[001]
Severen
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"Are a few websites comparing Bush to Hitler in any way comparable to an international media personality with his own daily show comparing Obama to Hitler frequently, did such high profile media figures frequently compare Bush to Hitler? That\\\'s \\\"no\\\" and \\\"no\\\" respectively.\\\"
If you can prove that Beck is serious when he makes those comparisons, I suppose you\\\'d be right. But there\\\'s no proof that he\\\'s being serious, and I personally don\\\'t think he is, considering how over-the-top he plays it, and how much he jokes about those comparisons on the side. But even so, it doesn\\\'t compare. I remember the Bush years; Beck could continue doing Obama-as-Hitler comparisons for the rest of Obama\\\'s longest possible presidency, and he\\\'d still fall well short of the amount of Bush-as-Hitler imagery we\\\'ve seen in the last decade. Did I ever say that the majority of the left believed that Bush was equatable to Adolf Hitler? No, but a disturbing amount of them did, in ways that hadn\\\'t been done with a US president in years (I don\\\'t remember a single Clinton-as-Hitler comparison, and I\\\'m too young to remember if Reagan was the victim of such comparisons that often). The Obama-as-Hitler comparisons seem like nothing more than a backlash at the unusually massive amount of Bush=Hitler imagery, as if the conservative fringe is simply saying \\\"Now, it\\\'s OUR turn!\\\" Because honestly, how can you actually compare Obama to Hitler and be serious about it? I\\\'m not saying there aren\\\'t people who do it, but I guarantee that the percentage of those who seriously compared Bush to Hitler is larger than the percentage of those who seriously do the same with Obama. Bush=Hitler comparisons were largely serious, with people claiming that both were racist, genocidal warmongers, while the Obama=Hitler comparisons largely seem to be a straight-forward case of {{Godwins Law}} in action. They\\\'re not serious, they\\\'re just returning the favor.
I\\\'m well aware that the Moveon.org ad didn\\\'t air, and I said so in my last post. \\\'\\\'Of course\\\'\\\' they wouldn\\\'t be so stupid as to actually air it, as that would\\\'ve been more trouble than it was worth. But the fact remains that some people in the organization, which is supposed to be a \\\'\\\'mainstream\\\'\\\' liberal one (more mainstream for liberals than the Tea Partiers are mainstream for conservatives, anyway), thought it was a good idea. Remember, this isn\\\'t a fringe group like Code Pink, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, or Not In Our Name; it\\\'s Moveon.org. They\\\'re supposed to be above such things. But, then again, as we saw during the lead-up to the 2004 election, the mainstream liberal scene and the fringe seemed to become indistinguishable. Michael Moore (a master of the fringe if there ever was one) was the hottest thing in the liberal community, his movie a smash hit, and was invited as a guest of honor to the Democratic Convention. Moore, a fringe leftist, had become \\\'\\\'mainstream\\\'\\\', if only because too many people actually believed that his film could unseat Bush. It wasn\\\'t until after the election that people realized how stupid this had been, but the fact remains that mainstream liberal America was swept up in the frenzy of a fringe leftist (whether or not this will happen with the mainstream conservative community has yet to be seen). Is it really too much to see mainstream liberals seriously making Bush=Hitler comparisons at the same time?
The phrase \\\"liberals sympathize with terrorists\\\" is a serious case of twisting words, because I never said anything of the sort. I was referring to a number of left-leaning blogs that insisted that the Times Square bomber was most certainly a fringe right-winger and Glenn Beck fan, with a rather strong emphasis on the part about Beck. When the truth came out, they did in fact become sympathetic towards the bomber, with the blog post I linked earlier being one example. You claimed it was merely an allegation, and I was pointing out that there were blogs that did indeed act that way. And as for liberals/leftists sympathizing with terrorists, well...there\\\'s certainly some basis in truth for that claim, even if it can be exaggerated. I\\\'ll give three examples, with all three being well-known and respected in the liberal community (and have had a significant influence on liberals within the past few decades). How about [[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/10/22/011022ta_talk_the_pictures Oliver Stone]], [[http://michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/heads-up-from-michael-moore Michael Moore]] and [[http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4653.htm Gore Vidal]]? I\\\'m sorry, but far too many liberals in this country are under the impression that those of middle eastern descent who engage in terrorism share the same beliefs/grievances as they do, and, while they (mostly) don\\\'t condone their tactics, believe that most middle eastern terrorists are essentially nothing more than slightly misguided anti-imperialists. That\\\'s sympathy, plain and simple. It\\\'s not the majority, of course, but it\\\'s not to be dismissed.
If you can prove that Beck is serious when he makes those comparisons, I suppose you\\\'d be right. But there\\\'s no proof that he\\\'s being serious, and I personally don\\\'t think he is, considering how over-the-top he plays it, and how much he jokes about those comparisons on the side. But even so, it doesn\\\'t compare. I remember the Bush years; Beck could continue doing Obama-as-Hitler comparisons for the rest of Obama\\\'s longest possible presidency, and he\\\'d still fall well short of the amount of Bush-as-Hitler imagery we\\\'ve seen in the last decade. Did I ever say that the majority of the left believed that Bush was equatable to Adolf Hitler? No, but a disturbing amount of them did, in ways that hadn\\\'t been done with a US president in years (I don\\\'t remember a single Clinton-as-Hitler comparison, and I\\\'m too young to remember if Reagan was the victim of such comparisons that often). The Obama-as-Hitler comparisons seem like nothing more than a backlash at the unusually massive amount of Bush=Hitler imagery, as if the conservative fringe is simply saying \\\"Now, it\\\'s OUR turn!\\\" Because honestly, how can you actually compare Obama to Hitler and be serious about it? I\\\'m not saying there aren\\\'t people who do it, but I guarantee that the percentage of those who seriously compared Bush to Hitler is larger than the percentage of those who seriously do the same with Obama. Bush=Hitler comparisons were largely serious, with people claiming that both were racist, genocidal warmongers, while the Obama=Hitler comparisons largely seem to be a straight-forward case of {{Godwins Law}} in action. They\\\'re not serious, they\\\'re just returning the favor.
I\\\'m well aware that the Moveon.org ad didn\\\'t air, and I said so in my last post. \\\'\\\'Of course\\\'\\\' they wouldn\\\'t be so stupid as to actually air it, as that would\\\'ve been more trouble than it was worth. But the fact remains that some people in the organization, which is supposed to be a \\\'\\\'mainstream\\\'\\\' liberal one (more mainstream for liberals than the Tea Partiers are mainstream for conservatives, anyway), thought it was a good idea. Remember, this isn\\\'t a fringe group like Code Pink, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, or Not In Our Name; it\\\'s Moveon.org. They\\\'re supposed to be above such things. But, then again, as we saw during the lead-up to the 2004 election, the mainstream liberal scene and the fringe seemed to become indistinguishable. Michael Moore (a master of the fringe if there ever was one) was the hottest thing in the liberal community, his movie a smash hit, and was invited as a guest of honor to the Democratic Convention. Moore, a fringe leftist, had become \\\'\\\'mainstream\\\'\\\', if only because too many people actually believed that his film could unseat Bush. It wasn\\\'t until after the election that people realized how stupid this had been, but the fact remains that mainstream liberal America was swept up in the frenzy of a fringe leftist (whether or not this will happen with the mainstream conservative community has yet to be seen). Is it really too much to see mainstream liberals seriously making Bush=Hitler comparisons at the same time?
The phrase \\\"liberals sympathize with terrorists\\\" is a serious case of twisting words, because I never said anything of the sort. I was referring to a number of left-leaning blogs that insisted that the Times Square bomber was most certainly a fringe right-winger and Glenn Beck fan, with a rather strong emphasis on the part about Beck. When the truth came out, they did in fact become sympathetic towards the bomber, with the blog post I linked earlier being one example. You claimed it was merely an allegation, and I was pointing out that there were blogs that did indeed act that way. And as for liberals/leftists sympathizing with terrorists, well...there\\\'s certainly some basis in truth for that claim, even if it can be exaggerated. I\\\'ll give three examples, with all three being well-known and respected in the liberal community (and have had a significant influence on liberals within the past few decades). How about [[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/10/22/011022ta_talk_the_pictures Oliver Stone]], [[http://michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/heads-up-from-michael-moore Michael Moore]] and [[http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4653.htm Gore Vidal]]? I\\\'m sorry, but far too many liberals in this country are under the impression that those of middle eastern descent who engage in terrorism share the same beliefs/grievances as they do, and, while they (mostly) don\\\'t condone their tactics, believe that most middle eastern terrorists are essentially nothing more than slightly misguided anti-imperialists. That\\\'s sympathy, plain and simple. It\\\'s not the majority, of course, but it\\\'s not to be dismissed.
