Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), my former congressman, was in a town hall meeting shouting down as irrational some LaRouchers who showed up and compared the health care legislation to Nazism.
The video I saw showed mostly Frank, and not all of what he was responding to, but what I did see from the citizen in attendance warranted his response: such a comparison is irrational. If you're going to make such a comparison, it is only for the purpose of undermining rational argument by raising the spectre of the Holocaust and other atrocities. You could compare it to Sweden or Britain or Canada, and get some use out of the comparison, but bringing up the Nazis only serves to undermine legitimate argument.
Maybe he should have responded using different words and tone -- he serves the people, and he was treating them like pundits or politicians instead of concerned citizens -- but the gist of his comments in response to the Nazi comparison was just fine.
Then there's this woman, who calls herself a conservative Republican who follows biblical values. She apparently considers yelling "Heil Hitler" to an Israeli Jew who supports the Democrats' reform, in order to highlight her opinion that Obama is as bad as Hitler, to be a "biblical value." (Psssst: it's not.)
Finally we have Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), who said, "I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district, if I actually think what I'm doing is going to help them. ... I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them."
I am told this is arrogant; that he is saying he knows what is best. But I always thought it was liberals that wanted their congressman to rule by opinion poll, and that it was conservatives who respected the words of their British godfather, Edmund Burke: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." It seems to me that Massa was just expressing, with less eloquence, what Burke said 250 years ago.
However, with all this criticism of Republicans and conservatives and defense of Democrats, I should balance things out by mentioning the latest from Brian Baird, who recently apologized for calling health insurance reform protestors Nazi "brownshirts" and comparing their rhetoric to that which drove Timothy McVeigh to become a terrorist. He has done it again.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 20, 2009 10:15 AM | Email ThisDems are now reaping what they have sown.
Posted by: deadwood on August 20, 2009 11:08 AMThat said, I respect Frank for his ... well, frankness. He is very willing to talk to people about issues, even when they disagree with him. He came to debates in our district back when neither candidate against him (twenty-somethings, Republican and Libertarian) had any chance.
I disagree with him on most things, but he does believe in Republican Representative Democracy, and he shows it with his words and his deeds.
Only in the same sense as they are the same class of people as Republicans and Swedes.
Such an argument as yours only serves to undermine rational debate. Sorry.
For you to compare the Republicans to the Socialist Swedes is Ridiculous! However, let me state this clearly, I'm am neither Republican or Democrat...I'm a Christian Conservative.
Why WOULD you except to undermine their arguments by invoking the Holocaust, rather than addressing their arguments?
Liberal Socialists agree with the killing of the Old, the Handicapped, those of ill health which includes the mentally ill as well. They are for the killing of Babies or anything else the Individual along with the blessing of the State deems undesirable or unwanted.
Some do. Most that I know absoultely do not. This is a caricature that doesn't apply to any modern American liberal socialist/democrat I know of.
They are also, for the Government being involved and taking over major portions of the Private Sector.
Yes ... just like Sweden and other peaceful countries that don't commit atrocities. So why not compare them to Sweden instead of Nazi Germany? Because you want to undermine their arguments by invoking the Holocaust, rather than addressing their arguments.
Simply because, a Country is so-called peaceful aka Sweden, does not mean it doesn't commit Atrocities.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_819513.pdf
Posted by: RobertSeattle on August 20, 2009 01:05 PMSo do I. But I do not compare it to the Holocaust ... and again, Sweden has a lot of abortions, too.
Simply because, a Country is so-called peaceful aka Sweden, does not mean it doesn't commit Atrocities.
Right, so why not compare them to Swedes instead of Nazis?
who knows, maybe the antidote to Goodwins Law will become known as Pudge's Proposition. :-)
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 20, 2009 01:19 PMI mean you see it every workday in downtown Seattle (NE corner of 4th and Pike). The LaRoucher's are setup with their offensive material comparing Obama to Nazi's. The press needs to do a better job of exposing who exactly is spreading this nonsense.
I agree with you that Baird seems to be off the deep end with this topic.
Posted by: tc on August 20, 2009 01:19 PM"I said the Far Left not, Liberals in general. My comparison is with the Far Left to that of those who supported the Nazis."
So Documents: Bush's Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler...
Stupidity is limited neither to the left nor the right, conservative or liberal.
Evil people are identified with evil acts, not generalizations.... although those who are quick to generalize often find themselves having supported something ... bad.
Shrug. That's a pefectly adequate way to express that you don't want government reducing Medicare benefits, or meddling with it in other ways.
tc: I am not sure if the lady (at the Barney Frank meeting) self-identified herself, or if the press did.
She held up a poster from the LaRouche PAC. That's all I know, but it's enough for me.
MikeBS: the bulk of the alleged ties of Prescott Bush to Nazis is completely made-up. "The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that effort [to fund Hitler]."
Daniel: Let me Clarify...As to my first post, I said the Far Left not, Liberals in general.
Right. And I know a lot of people on the far left, and NONE of them are in favor of letting people die (except for abortion, of course, which is terrible, but a separate issue).
I know some people do, though I don't know them. The supporters of Castro and Chavez and China and North Korea. There are some. But they are a tiny minority, even in the far left, in this country. (Granted, these people did, however, organize the massive antiwar protests under Bush under the guise of The ANSWER Coalition, but most people who were in the protests had no clue what ANSWER stands for and do not support what ANSWER does.)
My comparison is with the Far Left to that of those who supported the Nazis. Never, did I mention the Holocaust.
I know you didn't, but you raise the Holocaust by implication. Because there are many other, and MUCH MORE ACCURATE, comparisons to make to the "far left" than Nazis. So since the Nazis are not the most accurate comparison, why bring them up at all? To tie them to the atrocities of the Third Reich.
I think that most aware people would agree with the comparison.
You're wrong. Most vehemently disagree with such a comparison.
However, I do think that the Far Left would support a Holocaust as well since, they support all the rest of the mention killings.
No, most of the American Far Left does not support those killings (except for the aforementioned abortions, which, again, is a separate issue).
As pudge has said repeatedly, there are far better comparisons to make any point than the tired old
'nazi'. Unless of course one is too lazy to think something through (i.e. the woman at Frank's event).
So here, tell us the names of 5 "Far Left" Americans.
Then explain to us how they in any way compare to nazis, and why comparing them to nazis is superior to comparing them to fill in the blank.
Once you've actually tried to exercise your noodle, you'll find pudge is correct.
Good Luck!
Does that count? Can we not compare his programs to what Nazi Germany did with regards to health care?
If not, why not?
(what the hell does that even mean? Was it on a teleprompter? Sorry to offend him MikeBoyScout.)
Which brings us to today's news that Uncle Ted wants to undo a law he and the cowardly left in Mass. helped pass in 2004 for nothing more than political motivations (Mitt Romney was gov.)
The state last changed its succession law in 2004 to require the special election. Before that the governor was allowed to name a successor. At the time, Democrats were worried that then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney would be able to fill any vacancy created if Democratic Sen. John Kerry was elected president.
It's this type of political B.S. that I call them the Democrat party and not the Democratic party.
Rather than accuse you of being . . . .
How 'bout you do the exercise to see show us how it fits?
Tell us the name of this 'Far Left' American.
Then explain to us how they compare to nazis, and why comparing him/her to nazis is superior to comparing him/her to fill in the blank.
Yes, but there are many similarities to socialism as well. That is why it is called National Socialism. Traditional socialism, communism, and national socialism shared features, including the control of whatever parts of society they deem good or necessary to effect the sorts of outcomes they in power desire. All of them involve an almost total destruction of fundamental rights for the sake of the State. And all of them feature similar government structures to implement it all.
In other words, for the people, there often wasn't much difference between Hitler's nazism and Stalin's socialism.
Or put it another way: Hitler's and Stalin's programs were far closer to each other than Obama's or Sarkozy's programs are to either Hitler or Stalin, even if you want to call them all "socialist."
Here we don't get jailed or killed for dissenting, we still have most of our private property and the rights associated with them, we can say whatever we please ... the differences are far greater than the similarities. That doesn't mean the similarities are not troubling, but the similarities -- such as government control over the health care industry (assuming you could compare Nazis and Obama on this point, I don't really know and don't care much) -- have nothing to do with the atrocities conducted by the Nazis.
Certainly trains running on time and clean water didn't lead to killing Jews or invading Poland, so the comparison ends up implying the irrational: [something Nazis did] equals, or leads to, or is associated with, Nazi atrocities. That always appears to me to be the intent of such a comparison; otherwise there's no reason to make the comparison in the first place, rather than to make a much more accurate comparison to another system, like Sweden's.
we throw aound the terms of the last century too easily.
Perhaps, but they are also terms from the 19th century, and they still have serious meaning. The problem is they carry a lot of baggage. So when I say socialist to Bastiat in 1850, he thinks of control -- mostly by a legislative body -- of all the cogs of society for its supposed overall betterment. But say it to a European in the 1950s, and they think of direct government ownership by an essentially dictatorial state (presumably for the same purpose). They are both fundamentally similar, but extremely different in implementation, and it ends up that the fact of their philosophical relationship is less important than the differences between them.
I gave you a name. I gave you a newspaper that compared his Stimulus to the Nazi's Stimulus program in the 1930's. Favorably.
What do you want to accuse me of? Go ahead.
I know you don't think Obama is Far Left, but I certainly do.
Posted by: Gary on August 20, 2009 03:40 PMWe're all wee weed up! "Yes we can wee wee!"
Posted by: Gary on August 20, 2009 03:45 PMDo you feel the hate? It is the source of your strength. You still hate pudge. No matter. Today you have delivered yourself into pudge's hands. He has the power of life and death over you, Amused. Someday, you may hold that power over others. It is the humor of the idiot. You will devote yourself to the idea of domination.
:-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 20, 2009 03:48 PMWho are these 'Far Left nazis'? Are the same as the pink unicorns? The Underpants Gnomes?
:-D
You can't or won't make your argument. You just dance around. And while this doesn't make you a LaRouchian, you sound like a LaRouche nutcase.
Gary, my hunch is you're just trolling. But to argue against pudge's point by begging the question puts you closer to Daniel (see above), than the voice of reason.
I can't deny it any longer!
Posted by: Gary on August 20, 2009 04:11 PMSee, this is why one must alway be suspect of folks who jump to 'nazi' right out of the gate.
While it is certainly funny when any public figure uses colloquial language, "There is something about August going into September where everybody in Washington gets all wee weed up!" is understood in Kansas. And remarking on the silly remark has nothing to do with nazis and everything to do with what's wrong with bringing nazis in to any dialog about a policy issue.
I don't think Hitler ever said "wee weed up".
Maybe "vee veed up".
The loyal echo chamber which first and consistently relies upon the ad hominem and nazi crappola on these comment threads inhibits discussion and political organization.
There are responsibilities with the right to free speech in a democracy. Thinking before opening your mouth is one. Reminding others to think first is another.
This from the man who is for HR3200.
Posted by: Gary on August 20, 2009 04:54 PMNo moreso than the regular left, and the middle, and the right, and the far right.
... along with the same subservient and blind adulation to a Charismatic Leader who promises them all sorts of things to gain their obedience.
Again, not unique to the "far left."
Don't think for one moment that Obama does not have Tyrannical and Dictatorial ambitions...He DOES!
Perhaps. So do some people on the right.
They will follow him and blindly support whatever he does, same as the Liberal Socialist did with Hitler.
And some people on the right would follow a right-wing tyrant and support whatever he does.
The Far Left are the Nazis of America....PERIOD!
Utter nonsense, Daniel.
MikeBS is right about one thing: you can't name many, if any, people on the far left who favor killing old and handicapped people. You are just making that up. Your assertion is false, and when asked to prove it, you pretend that you don't have to. But logic dictates that you do prove it. But you can't.
But MikeBS, you're wrong to attack our making fun of "wee-weed." It's funny. It has nothing to do with anything, it's just funny.
Doctrinaire absolutism is the hallmark of totalitarian tyrannical death regimes.
Whether it is German nazis, Yemeni al qaeda, Iranian election stealers, Soviet autocrats, Serbian nationalist, Cambodian communists, our dear leader...
As abhorrent a compromise the 3/5 compromise was, it was reached and made in a democratic process that relied upon reason. Albeit flawed reason, but democratically debated.
Those who both stand-up and claim the wisdom to declare a philosophy or party or position pure AND attempt to enforce purity with fallacious comparisons looks and acts more like a totalitarian than a democrat. And shows your inability to compete in the democratic market.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 20, 2009 05:09 PMHow about Ted Kennedy?
How about Keith Ellison?
How about President Obama:
"But what we can do ("we"?) is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we ("we"?) can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
-
Who is this "we" he keeps referring to, and how would painkillers prolong the life of a person with an irregular heartbeat?
How about the guy at Oregon Health who said it was too costly to prolong Barbara Wagner's life?
He obviously was to averse to allowing an old person to commit suicide rather than live longer.
Who are these people to even say these things, pudge?
Have you see the VA pamphlet that encourages older veterans not stop being a burden on their families?
Posted by: Gary on August 20, 2009 05:15 PMAre you really comparing Obama's statement about cost effective health care management to Mein Kampf's antisemitism? Or is it Federalism as a Mask?
Please, sit down and make that comparison. Inquiring Minds would love to read it and link to it next time you provide us your wisdom.
How come?
I just quoted Obama. I slandered nobody.
Posted by: Gary on August 20, 2009 05:37 PMhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html
Posted by: Gary on August 20, 2009 05:47 PMYou said:
"...how many do you want me to list who are in favor of killing, or encouraging to die w/o life-prolonging treatment, old people?
How about Ted Kennedy?
How about Keith Ellison?
How about President Obama?"
Show us where each of these people said they were in favor of killing?
Show us where any of these people said they were in favor of killing?
You can't because it never happened, unless those to be killed are convicted felons or enemies of our country.
No problem. But to jump from your false premise to any conclusion is a fool's errand. Comparing these people to nazis tells all more about you than about them.
What about Peter Singer? Hasn't he suggested that you can kill babies up to two years old? I'm not sure though, but maybe someone here knows?
pudge, do you think nobody exists who has these views?
Posted by: Gary on August 20, 2009 05:55 PM"niggling"??
OUTSTANDING!!!!!
ROFLMAO! :-D
Here's a recent Pudge quote,
"MikeBS is right about one thing: you can't name many, if any, people on the far left who favor killing old and handicapped people. You are just making that up. Your assertion is false, and when asked to prove it, you pretend that you don't have to. But logic dictates that you do prove it. But you can't."
I think Pudge is a phony "seminar caller".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 20, 2009 06:19 PMI apologize. Your careful, thoughtful reasoning as shown in your response comments is inappropriately interpreted as ignorant blather.
Our fault actually. What say you to the Amused/Alphabet Nobel nomination committee? We are taking donations and would be honored if you could make a contribution and mail us a check.
I told the others in the liberal conspiracy that if our invented blogger, pudge, was shown to be civil and reasoning that the wise readers of our creation would quickly discern the tactics of our evil plot.
Please, please, please don't inform on us to Tom Delay!
The "Hammer" has new and improved methods! :-D
pssst, the Liberal Conspiracy is genetically cloning HIPPIES!
Gary: pudge, how many do you want me to list who are in favor of killing, or encouraging to die w/o life-prolonging treatment, old people?
I said nothing about encouraging to die, as Daniel didn't either. He was talking about KILLING people. And that is what I was responding to. To add in "encouraging people to die" now, Gary, is the goalpost-shifting fallacy.
And no, withholding payment for treatment is not killing anyone, unless you force them into that coverage (single-payer) or you make promises that you fail to keep (say something is covered and then don't cover it), etc.
Heck, what about Obama's science czar, Holdren? Forced abortions and such? If you kill a baby in the womb of a mother who wants the baby, that's murder, right? So, if Holdren is a proponent of forced abortion, isn't that someone who is in favor killing, albeit not old people...
Yes, and I think that is a horrible thing, and I explicitly separated it from what I was talking about ... not because it is not as bad, but because abortion is, in our society, a separate issue. (Although again, forced abortions is very much a minority view on the far left in this country.)
What about Peter Singer? Hasn't he suggested that you can kill babies up to two years old? I'm not sure though, but maybe someone here knows?
No idea.
pudge, do you think nobody exists who has these views?
I never said that. I said it is not a feature of the Far Left of this country, not that NO ONE holds the views.
-
Perhaps, but the President chose him, out of 300 million Americans, to be the best science czar he could find. That is truly far, far left. The President looked around... and chose him.
Funny you should say that Mike BS: Are these not your list of comments from HuffPo?
Hasselbeck Tells Huckabee: Pelosi "Needs A Little Enhanced Interrogation"
And there you have it ...... "Enhanced Interrogation" is a euphemism for torturous punishment. And the difference between the party and the columnists who support TORTURE and the folks in Germany in 36-45 and in the USSR in 26-54 is what exactly?????
Huffington Post Poster: Mike Boy Scout
posted May 18, 2009 at 17:40:45
I'm sure If you dug further, you'd find Mike Boy Scout in a more hypocritical speak. Have at it...
Posted by: Rick D. on August 20, 2009 06:44 PMAgain, what about it?
Show us where President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, advocated forced abortion.
Got a citation? No? Again???
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 20, 2009 06:54 PMHere:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/
Posted by: Gary on August 20, 2009 06:56 PM
Gary: Perhaps, but the President chose him, out of 300 million Americans, to be the best science czar he could find. That is truly far, far left. The President looked around... and chose him.
Yep. It's awful. I've criticized Holdren before here. That said, I don't know that Obama knew about those views (or willfully believed the lie that Holdren never meant what he said when he said it).
Then again, Obama said he never fought to keep a law that allowed doctors to let BORN VIABLE CHILDREN die. But he absolutely did. I think Obama might be on the fringe left here, too ... although really, I think it's more likely that Obama is just blinded by the insane pro-abortion rhetoric of the left, so much so that he convinced himself it really was about protecting the rights of doctors and patients to abortions (even though the bill in question explicitly did protect abortion rights ... which is something else Obama lied about later).
"Enhanced Interrogation" is a euphemism for torturous punishment. Verscharfte Vernehmung. You got a point relevant to the rhetorical use of nazis in comparison to Obama and the Democrats?
Mike BS: You compared Hasselbeck and the Republican party to the Nazi's, which this entire thread you've been denouncing that a very few on the right for doing. Quit making excuses and start thinking what other incriminating evidence of your hypocrisy is in that list of 265 comments on huffpo.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 20, 2009 07:18 PMYeah, scholars discussing stuff in writing = advocating it.
Soooo....
Holdren discussed forced abortion,
Therefore Holdren advocates it.
Gary discussed forced abortion,
Therefore ....
The 'Obama is a nazi' syllogism extended. Thanks for the example Gary.
How about this one Gary... Hitler was not born in the country he presided over. Obama ....
:-D Incapable of being serious?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 20, 2009 07:18 PMShrug. Saying so only shows everyone else your judgment is poor. I don't need to prove myself to you, or anyone else here. My record is pretty clear.
It's sad that expressing my reasoned opinion about how a historical comparison is illegitimate, and correctly pointing out facts, makes me a "leftist." That doesn't say much for your opinion of conservatives.
I can't prove it of course but I think observing the uncivil manner in which he responds to any disagreement should provide a clue.
Hm. From where I sit, I've been extremely civil in this discussion.
Here's a recent Pudge quote
What about that was uncivil? Not that I necessarily care what you think; you accused me of incivility in our last discussion, despite that you -- by far -- the most uncivil person in the discussion.
Except they *advocated* some of them, in my reading of it. Read up yourself, there's full page scans and extended quotes.
But perhaps worse than advocating those specific positions, he believes they are constitutionally sustainable. I quote: "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
So even if he didn't agree with those methods, he believed that they, or others like them, could be forced on us by our government ... a government he now helps run.
But it seems pretty clear from reading those extended quotes he DID advocate all that. Yes, he uses the passive voice, but the tone, the incessant drumbeat, is very clear: he is giving us ideas he thinks are reasonable to control population. Now, it should be noted that he probably only believed in those because he (insanely) believed population control was necessary for our survival (which is reason enough to exclude him from being the top science advisor). And he probably does not believe those things now. But he did believe them, and he did -- and probably does -- believe that government CAN do such things if government believes they are necessary.
And yes, I say "he" even though it is "they" ... when you co-author a book, you accept the words as your own. This is why, when I wrote a chapter for "Professional Perl Programming" I wouldn't let them put my picture on the cover: they had not let me read the rest of the book and I didn't want my name, let alone picture, on it. I told people at the time I couldn't recommend the book, because, even though my name was on it, I had not read it; I didn't want to hurt the book sales -- I got no royalties, I wrote it on commission, so I didn't get money for sales, but I had no ill will toward it -- but I didn't want people blaming me for any bad content in it as though I endorsed the book through my picture.
However, that's a computer programming book, so I did let them put my name on it as a coauthor. Worst case is there's just a lot of poor writing or code in the book. But if it had been a political book, I never would have allowed my name on it as a coauthor, unless I agreed with the major premises of the book.
That is how it works.
My problem with the GOP is that they need to describe and demonstrate their alternate to Obamacare, otherwise the public will perceive that they are doing anything constructive in this debate. Someone there needs to explain their accomplishments, or they could lose this debate. In politics, perception is reality.
"The Obama Administration - Leadership in a vacuum"
Posted by: KDS on August 20, 2009 08:32 PMVery strange. You compare Hitler not being born in Germany to Obama? That's quite a stretch. Especially since Obama was born in the USA.
And you compared Republicans (aren't you one?) to Nazis at Huffpost? Really?
How does that help you advance conservative causes?
Posted by: Gary on August 20, 2009 08:34 PMNo, it's really not.
What seems to have escaped this discussion is that Hitler and his buddies were "National Socialists". Yeah, they were leftists. So are those nutcases that support Lyndon Larouche.
No I don't think Obama wants to round up his enemies the way Hitler did. One does have to wonder what his rat on your neighbor was all about.
The left isn't just some casually annoying group of people. They want to crush free speech in the same way Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Castro did. This is what the left invariably does when they take power. They want to restore the so-called "fairness doctrine". These people have been stomping on free speech at universities for years.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 21, 2009 07:57 AMAnd that's the point. Making outrageous connections to Nazi Germany may appeal to a segment of the base, and it may feel good at the time, but it does nothing to help the long-term health of the Republican Party and get GOP candidates elected.
Posted by: Ryan on August 21, 2009 07:58 AMNone that are unique to Nazi Germany, or the "Far Left." So why bring up Nazi Germany, instead of Sweden?
One could mention that they are for the taking over major portions of the Private Sector.
Like Sweden.
How about mentioning they are for the killing of Babies?
Like Sweden.
Some like Holdren, one of Obama's henchmen, even believes in forced abortion.
Like Sweden (which actually forced sterilization on 21,000-31,000 people).
Again: Sweden is a much better comparison, if you are going for, you know, accuracy. Instead of trying to derail the discussion with emotion related to the Nazi atrocities.
How Silly of you and MikeBS requiring names of the Far Left as though if names are not given, the Far Left doesn't exist.
Daniel, you should know that wasn't the question. The question was for names of people on the American Far Left who support killing elderly and handicapped people.
They are for the killing of anybody they deem unworthy such as, the Old, Handicapped, those of ill health, etc.
Names?
You can argue the fine points of this incomprehensible legistation until the cows come home.
It's entirely meaningless if you don't understand the people who make up the left.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 21, 2009 09:36 AM
Daniel: Do you really think that the same people that are willing to kill Babies would not be willing to kill those of the Old, Handicapped, those of ill health ...
I don't know. Give me a name and we can try to find out instead of assuming it.
As far as your requirement for names, let's start with Obama.
That I have seen, he has never implicitly or explicitly expressed a desire to have people killed, other than babies in the womb (and, unfortunately, newborns). So ... unless you can come up with evidence he does believe that, then no, this name doesn't count.
Then, let's follow all those who fully support Obama and Obama's so-called Health Care Reform.
Which of those support killing old and handicapped people? Where's your evidence for that?
Sometimes, it is necessary to fight Fire with Fire.
Where "Fire" means trying to win an argument through dishonesty ... no, it's never necessary to do that.
Bill Cruchon: Why is it a stretch to believe the same people who happily promote killing unborn children would do exactly the same thing to elderly people?
Because in their minds those are two completely different things. Is there a POSSIBILITY they could come to see old people in a similar light? Sure. Will they necessarily do so? Of course not. You can't just assume it ... not if you are interested in finding out what they ACTUALLY think, instead of drawing unwarranted conclusions based on your own preconceptions and biases.
You have to wonder what these people think?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 21, 2009 10:28 AMNow, you got Obama coming out and saying, "We are God's partners in matters of life and death"! If that isn't a Wake Up Call then, you must be far less aware than I thought. Bottom line: You remind me of Bill O'Reilly...You have a lot of Liberal blood in your veins.
Posted by: Daniel on August 21, 2009 10:38 AMNone of that has anything to do with favoring killing people who are old or handicapped.
Absolutely false, Daniel. There is no truth whatsoever to that claim. The use of common sense and logic dictate precisely the opposite conclusion, because these people distinguish, quite clearly, between those types of killings.
sources for names and names have already have been given
"Sources" were not asked for, names were. And you gave only ONE name -- Obama -- and you could not back that name up with ANY evidence of any sort that he supports the killing of old and handicapped people. You are resorting to the question-begging fallacy: you assert (without evidence) that if you believe in abortion, you are likely to believe in killing old and handicapped people; then you say, well, Obama believes in abotion, therefore he believes in killing old and handicapped people.
It's an utterly illogical argument.
And you still have not given a single person on the American Far Left who supports killing old and handicapped people.
However, here's a couple of more Big Names...Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi.
Provide a single shred of actual evidence -- not your made-up belief -- that they believe in killing old and handicapped people.
When I stated, you need to fight Fire with Fire, the meaning is you must fight as aggressively as your enemies do. Get it?
Not really, no. All I see is you calling people Nazis even though they are much more different than Nazis than alike; and pretending that someone who is in favor of abortion is more often than not going to be in favor of killing old and handicapped people. I don't call that aggressive, I call it irrational.
Now, you got Obama coming out and saying, "We are God's partners in matters of life and death"!
And? He was talking about doing God's work by helping provide health care. This cannot seriously be taken to mean he is in favor of killing anyone. I am against the government doing "God's work" in provoding health care, but to take this to mean he wants to have people killed is idiotic.
If that isn't a Wake Up Call then, you must be far less aware than I thought.
If you are an example of "aware," then I do not take this as an insult.
Bottom line: You remind me of Bill O'Reilly...You have a lot of Liberal blood in your veins.
You are the kind of people who give conservatives a bad name. Not because of your views regarding Nazis and killing people -- which are bad enough -- but because you disregard facts and logic, and pretend that the application of such is "liberal."
Posted by: pudge on August 21, 2009 11:00 AMAnd just how, Pudge, does one find out what leftists, as you put it, ACTUALLY think?
Wait, you think leftists ACTUALLY think? They're told what to think and that's that. There is no diversity of opinion allowed on the Left!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 21, 2009 11:03 AMThe irony of that statement is astounding.
Posted by: demo kid on August 21, 2009 11:20 AMWell, no, it doesn't, in fact.
Of course the Obamanites are dead set against the Death Penalty no matter how heinous the Crime. These positions don't strike you as Evil?
No, I do not consider being against (or for) the death penalty "evil." Do you?
And I don't have an opinion on whether a position no one holds and has not been described -- the mythical "mechanisms for euthanasia" you speak of -- is "evil."
As for my statement that you have a lot of Liberal blood in you veins, I fully stand behind the statement
Sure you do. You stand behind a lot of completely made-up things you've said.
No, it doesn't give Conservatives a bad name for calling out the Truth.
If it is truth, then prove it. Back it up with, you know, evidence. Facts. You've continually avoided talking about facts. You say they are for killing old and handicapped people; you don't show any evidence. You say the "mechanisms" for it are Obama's plan; you provide no citation.
This is not Truth.
Yes, Obama Health Care says it all. It includes all the mechanisms for the euthanasia of all who the Obamanites consider a burden on Society. It can be proved and has with page after page of various convoluted screed giving indications for the implementation of such acts. Others have provided a number of details in that direction. For me to provide such details and go on and on with page after page with all the dissertation of pointing out and explanation thereof would be a horrendous time consuming long read effort. You know that these matters have been brought forward and it is your dishonesty requiring this time consuming effort to once again prove what has already been proved. It is a Dodge similar to you requiring names on your part to avoid facing an establish Truth.
By not allowing the Death Penalty to be in place, you are also, lowering the Threat of serious punishment meant to discourage such conduct in the first place.
If I don't believe it has a deterrent effect, having looked at the evidence, then why should I be in favor of the death penalty for its deterrent effect ... which I don't believe in? So now it is evil to disagree with you about its deterrent effect! That's rubbish.
If you fail, by not using the Death Penalty to ensure that a Killer meets the justice he deserves then, you are protecting Evil.
You are committing the question-begging fallacy by saying he deserves death. And you are committing the fallacy of equivocation by saying that protecting a person's life is the same as protecting the "evil" that person has done.
When, you are protecting Evil, that act in itself is Evil.
But no one is protecting evil, even if they are protecting the life who committed evil acts. And worse, why not say that our whole system of justice is evil, since it REQUIRES that a person -- no matter how guilty of evil acts -- be supplied an adequate defense in court? That is protecting evil ... and it is not just on the defense attorney, but on the whole system itself.
The very system YOU say should put people to death for being guilty of certain evil acts is -- in the process of putting them to death -- itself guilty of (by your definition) protecting Evil.
Especially when he serves his 26 year term and goes out and kills again.
Except that you could favor life sentences without the possibility of parole as an alernative to the death penalty, so this is a straw man fallacy.
Yes, Obama Health Care says it all. It includes all the mechanisms for the euthanasia of all who the Obamanites consider a burden on Society.
In fact, it does not.
It can be proved and has with page after page of various convoluted screed giving indications for the implementation of such acts.
No, it hasn't.
Others have provided a number of details in that direction. For me to provide such details and go on and on with page after page with all the dissertation of pointing out and explanation thereof would be a horrendous time consuming long read effort.
And since it DOES NOT EXIST, it would also be impossible.
You know that these matters have been brought forward ...
With about as much evidence as you've got here: that is, none at all.
Have you read the bill? I have. What you're saying isn't there. You're either making it up or your parrotting what you've been told without adequately researching it.
... and it is your dishonesty requiring this time consuming effort to once again prove what has already been proved.
You have it backwards: it is YOUR dishonesty that asserts it's been proven in the first place, by anyone.
It is a Dodge similar to you requiring names on your part to avoid facing an establish Truth
Daniel, that you keep saying it is a "dodge" for me to ask you to back up your assertions shows you really don't know, or don't care, about being rational.
I will be clear. YOU made a claim. I and others asked you for evidence to back up your claim. YOU refused to do so. This reflects poorly on you alone.
I think we're done here, Daniel. You've shown conclusively that you are incapable of or uninterested in facts or reason or logic. I continually ask you for evidence, and you continually treat such a reasonable, normal, expected request as anathema. You are irrational or dishonest, and you're wasting everyone's time with every comment you post.
If you change your mind and decide to provide evidence for your claims, fine. Until then, I couldn't care less about anything you have to say.
Is he a leftist? I don't know for sure but I am suspicious.
Is he a really thin-skinned, angry guy who regularly insults anyone who disagrees with him? Definitely.
Why is he allowed to start threads on Sound Politics?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 21, 2009 03:06 PMAnyone who has a level of reading comprehension greater than -- well, you, I guess -- can see that I disagreed with almost everyone in this discussion, and yet, they will find no insults directed by me to anyone except for you and Daniel. And in both cases, you each insulted me first.
You're just babbling nonsense, Bill.
Why is he allowed to start threads on Sound Politics?
Obviously, because I am a liberal plant. Duh.
I love pulling this guy's chain. He deserves it. He is a most unpleasant individual.
Exposing him for who he is?
Priceless.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 21, 2009 05:45 PMGary: yeah, that's so precious. :D
Posted by: pudge on August 21, 2009 06:36 PMWe talk you know. And we know exactly what you are.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 21, 2009 07:41 PMUm, guess you weren't listening. The belief is that as to matter of conscience the government shouldn't intervene,this includes thought, speech, your family choices (so what's with this telling people who they can marry? quite an intrusion); in the social context the goverment can intervene when our democratic institutions so decide; in general a mixed economy is best and in Ameria or Europe going between a 35% or a 50% tax rate isn't the end of the world esp. as with the
higher taxes in Europe you get national medicine you get you college paid for and you get more vacation...in general you get more; and with all that the nations seem to prosper and not have the kind of grinding poverty you find in America. And they have democratic elections so all this baloney about losing your freedoms is just that. As shown in this thread, some rightists equate Sweden with Nazi Germany ...I guess they think anyone supporting national health insurance is a Nazi, too, like David Cameron the head of the English conservative party! Well if people are going to be so silly you can't really argue with them. Thepoint of view that the French conservatives and the UK conservatives (parties on record as keeping their nationaled health systems) and everyone in Sweden etc. are all Nazi's is just too silly to even debate; you just can say, folks stop being delusional.
In the end one can say one prefers the more individualistic system we currently have in the USA where you can work hard and pay your insurer then get a heart attack and maybe another one and be banktrupted by co pays, ha ha ha, you call that "insurance"? And be happy with that. Or you can say mmmmmm why yes I don't mind a bit less "freedom" in having a socialized system as in Europe because you know, really, NOT GOING BANKRUPT kinda allows me to have more control over my life, and more liberty.....also our system of letting people go bankrupt socialistically makes other folks (all your other creditors) pay for your medical bills, so it's kind of socialistic too. Anyway it's one thing to debate which one you prefer, my god, that's your own freedom of conscience. It's another thing to be 100% wrong factually and equate Nazi Germany with Sweden or to think all liberals or all conservatives are idiots or evil or to say things like if we have a public option we will "lose America" or "lose our freedoms" as if gulags are the next step. so what us liberuuuurrrrrls you hate so much think is: our way is a better way to achieve life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And no it's not the same as the commies or nazis who take away elections, and kill folks and stuff like that! Oh and we think those rightists who say those things are ignorant, or worse perhaps deluded by their leaders who willingly exploit those fears and beliefs to further the agenda of sepcial interests (like the health insurers who would like nothing better than to fleece us for even more unearned profits; or Blackwater; etc.).
Of course there are many other conservatives who aren't like that and who don't say liberalism equals nazi germany and who don't willingly lie or yell just because you point out that many nations with national health care have better health outcomes and similar standards of living to us. I'm just talking about SOME of the rightists like those who say things like "Wait, you think leftists ACTUALLY think? They're told what to think and that's that. There is no diversity of opinion allowed on the Left!"
riiiiggggghhhhttt....we're all having a big secret meeting in Chilmark MA this week where our secret leader is going to tell us what to think...how to trick everyone into gulags...first step is public option........
(n.b. many of us also think humor is good, and it includes this thing called sarcasm, parody and irony, some of you might want to look it up to "get" that last paragraph).
Oh and one more thing...bringing a lot of guns you don't even secure to places where the president is around is mean, vicious, stupid, deluded and unAmerican and you're not fooling anyone, there are some few rightists who'd be very happy if he got shot, or if there were riots. tussles, struggles and someone else getting shot...... so cut it out!
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on August 22, 2009 08:30 AMNo, that is not at all how liberals think. Liberals favor intrusions into matters of conscience all the time. They favor hate speech laws; laws that violate the right of association; laws that make certain "unhealthy" foods illegal; and so on, ad nauseam. They redefine these matters of conscience as "public" behavior, and then they redefine actions that directly harm other lives (abortion) or are explicitly public (govt recognition of marriage) as "private" behavior.
(so what's with this telling people who they can marry? quite an intrusion)
See ... you are actually saying that it is an INTRUSION for government to "intervene" into who should get married. That's like saying "keep government out of my Medicare," something liberals have been mocking recently. We are talking about marriage AS A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION. In FACT, you are ASKING government to intervene MORE into our lives by adding a new class of couple that can be married in the eyes of the government.
The way I described it earlier to Bill may have seemed like a defense of the liberal mindset, but it was more of a criticism than anything else: I was saying, and am now saying, that liberals tend to redefine everything to suit their particular biases. They are anti-gun, so the Second Amendment therefore does not protect an individual right. They are anti-death penalty, so the death penalty is therefore condemned by the Eighth Amendment. They are pro-gay marriage, so therefore not recognizing it violates equal protection. They are anti-hate speech, so therefore they see laws restricting it as not violating the First Amendment. And so on, and so on, and so on.
in the social context the goverment can intervene when our democratic institutions so decide
Not in the United States, no, because we have rights guaranteed by the Constitution that the democratic institutions have no authority to override, except through constitutional amendment. You keep ignoring this fact, because ... well, because you're a liberal.
Oh and one more thing...bringing a lot of guns you don't even secure to places where the president is around is mean, vicious, stupid, deluded and unAmerican
Riiiiiiiiight. First, no one brought an unsecured gun, unless you consider all the police weapons unsecured as well. Second, there's nothing mean or vicious about it, any more than exercising speech (Pelosi's favored "disruptors," for example) is mean or vicious. Third, there's nothing stupid or deluded about it, unless the person is handling it carelessly; certainly being NEAR the President in that way is just fine, as they posed no danger whatsoever to the President (unless you think you know better than the Secret Service does).
And finally, nothing could be more American than arming yourself in public as a show to the government of who actually wields the power in this country: the citizens. The only thing that is, to me, un-American, is trying to take away the rights of citizens. Which is what you try to do. Often.
and you're not fooling anyone, there are some few rightists who'd be very happy if he got shot, or if there were riots
Leftists too. So what? So I should not carry a gun because some crazies want him shot? That is -- well, pretty damned un-American of you.
so cut it out!
I'll make you a deal. We on the right will stop exercising our Second Amendment rights in public, if you on the left stop exercising your First Amendment rights in public. Go back to HA and dKos and HuffPo and confer with them, then get back to me.
They're going to attempt to portray conservatives as gun-toting racists. You notice the press does not identify the Larouche kooks as far leftists, which is what they are. They want to keep the mistaken notion most folks have that Larouchies are on the far right alive. Folks also have a mistaken notion that Hitler was a right-winger. You'll never see the New York Times point out that the man was a socialist.
I strongly suspect the left will plant folks in these "town hall" meetings with racist signs. Racism is the big card the left is going to try to play in a desperate attempt to get socialized medicine passed.
These people are becoming increasingly desperate as their poll numbers sink.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 22, 2009 10:10 AMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRE5UK6NQU&feature=player_embedded
Watch, you'll enjoy it.
Posted by: deadwood on August 22, 2009 07:23 PM"Here's an argument for Obama's public option: The insurance companies make more money on big expensive surgeries and procedures; there's nothing they can do about the more basic visits like annual check-ups."
The liberal mind on display.
Posted by: Michele on August 22, 2009 08:30 PMIt was refreshing. Sure we got the some of the expected raised middle fingers from leftists. The overwhelming response was positive.
Speaking of Medved, (and I've mentioned this here on another thread), he made one of the funniest gaffes a couple weeks ago I've ever heard.
Talking about how Obama's healthcare initiative was losing support, Medved said something to the effect that the dwindling support for healthcare might lessen the ability of Obama to "extend his rod" over America. Promptly realizing his poor choice of words Medved mumbled something about Obama "wielding his staff". Who says conservatives don't have a sense of humor. I laugh every time I think about it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 22, 2009 09:18 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRE5UK6NQU&feature=player_embedded
