NAACP chairman Julian Bond denies he made the incendiary comments that he is alleged to have made last week, comparing Republicans to Nazis and calling Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice “tokens.” He apparently does not specifically deny that he compared judicial conservatives to the Taliban. (I discussed the allegations extensively here.)
Bond says “I didn’t say these things I’m alleged to have said,” and asserts that the controversy stems from “an irresponsible attack by a right-wing blog — a partisan blog.” He is referring to WorldNetDaily, which reported what he allegedly said. But while there is no denying WND’s partisan right-winginess, Bond’s denial appears, at first blush anyway, to lack credibility, considering that an entirely independent source confirms he made the same Nazi (and Taliban) comparisons a week earlier in a different speech. (A third source confirms the Taliban remark.) So… is Bond claiming that not only the audience members who contacted WND are lying, but that the student newspaper and university P.R. office of the College of William & Mary are also lying?
Anyway, here is what WorldNetDaily is saying about Bond’s denial:
Stung by national criticism of a speech in which he reportedly equated the Republican Party and Nazis, Julian Bond, the chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, denies the comments attributed to him by members of the audience and has lashed out at WND as a “right-wing blog.”Fayetteville State University in North Carolina has issued a careful statement on the speech by Bond and issued a press release including the NAACP leader’s denial of the remarks.
“I didn’t say these things I’m alleged to have said,” the university quotes Bond as saying. “There is no one in the audience who can say I said them. The reporter from the Fayetteville newspaper did not report I said them. I have denied I said them and refuse to engage in a back and forth about what I did say. This is an irresponsible attack by a right-wing blog — a partisan blog — and these kinds of attacks should be expected and dismissed for what they are.”
However, WND has spoken to and corresponded with members of the audience who do assert Bond made the statements. And the university, despite its efforts to dismiss the matter, refuses to release a recording of the full event or even a transcript of Bond’s remarks.
University officials say they reviewed a tape of Bond’s speech. But an official statement issued by Jeffrey Womble, director of public relations for the university, was carefully worded to avoid addressing whether Bond actually uttered the words attributed to him in the WND story.
“We received numerous calls and emails from concerned individuals about Mr. Bond’s presentation, so we felt compelled to review the tape in an effort to address their concerns,” said Womble. “After a close review, we have concluded that the comments attributed to Mr. Bond about the Republican Party, Dr. Rice, and Mr. Colin Powell were not made.”
Specifically, he said, nowhere during Bond’s speech was reference made to the Nazi Party.
However, the key quotes reported by WND never mentioned the Nazi Party. Instead, Bond was quoted as saying: “The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side.”
That quote and other comments reportedly made by Bond at the speech were relayed by members of the audience who were appalled at the specific charges as well as the overall divisive tone of the address.
Leon Delaine, who describes himself as “African-American,” is one of those audience members who contacted WND. He said he and his family walked out on the Bond speech because of the offensive comments.
Here is the press release from Fayetteville State. The key excerpt is:
FSU officials reviewed a tape of Bond’s speech to verify the alleged comments. Based on the review, it was determined that nowhere during Bond’s speech was reference made to the Nazi Party, nor was the word “token” used.
I would really like to know the truth of this matter. I am not assuming that Bond is lying, but I’m not assuming that he’s telling the truth, either.
My guess — and it’s only a guess — is that he is relying on Clintonian defenses here. “I didn’t say these things I’m alleged to have said” could mean only that the exact quotes relayed to WND by audience members weren’t quite right, which wouldn’t be altogether too surprising. But if, for example, he said “The Republican party would fly the American flag side by side with the swastika” instead of “The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side,” that’s hardly a defense, even though it would make his technical denial true. Similarly, if he didn’t say “token” but instead described the same concept using different words, that wouldn’t improve things much, but it would allow the university to say what it said in its press release.
If Bond is relying on Clintonian defenses, a key question becomes why Fayetteville State University is aiding and abetting his deception. If, on the other hand, he really didn’t say these things, or anything like them, in his speech at Fayetteville State, I have to wonder about the William & Mary speech. Did he make the swastika comment there, as reported by the student newspaper? Is some grand conspiracy afoot to falsely accuse Julian Bond of outrageous remarks? That notion strains credulity, it seems to me. On the other hand, perhaps he did say those things at William & Mary, but didn’t say them at Fayetteville State. David Crisp raised this possibility in a comment on my previous post:
The fact that Bond made similar comments in other venues may add credibility to the story. But it also means that if World Net Daily (or its stringer) did fabricate the story, it would have believable quotes to use.
If that’s the case — that he called Republicans Nazis at William & Mary, but not at Fayetteville State — then WorldNetDaily’s report is flatly false, and “fake but accurate” is no defense for the shoddy journalism. However, notwithstanding WND’s incorrect report, the outraged tone of Bond’s statement (”irresponsible attack” … “these kinds of attacks should be…dismissed for what they are,” etc.) would be somewhat dishonest if that’s the case. I mean, if they got the quote right but the venue wrong, that’s bad journalism, but it’s not like Bond comes out looking any better just because he said these things at a different university than originally reported, so it’s hard to see what he’s so outraged about — unless of course he’s trying to dishonestly trick people into thinking he never said this stuff at all, anywhere.
One way or another, someone is going to come out looking bad here, if the truth comes out. Maybe even some folks on both sides! But will the truth come out? It would be great to see that videotape. I can’t imagine what either Bond or the university would have to hide, if they’re telling the truth. It was a public event, so it’s not like releasing the tape would violate anyone’s privacy or academic freedom or whatever.
|
Categories: Uncategorized
|
February 6th, 2006 at 9:03:40 am
Is some grand conspiracy afoot to falsely accuse Julian Bond of outrageous remarks?
Well, it is a vast right-wing conspiracy…
February 6th, 2006 at 9:34:32 am
The national furor over the one liberal Brendan could find who made bigoted remarks continues….
February 6th, 2006 at 9:38:17 am
Yeah, and I was searching ALL AROUND for one, let me tell you! I’m on a witch-hunt, you see. I’ve been searching and searching for a liberal to smear. I hate liberals. Stupid damn commie pinko bastards. Send ‘em all to Gitmo, I say. GO DUBYA GO!!! GOD BLESS RUMMY!!! DOWN WITH THE DEMOCRATS!!! SANTORUM ‘08!!!
It’s not as if allegations that the chairman of the NAACP allegedly making bigoted remarks is legitimately newsworthy or anything… nope… clearly the only explanation is that I hate liberals. When I voted for Gore in ‘00 and Kerry in ‘04, it was an act of pure self-loathing. Any day now, I’ll reveal my true identity as a Republican… any day now…
Sheesh.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:53:01 am
Nicely putting words in my mouth in a very deliberate way…VERY classy….
February 6th, 2006 at 9:57:18 am
We simply MUST purify the Democratic Party. We have to find those few liberals who some perceive as bigots and flog them publicly, leaving aside the fact that Bond has probably zero impact on the policies of the Democratic Party.
We just HAVE to engage in public self-flogging to win those Middle of the Road voters….
February 6th, 2006 at 10:07:39 am
You claim that Bond is “the one liberal Brendan could find who made bigoted remarks” and then you accuse me of putting words in your mouth?
Anyway, yes, we DO need to purify the Democratic Party, just like the Republicans needed to get rid of Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, etc. You gotta weed out the rotten apples in your own midst if you want to be taken seriously.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:35:30 am
Oh, Brendan, you’re such a right-wing death beast! How can you even say things like “the Republicans needed… Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, etc.”
February 6th, 2006 at 10:55:57 am
So, Brendan, let me get this straight. You have a partisan source that says something happened and another that says it did not. It is possible that Blog a got the idea from independent blog b. as there is no video there is no preponderance of evidence to support you theory of events. Lacking coberating evidence the benefit of the doubt must go to the defendant.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:56:51 am
There was supposed to be an and between video and there…
February 6th, 2006 at 11:32:06 am
A Nun Mouse, are you specifically trying to bait Brendan (the way I specifically bait David over college football), or are you actually serious?
You really don’t think that it’s a big deal that the chairman of the NAACP made biggoted remarks?
We’re talking about the Chairman of the National Association for the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE questioning the legitimacy of the two most highly politically advanced colored people in the history of the United States…and you think that it shouldn’t be posted?
I mean, I understand that you probably agree with Bond’s sentiments–but if you do, you’re certainly out of the mainstream (which, considering your posts, is most assuredly the case).
As for “purifying” the Democratic party, I’m shocked that you would disagree with Brendan. Right now, the Democrats are looking to do a little better in the next election cycle, but their success (if they have success) looks like it will be most attributable to discontent with the Republican leadership–not the vision of Democrat ideals. (not a good strategy for long-term success) (Obviously a debatable point–but dems who suggest they’ll win on their ideas are probably only voicing the reason THEY vote dem, and not the reason swing voters vote dem)
But when the country is as devisive as it is right now, and the liberals seem to be coming up on the short end of the stick, one would think that moving the party more to the center would be the obvious fix to the problem.
Obviously you can disagree…but it’s hard to see the justification behind your opinion unless your opinion is purely fueled by ideological partisanship–which it probably is
February 6th, 2006 at 11:36:48 am
dcl–c’mon!
The University’s statement was very limited. They didn’t make a categorical denial, nor are they releasing the video or the transcript for the public to reach their own conclusion. Meanwhile, the independent students at William and Mary attribute the same type of rhetoric to Bond at an earlier speech.
I think it’s very reasonable to assume that Bond made some sort of statement regarding Condi and Colin and the Republican Party and the swastika, even if the statements didn’t include the word “token” or mention of the “Nazi party.”
February 6th, 2006 at 11:44:22 am
Have you ever been to William and Mary? Say it with me now, conservative… (also a dive, but that’s a different issue.)
February 6th, 2006 at 12:39:44 pm
Dane, did you read Brendan’s previous post? Are you really ready to boil this down to a he said/she said story? wow.
Like I said before, I am neither offended nor surpised by the remarks, I am used to them. I am not going to argue against Bond either, Brendan is doing a good job of follwing the story and I agree fully with his argument. But, it is evident that Bond made some type of immflamatory remarks at one or more venues, and to imply it is both not newsworthy )what you did last week) or that it is merely a he said/she said type story is lame.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:52:10 pm
Nun House
Right, there is only one liberal out there that would make inappropriate comments like these, liberals would never say anything derogatory or racist… like…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm
or perhaps…
http://www.macon.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/13745339.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_local
Brendan is correct, its appropriate to look at issues on both sides of the political aisle which i one reason I really like his blog, he favors no one. Bonds comments are certainly worth investigating. I’ll leave you with this…
If Ann Coulter had made similar remarks, is there any college in the country that wouldn’t release the tape if they had it??
February 6th, 2006 at 1:12:45 pm
thebeef - shhhhhhh !
If you’re not careful, you are going to out Rove’s deep-cover operative (codename Mendacious Mouse) who is fighting to keep the Democratic Party on its current lemming-track over the electoral cliffs for 2006 and 2008 …
I have to admit that, if someone had accused *me* of saying such things, at a speaking engagement which was taped, the first thing *I* would be doing is politely yet firmly asking that the tape be shown to *anyone* interested, to quickly and simply prove that the accusers were false accusers …
I expect Mr Bond will be announcing that request any moment now …
February 6th, 2006 at 1:26:44 pm
JB, your kidding? this type of drivel would be high brow for Ann Coulter.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:21:38 pm
So typical, Mouse: When Pat Robertson spews his idiocy, he’s merely revealing the true agenda that 99% of all Republicans adhere to; when Bond does it, he’s one of “those few liberals who some perceive as bigots,” and has “zero impact on the policies of the Democratic Party.” That sound you hear Mouse is your last shred of fair-minded objectivity zipping out the nearest window . . .
February 6th, 2006 at 2:38:43 pm
Why doesn’t the university just release the transcript? Lame.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:18:25 pm
Ours is not to wonder why, if we told you would cry…
February 6th, 2006 at 3:28:18 pm
Just because all Nazis were conservatives doesn’t mean all conservatives are Nazis.
Sean said this on the last Bond thread, and I am still wondering why Sean thinks Nazis where conservatives? Would you care to ellaborate on that statement? There was nothing conservative about a socialist party with a leader advocating for and crating a totalitarian regime, so I am just wondering where Sean came up with that idea.
Also, Dane, I was not sure what you meant on the previous Bond thread when you compared Pat Robertson asking for someone’s head, to a Muslim leader asking for someone’s head? To me, they are the same (it seemed you were implying there are parallels but that somehow I would deny it). What was your point? That Robertson is like the Taliban? That Bond can equate the right with the Taliban because Robertson is part of the right?
February 6th, 2006 at 3:56:34 pm
Umm, Bea, the National Socialist Party was not particularly socialist. They were exceedingly pro business and nationalistic. They were also against the including of minority groups in society. The Nazi movement was a conservative movement to the point of being fascist. Yet recall - as Mike will no doubt be want to point out - politics is not a linear spectrum it. I’ve heard arguments for more of a polly dimensional sphere that make a lot of sense — where the extremes of everything start to resemble on another.
As to your other point, my point was that comparing the right (parts of) to the Taliban is not a completely indefensible position / opinion. Just like it is not wholly indefensible to argue that some of what Bush is doing has parallels to the beginning of the Nazi regime in Germany circa 1930. Be that as it may, parallels do not an exact correlation make. Certainly at this point it is more a rhetorical game than anything else… The better comparison is Bush to Nixon, the only difference is Nixon actually had a legal leg to stand on.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:04:23 pm
Joe Mama - do you ever wonder if the folk that keep trying to tell us that the German National Socialists were pro-business actually have the proverbial clue either what the Nazis were about or what business is ?
State before individual is NOT pro-business …
February 6th, 2006 at 4:26:02 pm
The order was: State, Business, people… or did you miss the memo on slave labor that is subsequently exterminated before you actually have to, well, feed it properly.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:27:49 pm
Pro-business is possibly a vague term here. Certainly they had nothing special in their heart for the little shopkeeper (esp. if he was Jewish, or non-German for that matter). They were considered “corporatist”, in that they encouraged the development of, and allowed free reign to, large industrial corporations (Volkswagen, Fokker, etc.), provided they benefit the state.
In any case, they were ‘conservative’ in that they alluded to an ideal age and an image of a superior nation, and that everyone should aspire to adhere to said image. They were right wing to an absurd degree: highly nationalist, corporatist, and monocultural.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:38:43 pm
there goes Briandot being all accurate and crap.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:38:57 pm
The Nazi’s might not have been “particularly socialist,” but they likewise weren’t “exceedingly pro business” either. The classic Marxist definition of fascism is a reactionary, imperialist dictatorship beholden to extremist capitalism/big business. This notion that the Nazis were an arm of the rich and powerful in Germany is a common misconception, but as countless scholars and historians have demonstrated over the years, it is plainly false. Nazism was a popular movement that crossed all class and regional lines in Germany. Hitler was hardly a tool of the rich, and to the extent he was helped by a few wealthy individuals, the fact remains that the Nazis achieved their electoral success by portraying themselves as defenders of the little guy and of national pride.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:42:07 pm
Dane, I am familair with alternative formulations for a political spectrum that makes more sense. I fall on the libertarian/conservative quarter.
We are perhaps operating under a different definition of conservative. My definiton of conservative describes people who favor limited government and the rule of law, but also endorse some classic liberal principles (the primacy of the individual over the group could be a point of contention, I will give you that, separating the conservatives from the classic liberals if you will). If your idea of conservative is more like a theocracy/autocracy which discriminates against minorities (as opposed to simply rejecting affirmative action, identity politics or the victim mentality) and is fuled by populist, nationalist tendencies that lead to facism, then yeah, Nazis could be conservatives. In that case, please qualify your definition of conervative. I understand that you see Bush and his administration as leading us the path of Hitlet and his Nazi party, but considering how Bush is not a conservative’s conservative, if you will (all that spending, all that federal meddling and federal power, are not very conservative in my understanding of the word) but a breed of his own, then it would be helpful to qualify what you mean by conservative. I remian unconvinced that Bush’s actions put him anywhere near Hitler. Why? Because his motives are not as nefarious as Hitler’s were, in my view (I see wanting to wipe eout the jews as waay more perverted than anything Bush is trying to do), and because everything else that makes up the historical context in which the Nazi party could rise to party and flourish is not really the historical context in present day US (by this I mean the lack of civic institutions and a history of liberalism, which are essential for a democracy to translate into a liberal democracy, along with the dire economic situation of post WW1 Germanym which make a society more open to populist crap about killing the jews to save the motherland). So, argue that Bush is an autocrat all you want, stop implying that being a conservative is in any way like being part of the Taliban or the Nazi party. Say the current Republican leadership reminds you of the Nazis and/or the Taliban, if you must, but do not tar all conservatives with the same stinky Nazu brush. I disagree with you, and I think claiming elements of the right are like the Taliban is not a defensible position, unless you qualify what elemts of the right you are refering to. Pat Robertson calling for people’s heads and sayingother outlandish things? Yeah, sure, compare him to the Taliban–so long as we remember the Taliban ha da hell of a lot more power to enforce their wacked views. But, when supreme court appointees, or the religous right in general are what people thnk of when you say the right, you shold qualify your statements about the right being like the Taliban. I am not one to defend the religous right, but when peopel imply they are anything lke the Taliban, and I know what the Taliban did to it’s people, well, I have to object.
Dane, you imply that discriminating agaisnt minorities is part and parcel of what being a conservative is. I hate this implication, and I hope you realize how inacurate and offensive it is. Sure, there are people who call themselves conservatives who are racist and who discriminate agaisnt minorities and immigrant groups. However, this is not reserved to just conservatives in particular, but to people in general. Moreover, conservative political thought, and conservatism as an ideology, does not call for discrimination or non-inclusion of any group based on race, ethnicity or minority status. That of the lot of racist people on this earth, some chose to become Republicans and/or choose to adopt a conservative political ideology does not mean that consewrvatives, by their very definition , are racist or discriminatory. Your statement reeks of Dean’s stench (white christian party of people who do not kmow what working for a living means). You are basically calling me a racist, because I ascribe to many of the conservative principles.
(by the way, precisely because people like Dane and David rountinely makes this parallels as some grandiouse arguments for why Bush is like Hitler and the Republicans/conservatives are like the Nazis or the Taliban, I am not shocked y Bond’s comments. He is saying what many on the left aleady agree to be true, to a greater or lesser degree).
February 6th, 2006 at 4:53:15 pm
Wow, calling the Nazis conservative definately portrays historical ignorance.
In the sense that we use the term “conservative” in this country, we use it to describe someone who is a conservative classical-liberal, who champions the fundamental principals of liberalism: a system that champions individual liberty and limited government. When we talk about a liberal we describe someone who is a liberal classical-liberal, who champions the fundamental principals of liberalism: a system that champions individual liberty and limited government.
National Socialists were expressly and unambiguously anti-liberal. Not “anti-Democratic Party liberal,” but rather “anti-Englightenment Liberalism.”
They also rejected classical-conservativism. Not “anti-Republican Party conservative,” but classical-conservativism: aristocratic government, church and state without seperation.
They also rejected socialism. Indeed, socialism and liberalism were really the Nazis’ twin villians. While the Nazis rejected conservativism, they did have some things in common: for instance, neither the national socialists nor the conservatives had any love for democracy or parliamentary government–such government was far too inefficient and de-centralized.
The conservatives in Germany, who under the Second Reich enjoyed the benefit of power and centralized control of the govt. under the Prussian monarchy, allied themselves with the Nazis to defeat the threat of socialism. Both the socialist threat and the Nazi threat were born out of antipathy for the liberal (classical-liberalism) Weimar Republic. The conservatives feared the socialists more than the Nazis.
This political alliance was certainly strained during the war. That is why the conservative officers of the Wermacht resented the Nazi officers of the SS, and precisely why you had German officers (such as Rommel) willing to kill Hitler.
Okay, I went on way too long–but it is categorically absurd to suggest that the Nazis are “Republican-Conservative.” Indeed, it’s absurd to say that they were “classical-conservative.” They were neither. They were what they were: a political philosphy that rejected both pre-Enlightenment conservatism and post-Enlightenment liberalism and socialism. They were the anti-enlightenment
February 6th, 2006 at 5:02:32 pm
Since irony abounds, try this …
Clinton was hardly a tool of the rich, and to the extent he was helped by a few wealthy individuals, the fact remains that the Democrats achieved their electoral success by portraying themselves as defenders of the little guy and of national pride.
After all, aren’t the Democrats the party of the little guy, only coincidentally helped by a few altruistic wealthy people ?
ROTFLMFO !
February 6th, 2006 at 5:52:18 pm
Nananinanan!! Esse ministro!!!!
February 6th, 2006 at 6:10:01 pm
Bea, you write:
“My definiton of conservative describes people who favor limited government and the rule of law, but also endorse some classic liberal principles (the primacy of the individual over the group could be a point of contention, I will give you that, separating the conservatives from the classic liberals if you will).”
I honestly cannot think of any principals modern conservatives adhere to, which are not “classic-liberal.” Limited government is a quintessential element of classic-liberalism–a government limited by law and the rights of the individual. Indeed, individualism is also a basic principal of liberaism–all men are created equal, deserve due process, and shall enjoy the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property.
Libertarians are the true adherents to classical-liberalism…hence their name. They believe in a VERY limited government protecting individualism to the very extreme.
I think it’s very unfair to suggest that either the conservatives, libertarians, or liberals are not “classically liberal.” We all espouse a constitutional government limited by law established to better protect individual interests.
A focus on the community leans more toward the socialist perspective, which is certainly not a “classical-liberal” approach, even though it’s hardly un-democratic. It’s simply an approach that does not attach the same weight to the right to property that liberalism champions.
But to suggest that Republican-conservatives are anything like Nazis or Democratic-liberals are anything like Communists is absolutely absurd…they’re not even on the same plane. Both Republicans and Democrats are “classical-liberals”
February 6th, 2006 at 6:23:54 pm
(by the way, precisely because people like Dane and David rountinely makes this parallels as some grandiouse arguments for why Bush is like Hitler and the Republicans/conservatives are like the Nazis or the Taliban, I am not shocked y Bond’s comments. He is saying what many on the left aleady agree to be true, to a greater or lesser degree).
Wait, what? When have I ever made grandiose comparisons of Bush to Hitler or the Republicans/Neo-Cons to the Nazi’s or the Taliban?
I have certainly made comparisons because I think there are many valid comparisons to be made. There are also differences. But if the only time we are allowed to even consider that there are parralells is when they are overwhelming ones as so many Bush defenders want to claim, then by the time we can actually make the comparisons it will be too late.
What Dane and I have tried to do on numerous occasions is to point out similar behaviors and parallels between the two regimes. This is wholly different than saying Bush is the moral and historical equivalent of Hitler. Sadly the minute one tries to bring up such topics people like Andrew and now apparently you Bea try and portray what we are doing as actually saying Bush IS Hitler when that is patently false.
Ironically the very behavior in which you are engaging is one of the reasons the comparison has some validity.
Both men use rehtoric, patriotism, and fear to push their agendas. They talk about being champions of the little people while at the same time engaging in policies which are clearly contrary to such goals, and because of the above methods the common person buys into it.
Now obviously the comparison is more complex than that, and I don’t believe that George W. Bush will in any way shape or form become the next Hitler, but the fact that some of us feel that there are similar patterns of behavior and are therefore a little bit afraid of the effects that will have does not make us extremeists making grandiose statements by a long shot.
Certainly there are extremist liberals who would make that comparison and they would be wrong to do so. But just as bad are the people who patently refuse to even listen to any argument whatsoever that tries to explain the similarties the two share and why we think thats a problem. Certainly you can disagree with the argument, but the problem is that you, who belong to a party that continously pntificates about the value of freedom, aren’t even willing to allow us the freedom to make our argument in the first place. Rather than judging it on its merits, allowing the evidence to be presented you just shout us down. Freedom of speech isn’t important, just being able to shout down your opponent. More is the pity.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:26:36 pm
How about this one Alasdair?
Bush was a tool of the rich, to the extent he was helped by many wealthy individuals, but the fact remains that the Republicans achieved their electoral success by telling people to be afraid and by convincing them that if you weren’t on their side you hated freedom and America.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:28:57 pm
thebeef, I agree with everything you said in your prior post, and you were able to better descrive why I think it is misleading and inaccurate to say that the Nazis were conservative. You say you cannot think of any conservative principles that are not classical-liberal. And neither can I, but I worded my post the way I did incase I was missing something I overlooked as I hastily wrote my response (I am working, after all). I pointed to primacy of the indivodual bit because it can be argued that conservatism is not always and solely concerned about the individual, but also about the group. I am not going to ellaborate, but this article advances the type of thing I had in mind, and while I am not saying I agree with the premises and conclusions in this article, it is the reason for that caveat: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011106E.
I also did not want my comemnts to be interpreted as saying only conservatives are classic liberals, because as you point out, other political philosophies also incorporate elements of classic liberalism, and I did not want my statement to become a distraction to the main issue which is that conservatives are not like the Nazis.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:38:22 pm
David, let me rewrite what I mean. I said David and Dane, and should have separated you two. You have not said Bush is Hitler. You have argued for why the way he does things is reminicent of the way the Nazi party operated. I am no Bush defender, I just think his behavior is more acurately described by sayinghe has autocratic tendecies or an uncontituional view of the executive powers or a number of other arguemnts, and not saying that he operates like the Nazis did, because I just dont think he fact support the latter, while you can certainly constue them to argue the former. Thatis ALL I am saying. As for Dane, he is arguing that it is defensible to say some conservatives and some Republicans are like the Nazis and the Taliba. When one does not qualify those statements, then yes, one will be accused of being grossly inaccuarte, and I explained in my post why this is so. So, while you have simply argued that Bush operates in a manner reminicent of Hitler and the Nazis, and Dane has simply argued that some elements of the right can be called Nazis or Taliban, I have simple said that, the historical context is quite different, the definitions why are suing must be quite different, and that because I hear these types of arugments without qualifiers that would make them more specific, the general tone is familiar to me, and BInd’s statements therefore are not that outrageous to my ears at this time (as opposed to them being outrageous to Brendan’s ears.
I hope that clarifies my sttaemnet.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:48:24 pm
Dabid, those patterns of behavior are the patters of behavior of politicians in general and autocratic figures in particular. That Hitler displayed them means that he was a populist, power hungry, political animal (meaning he knew how to work it). My arguments are never a defense for Bush, but simple a call for being a little more accurate. I will remnd you, it is not just me or Andrew with you on this, but also Brendan. So, do not make this a Republican defense of the administration or a republican attack on your argument. I simply disagree with your argument. I am not refusing to listen to your argument. I have explained by I disagree with your argument, and also have said it sounds more like an argument for saying Bush is an autocrat or a number of other things. Where are you getting this idea that I am not letting you make your argument? Infact, I am asking for arguments. I asked Sean why he made the Nazis are conservatives statement, and I asked Dane what he meant by his Pat Robertson post.
Sounds to me like you are not reading what I am writting, so until you go back and read myposts, stop accusing me of censoring your freedom of speech.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:52:22 pm
Interestingly enough, David did add a qualifier to his statement, by refering to neo-cons and not conservatives. If Dane or Sean where saying neo-cons instead of conservativies, I would read their argument a little different. Dane was refering to Pat Robertson (I agree he is crazy,no argument there), but then broadened it to “the right” and I took issue with that, but never said he had no right to argue his view that the right is defensibly called the Taliban.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:05:33 pm
Ironically the very behavior in which you are engaging is one of the reasons the comparison has some validity.
Certainly you can disagree with the argument, but the problem is that you, who belong to a party that continously pntificates about the value of freedom, aren’t even willing to allow us the freedom to make our argument in the first place. Rather than judging it on its merits, allowing the evidence to be presented you just shout us down. Freedom of speech isn’t important, just being able to shout down your opponent. More is the pity.
David, I hope you rethink your accusation and take it back. You piss me off all the time, sure, but telling me I am trampling on your right to make an argument because I wont listen to the merits is just nasty. I have been listening, do not agree and elaborated why, my behavior–arguing back–does not make a comparison between Nazis and Republicans valid.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:08:55 pm
Bea, good article, thanks.
Dave, I understand your point regarding the irony of the “Bush has Hitler tendencies”–just as Nazis restricted some forms of speech, so too are Republicans quick to censure “Bush has Hitler tendencies.”
Of course, by claiming “Bush has Hitler tendencies,” you’re simply doing yourself a disservice. When the vast majority of people think about Hitler, they don’t think about ruling by fear, promoting patriotism, and using strong rhetoric. People think of genocide, tyranny (I know he was democratically elected…but he also abolished the independence of the Reichstag and ruled independent of the law, which is what most of us think of), and undertook to enslave Eastern Europe. Bush obviously doesn’t do any of the following.
The problem with historical analogies is that they are incredibly limited–most of the time they are so limited that they serve no purpose. This is definately the case with Bush/Hitler analogies–the vast differences between the two are so great that they overshadow whatever small similarity you can draw between the two…and you therefore destroy your own credibility.
Simply state your point of view rationally: George Bush used the threat of terror to his political advantage–he seeks greater executive power to better combat terrorism (albeit within Constitutional bounds–he certainly hasn’t said anything about aboloshing the Supreme Court, and everything he has done is subject to their constitutional approval….and they are certainly an independent branch)–he wants to limit suspected terrorists of the full recourse of our courts (again, without disobeying a Suprem Court ruling to the contrary)–he favors tax cuts, including large tax cuts for the wealthiest, even while spending at a quick pace–and he uses his image as a concerned Christian to his political advantage.
I don’t really think those statements can be seriously debated, but the consequence and wisdom of those acts are certainly under debate. But to suggest that the above facts liken Bush to Hitler is like saying Bin Laden is like Jesus Christ (both preached to the faithful to sacrifice their lives for God…an obvious similarity that is obviously overshadowed by their incredible differences…one man is the Son of God and the Prince of Peace….the other is a blood thirsty terrorist)
February 6th, 2006 at 7:11:20 pm
David @ 5:31 - as short story fiction goes, it’s formulaic, trite, and overused …
February 6th, 2006 at 7:17:28 pm
the beef, I fully agree.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:42:20 pm
Seems like a lot of the talking past each other stems from disagreements over what it means to be conservative. This is a good thing, actually, since anyone who’s read about conservatism, its roots, and its historical proponents knows that it’s a difficult ideology to pigeon hole. Likewise, anyone who’s ever been to a Federalist Society meeting knows that aside from some simple bedrock principles such as separation of powers and individual liberty, there’s very little agreement on any kind of monolithic platform, including on issues like abortion and the death penalty.
To far too many people, however, “conservative” is simply a synonym for anything that is traditional, un-PC, manichean or retro, and therefore to be disfavored. All you have to do is see how detractors throw around the word “neo-con,” the vast majority of whom know next to nothing about the philosophy that term describes.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:46:54 pm
To be fair, the same is done by detractors of “liberalism” (of the contemporary variety), a term that has perhaps been similarly bastardized . . .
February 6th, 2006 at 7:48:02 pm
Precisely why I asked that we be more accurate when using the word conservative, especially when associating it with Nazis or the Taliban. I mean, I qualify the term liberal when I use it, to diferenciate from classic liberalism to democrats to “the looney left” as Brendan calls it, and everything in between. I try to qualify my statements precisely because I hate gross generalizations that lump everyone together. I don’t even like to use the word moderate because it is a cacth-all that describes atleast three different types of political behavior and thought.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:54:42 pm
Sean also complained that conservatives get to throw around the Hitler reference when refering to third world dictators, and I am still waiting to hear who are these conservatives refering to what third world dictators. I am not denying it has happened, I just want atleast some examples. Anything Pat Robertson says does not count, much like Moore would not count if I was advancing a serious argument that “liberals say this or that”.
David, did you go away and are unable to post because I am censoring you? :)
February 6th, 2006 at 9:39:16 pm
They were exceedingly pro business and nationalistic.
Dane, don’t confuse corporatist with pro-business or pro-free market.
The Nazi movement was a conservative movement to the point of being fascist.
There is nothing about conservatism that implies fascism. Fascism would be abhorred by Edmund Burke, the founder and originator of conservatism as a stated brand of political thinking. Conservatism calls for slow, tedious change, and frowns on tinkering with tradition. National Socialist ideology and fascism are thoroughly totalitarian, revolutionary ideologies which totally upset the status quo.
You need to get off this whole left-right continuum, it’s leading you to incredibly bad thinking.
thebeef, you are deadly accurate in your description of what conservatism is and isn’t, but I would add a couple more key notes.
First, most “liberals” or Democrats in America are not actually liberals as you describe them, but rather what the rest of the world calls democratic socialists. The more extreme of them are comparable to the Green and Communist parties found in European democracies. Over here, however, they all end up in one big, Dean-led tent of liberal (in the classical sense of the word) -hating howlers.
Second, I’d place more emphasis on the “conserving” aspect of conservatism. The reason American conservatives are classical liberals is because, due to the nature and formation of American society, that is precisely what they are trying to conserve. In Britain, however, Margaret Thatcher was a very “American-style” Conservative, in stark contrast to the policies and preference of the Tory Party of her time. In France, Jacques Chirac is “conservative” in his society, not because he gives a rat’s ass about classical liberalism, but because he stands for traditional French culture. The actual policies a “conservative” would promote vary wildly from society to society because it all depends upon the context of the society within which one lives. Thus, a conservative in America has absolutely nothing in common with a conservative Taliban in Afghanistan, despite the misapplication of terms as popularly applied by Democrats and liberals.
David and Dane, you are still way off base in comparing Bush to Hitler. That comparison, based upon perceived ruling and campaigning styles, has about as much relative merit as comparing David to the Taliban because of his knee-jerk reactionary attitude towards anything he perceives to be anti-Catholic.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:57:03 pm
Nice try Andrew but not even close.
The fact that Bush’s actions, policies, and many other things share stricking similarities with Hitlers rise to power is in fact a valid comparison, or atleast has more merit than comparing me to the Taliban. In the first instance specific examples can be given where the similarities occur. In the later instance the closest you have is the fact that I disagree with YOU vehemently when you take an anti-Catholic stance without any merit behind the argument. Given that my attitude is not knee-jerk except that I see you specifically targetting Catholicism does not in anway equate to me being knee-jerk to ANYTHING I see as anti-Catholic. And the fact that I strongly defend something I believe in verbally does not even come close to the actions of a group like the Taliban.
Once again rather than even hearing the arugment at all you have decided that the best way to counter it is to try and paint your opponent as the one who is being absurd. Typical GOP smoke and mirrors tactics.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:05:08 pm
Given that my attitude is not knee-jerk except that I see you specifically targetting Catholicism does not in anway equate to me being knee-jerk to ANYTHING I see as anti-Catholic.
Neutral (and non-neutral) observers who have been around bloy.com awhile and witnessed [m]any of David’s Catholic eruptions, please rate on a scale of 1-10 (10 being volcanic, 1 being passively dismissive) how much you think David tends to be knee-jerk in his defense of his Catholic faith against remarks he perceives to be anti-Catholic.
And the fact that I strongly defend something I believe in verbally does not even come close to the actions of a group like the Taliban.
Just like Bush’s rise to power “does not even come close to the actions of a group like” Hitler and the Nazis. Just get off it already. The more you try to defend your comparison, the easier you are to dismiss as a paranoid anti-Bush nut:
Gore, however, exemplifies how powerlessness also corrupts: by producing paranoia, persecution fantasies and a generally irresponsible politics. Republicans ought to pay a price for their shortcomings, but given the choice between Democratic paranoia and Republican profligacy, voters very well may decide that the latter is the lesser evil.
And again:
Whatever the merits of the underlying political viewpoints, people who feel nervous about politics all the time or who are consumed with hate are suffering from a certain lack of perspective. There is no reason to think that those on the political left are inherently more prone to this sort of problem. Richard Hofstadter’s “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” was, after all, largely an essay about the American right circa 1964. As we suggested Tuesday, this seems to be one of the hazards of being out of power politically.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:06:17 pm
As I suspected, rather than even being willing to listen to the argument, the mere fact that I think there are valid historical comparisons means that Andrew has to paint me as some paranoid anti-Bush nut. Sound like someone is afraid of listening to a view point that might hold some truth, you can’t even counter the argument you are trying to keep it from even being heard. Way to uphold those ideals of Freedom that Bush keeps talking about.
As for my problems with YOUR anti-Catholicism they are precisely that. And given that you jump to defend Bush at just about every opportunity i fail to see where you have any room to criticize.
But I also fail to see how I will be given a chance to present my view point on this thread without being accused of being a nut, so I’m not even going to bother. As usual Andrew you have proven you aren’t interested in discourse, just listening to your own views in an echo chamber. Not that I’m surprised since thats your hero George W.’s modus operandi.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:16:01 pm
Bush’s actions and policies share nothing, nothing at all, with Hitler’s rise to power save for the fact that both became leaders of their respective nations. In other words, no meaningful parallel can be drawn between the two, and any tortured rationalization otherwise, e.g., “they both use fear to intimidate their political opponents” (or FILL IN THE OBNOXIOUS SLANDER DU JOUR), is ludicrous in the extreme, and about as useful as commonalities like, say, both wore socks. Moreover, such comparisons demonstrate not only misguided and outright lazy “thinking” about contemporary American society, but also betray a woeful hisotrical ignorance of the brutality of the Third Reich. Comparing just about anyone to Hitler is not only insulting to that person, but insulting to Hitler (paraphrasing Jon Stewart)!
February 6th, 2006 at 11:18:00 pm
But please, by all means David, astonish all of us with your meaningful comparisons of Bush and Hitler . . .
February 7th, 2006 at 12:51:49 am
Sorry Joe, but I’m done playing this little game you and Andrew have started. Your comment shows that you have no interest in an informed discussion of the ideas. Before an argument has even been presented you have prejudged it. I’m not going to waste my time or my effort trying to discuss this with you and Andrew because you have no interest in a discussion.
And before you try it, no i’m not dodging the question. I think there are very valid parallels to draw between the two. But to you and Andrew that clearly means I think the two are equal. Given that that is not true and given that you will never accept anything but complimentary discussions of Bush, its just not worth my time.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:53:51 am
David, it’s not a matter of the two being equal. It’s that they’re so far from anywhere near the realm of equal that drawing parallels is a meaningless exercise that does nothing other than to undermine your point.
I can think of dozens of other historical figures to compare Bush with. Somewhere, it just becomes meaningless…Bush is like Napoleon, Bush is like Churchill, Bush is like Reagan, Bush is like the de-throned Stuart monarchs of England, Bush is like Abe Lincoln, Bush is like Jefferson Davis, Bush is like Hitler.
If all your analogy requires is some semblance of similarity…well we can do historical analogies all night long. I’ll start: David is like a mindless minion of the Khmer Rouge
February 7th, 2006 at 2:45:13 am
thebeef, I am not merely talkign about some superficial comparison. However as I have said and as you have proven, no one here is even listening to the argument in the first place, you are all so convinced that Bush is the greatest that you refuse to listen to anything to the contrary. There is no point in having a discussion with people who aren’t even willing to listen. So much for free speech eh? Don’t like what you someone might have to say? Ridicule them, paint them as an extremeist, and try and drown them out with rhetoric. What a great example of the tolerance of the right you three are.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:16:17 am
David - when someone “paints” you as a seemingly paranoid Bush-hater, they don’t even have to choose the colours themselves, cuz you *already* supply ‘em !
Sadly, then you draw parallels between Bush and Hitler, you are doing it in the geometric sense and not in the sense of analogies … and, as we all know, parallels *never* meet …
(grin)
February 7th, 2006 at 5:41:16 am
When someone “paints” you as a seemingly paranoid Bush-hater
And yet again we see Alasdairs lack of wisdom.
I will freely and openly admit I dislike Bush, believe him to be the worst President in recent history, if not ever, and think many of his policies are wrong if not out right criminal.
But by your reasoning there is only one legitimate view to hold, that Bush is the hero of all time.
Bull $***.
I dislike Bush so strongly BECAUSE OF HIS ACTIONS. To claim that I am therefore a paranoid Bush hater, and further imply that therefore any criticism i make of Bush is completely invalid is completely and utterly ridiculous.
Which is more outrageous, my view that Bush is a terrible President which I back up by specifying exactly WHY I think he is so terrible, or your view that Bush can do no wrong and that anyone who disagrees with you must be a crazy left wing nut job.
I asked in a post a long while back for a list of things that Bush has done to make this country a better place. I didn’t even specify that they had to be things I might agree with. I listed a number of reasons I thought he was a poor president, yet no one has yet answered my challange, listing Bush’s accomplishments.
and, as we all know, parallels *never* meet
That shows that you don’t know very much at all since parallel lines can indeed meet.
Then again I shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t know that, as far as you are concerned it seems the only reality that matters is the one you believe in, regardless of the evidence that contradicts you on a regular basis.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:50:06 am
I’d love an informed discussion of the ideas, but you have yet to hold up your end, David. You’re precisely the narrow-minded partisan you describe when you assume that just because someone thinks that Bush isn’t Hitler and there’s no meaningful comparison between the two that isn’t outweighed by the obvious evil of Hitler, they’re automatically “convinced that Bush is the greatest” and “refuse to listen to anything to the contrary.” BULLSH*T. There’s plenty to dislike about Bush, and we’re all willing to speak REASONABLY about it. But judging by every comment of yours I’ve read on this post, you are simply incapable of any reasoned, dispassionate discussion of Bush. Sh*t, someone who thinks this is the worst administration in HISTORY might very well think Bush is WORSE than Hitler . . .
February 7th, 2006 at 10:36:34 am
Nice try Joe, attempting to turn this around on me, but it ain’t going to happen. You, Andrew, Alasdair, et al fell all over yourselves trying to paint my argument as absurd even before an argument was made, why would I bother to even discuss this with you when you have so plainly shown no interest in discussing it? You want proof?
There’s plenty to dislike about Bush, and we’re all willing to speak REASONABLY about it. But judging by every comment of yours I’ve read on this post, you are simply incapable of any reasoned, dispassionate discussion of Bush. Sh*t, someone who thinks this is the worst administration in HISTORY might very well think Bush is WORSE than Hitler
In your mind it is not even reasonable to consider that Bush might be the worst President. Not that you disagree that he is, no you don’t even think anyone should be allowed to have that idea or put forth the argument. You claim that ts fine to discuss his failings but only within your own limited framework. Thats about as intellectuallly honest as Bush’s prescreened town hall meetings where he claims to be getting in touch with the people.
You want to have a discussion? Fine, but if you aren’t willing to allow a view to be discussed why bother? You won’t even hear the argument and have dismissed it out of hand long before the reasons have even been given! THat is the real bullshit here and anyone, left or right wing with any intellectual honesty can see it.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:48:10 am
My statement about the “one liberal” was a statement of fact, e.g. it did not involve putting any words into anyone’s mouth. It’s just a statement of fact that on today’s political scene, conservatives making bigoted remarks ABOUND….
Yet one has to be a news junky, like you Brendan, to actually find a story like this. This is not to say that you were desperately searching for that one liberal . (That’s your spin on my words…) It’s simply a comment on how few liberals are out there making any kind of “bigoted” remarks, assuming one even considers these remarks as revealed by the actual audiotape, to be “bigoted.”
And as for “purifying” the party, it’s just what Republicans and conservatives want: they want the Dems to fall on their own swords in apostatic political hari kari. Bond is no central figure in today’s Democratic politics so why should he receive such attention? In fact, you’ve already had one conservative thank you for drawing it to his attention….
LOL
February 7th, 2006 at 10:51:07 am
Okay. I’m all ears, David (with the proviso that my visits today will be somewhat limited). The new issue is, “Resolved: There are valid comparisons between Hitler and Bush.”
Have at it . . .
February 7th, 2006 at 11:42:05 am
David…listen to how unreasonable you’re being. If I say: “Comparing Bush to Hitler is ridiculous, because there are far more differences between them than similarities,” you think that I’m saying Bush is the greatest president of all time!
I haven’t said anything of the sort! And then you say that I don’t listen?! Sheesh. I really don’t see how my statement: “While there are some superficial similarities between Bush and a number of historical figures, those similarities are outweighed by their differences, so drawing those similarities is of limited value” somehow translates into: “Bush is God”
Now…take a deep breath…hit yourself in the head and say “‘DOH!” Maybe that will clear things up for you.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:36:04 pm
If you will take the time to read what I said thebeef you will notice that I said “YOU ALL”. Yes I lumped you in that group, which was perhaps not fair, but honestly your past behavior and the behavior of the others in this thread toward me for even suggesting the idea that Bushs actions might bear more than a superficial similarity to Hitlers leads me to believe that you (as a group of neo-con bush supporters) aren’t even willing to listen to the idea or any idea other than those that favor the President. No where is this more evident than Joe Mama’s post where he basically says that an argument from someone who thinks Bush is the worst president is invalid regardless of the merits of the actual argument itself, that the idea that he might be the worst is off limits, and that there might be valid comparisons between Hitlers rise to power and Bush’s (note i hav enever said that EVERYTHING Hitler did is analogous to EVERYTHING Bush has done). Before an argument is even given I am shouted down. I am perfectly willing to listen to arguments as to why Bush is so great, but arguments to the contrary do not appear to be welcomed, so why should I bother to reply? Basically there isn’t a reason. So, sorry Joe Mama I’m not going to play your game, i have better things to do with my time than argue with people who have allready made up their mind and refuse to even consider views they don’t agree with.
Personally I think it would have been an interesting discussion to have, but not with people who are clearly not interested. I’m done with this thread, although I have no doubt you all will continue your rhetoric against me when I stop replying. Maybe next time you’ll actually listen to the idea before accusing someone of being an extremeitst nut job. I doubt it, but who knows.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:04:47 pm
no one here is even listening to the argument in the first place, you are all so convinced that Bush is the greatest that you refuse to listen to anything to the contrary. There is no point in having a discussion with people who aren’t even willing to listen. So much for free speech eh?
You are a winning asshole, David. I HAVE BEEN LISTENING. I have been asking questions, and I do NOT like Bush. My arguments are not a defense of Bush, but an argument agaisnt what I perceived to be tortured logic for an indefensible argument. We disagree on the Bush/Hitler thing, but that does not make me a Bush lover nor does it mean I am not willing to listen. You would rather acuse me of cernsoring you and get in a bitch fight with others than answer my questions and take back your odious statement about me censoring your freedom of speech. What an ass. BY the way, I have listened to your arguments for Bush being the worst ever and Bush rising to power like Hitler in the past, and they have always fallen short of being compelling or even defensible, in my view, and THAT is what I am refering to. You did not get to make your great argument today on this post? By all means, enlighten us, but if it is not any better than what I have already read, then I will not change my mind.
You need to READ the posts, David. READ! Seriously, calm down and reread your responses to our posts, and you will see that you jump to ridiculous conclusions (saying we all like Bush, saying Bushis Andrew;s hero, saying us not agreeing with your argument is censoring you, and how dare we if we belong to the party of :freedom”, etc) and miss the meat of the argument.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:52:19 pm
David - @ 4:46 am … since you are having difficulty comprehending English, can we try a simpler mathematical question, please ?
“That shows that you don’t know very much at all since parallel lines can indeed meet.”
Absent a “parallel line bar”, how is it possible for parallel lines to meet ?
Mike ? Or anyone else with scientific bent ?
February 7th, 2006 at 3:06:11 pm
“I’m at the corner of First and . . . FIRST! I’m at the nexus of the universe!”
–Homer Simpson, from the 3D Halloween episode circa 1998.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:09:14 pm
I have responded to your e-mail Bea, but I will respond here as well. You were the first to try and paint my opinion as so absurd it was not even worth considering, so yes I consider that censorship. Rather than let the idea even be heard you try and make the person making the argument out to be some sort of left wing nut job.
In addition I accused people in general in this post of certain behavior. You may not have fit that behavior completely in which case that accusation did not apply to you.
You claim to have listened to my arguments about Bush having some comparisons to Hitler yet I have hardly even touched on that point since I have been so busy trying to deal with people who would rather accuse me of being an extremeist rather than have an acutal discussion.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, what I do have a problem with is you disagreeing with me before i’ve even made an argument. And as I said all the things I said may not apply to you. I stand by what I said that a large number of people in this post have made it clear that the only thing they want to hear about Bush are positives, and that any time anyone tries to make a negative comment about him, the fact that we disagree with him, or that the argument involves Hitler means its completely out of bounds without even giving us the chance to argue on the merits.
Perhaps you should go back and read what others have been saying and stop assuming that my comments are only directed at you. I ask you other than my immediate response to your criticism of me, when have I named you as one of the people who was accusing me of those things? I’ve mentioned Joe Mama, and Alasdair and yes Andrew, but I did not mention you.
If you want to take offense there is nothing I can do about that, the comments that I wrote that were directed to you specifically were the ONLY ones I was addressing to you specifically.
And I have never, not once claimed that Bush is equivalent to Hitler or that the GOP is equivalent to the Nazi’s. I do however stand by my argument that there are some striking similiarities in some of their behaviors. If you are unwilling to even concede that I have a right to make such an argument without even hearing it, and if you then try and paint me as an extremeist and marginalize my ability to even state my argument then yes, you and others are engaging in censorship and an unwillingness to allow a free and open debate.
Now I am sincerely sorry that you felt I was comparing you directly to the Nazi’s, I have no reason to even remotely believe that you or anyone else on this blog rises to that level of evil. HOWEVER the fact remains that there can be valid comparisons made between groups for specific things and in specific situations even if they over all would not be comparable. I have tried to keep what little comments I have been able to fit in between the browbeatings very specific, identifying the areas where I think valid arguments can be made for the similarities. I have not once compared Bush to the Nazi regime in its genocidal policies, only to the parallels with Hitlers rise to power. Thats it. Period.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:16:55 pm
Once again Alasdair before spouting off you might want to do a little research. In non-Euclidean geometries “parallel” lines can in fact intersect, although the definition of parallel becomes a little different.
As Joe Mama aluded to the easiest place to see this is on a globe. Lines of longitude are intersecting and yet parallel, in that one can draw a line perpendicular to both.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:58:41 pm
The transcript of what Bond said confirms he said it.
Julian Bond is coming unglued just like his pal Al Gorp !
February 15th, 2006 at 2:41:25 pm
Saddam WMD Tapes
ABC News ^ | February 15, 2006 | Brian Ross
Posted on 02/15/2006 6:42:11 AM PST by AJFavish
http://a.abcnews.com/podcast/brianross.mp3
More on ABC World News Tonight, tonight.
*************************
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp
More Saddam Tapes: creepiness - Wednesday, February 15, 2006 @ 12:06:21 AM