
It''s the personalization that''s different, moving from ""those
damn Republicans, I can''t understand how Charlie can think
that, maybe when I see him at the poker game this week I''ll
ask him"" to ""I was really surprised to see that Tom doesn''t
like Bush, he served in the Army, I thought he was a patriot.
Never can tell about people though.""
We''ve moved from an understanding that reasonable people
disagree on issues, to the belief that opposition views are
deficient, evil, stupid, whatever. Both sides seem to be
succumbing to this, I agree. But the personal judgements that
are linked to honest disagreements today are new to me over
the last few years. Maybe I''ve just led a sheltered life, but
back when I urged friends to vote for Bush I, I never
encountered the opinion that that would be evil, treasonous
or whatever. Now, of course, it would be perfectly innocuous.
Doesn''t bode well for the future, I''d say.
Robear
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Moveon.org is blamming Republicans for the ads. I saw the founder on MSNBC and he said that the Republicans are to blame.
Funny. This is a mainstream Lefty group...they are so going to lose in 2004.
For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I learned that, I gave Jesus a chance. ~Ron Shelton, Bull Durham, 1988
Most conservatives think liberals are naive. Some might go so far as to say stupid. That is based on the fact that most liberal policy is based on an idealized view of the world that is frankly unrealistic.
Liberals tend to think of conservatives as unfeeling. Many times, this gets extended to racist, sexist, homophobic, or...my favorite...evil. This is because conservatives usually refuse to buy into the idealized worldview.
I realize these are sweeping generalizations. We could go deeper if you like.
"It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem." - Malcolm Forbes
Which goes a long way to explaining why liberals, in your sweeping generalizations, often think conservatives are stone hearted, passionless, cynics that couldn''t drum up a positive worldview without getting a tax credit.
No, it''s because conservatives often act in a manner - for the sake of being pragmatic - that alienates the poor, or minorities, or those with alternative lifestyles. Then they go around saying it wasn''t them, and occasionally say something about morality and God to make things sound good.
Yes, they are. And, I know, so are mine. I don''t think there''s a point in going deeper because my examples are every bit impractical and inaccurate exaggerations as yours, and the truth is that each individual ideology rejects generalization. Liberal policy is sometimes unrealistic, and so are many conservative policies. It has little to do with idealizing worldviews, though I hear that a lot, but approaching the shared problems we need to solve from different perspectives. I think the failing is, ultimately, that people get locked into believing there is one right way to approach any given problem (economy, national security, homelessness, moral decay, etc.) when that''s simply not the case.
My point simply being, that generalizations, no matter how deep, aren''t going to get us anywhere.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
So your thoughts are that we have the capabilities to solve any number of these problems, like poverty, racism, crime, etc. but we lack the willingness to work together to do so?
"It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem." - Malcolm Forbes
We could solve poverty as we now know it.
As a matter of fact, we have been solving poverty for many years now.
What the poor have today is light years beyond what they had in the 1800''s.
That''s the best we can hope for is to raise the standard by which we measure poverty.
Crime we cant solve. People will always want what they dont have. A certain percentage of the people will go to extreme lengths or even hurt others to get what they dont have.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
The free market has pretty much eliminated poverty in the United States, by any standard of poor in history, or even in most of the rest of today''s world. The difference between rich and poor is also smaller here than elsewhere in the past or in other countries.
Poverty in the US is a bit like gender discrimination - it''s sold a a huge crisis, until you look around at the alternatives out there.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
We have the capabilities to do a lot better. I don''t think every problem has a solution, per se. But, when we get so caught up in winning against the other side, a lot less work is done.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
Says the man who wants to skip social security and leave the matter up to individual charity instead.
EDIT: This is of course giving you the benefit of doubt that you''re not an evil, heartless republican hoping that all those leeches starve to death already.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."