Split from: Hitchen's Signature Behavior

[a_unique_person]

I swear I already said this, but I can't find it, so here it is again:

I recall he said that all religions are wrong for the same reasons. His point about Islam being unique had to do with the fact that there is no supreme human leader like the Pope that can say "We were wrong, let's all give the Jews a big hug!". Sort of like how Mormon Prophets can say "Gee, all that stuff about black folks bearing the mark of Cain, well, God just told ME he was kidding! Come on in here, you African-American brothers, and commence oppressing your wimmenfolk!"

I think someone made the point that Islam is where Christianity was 700 years ago, and that's when Hitchens pointed out the lack of an Islamopope as a reason to Be Very Afraid. Direct quote: "If you don't believe me [that Islam is dangerous] just wait a few years."

Christianity doesn't have that, either. To many 'xians', the Pope is the anti-christ, for example. The Orthodox Church is quite large, and nothing to do with Western xianity as well.

 

[Merko]

What if I hadn't mentioned Worldnet Daily and simply pointed out that Soros compared Bush to Hitler in a Washington Post interview?

Then you would still be wrong. Please post any quote of Soros comparing Bush to Hitler in a Washington Post interview. I bet you can't, because as far as I know, he never did that.

There is a reason why people in this thread ask that you submit original sources rather than links to biased columns by people of low reputation. You know, just because one of those people write something in their columns, that doesn't mean it is true. These people are known to twist facts or even post outright lies. That is why they have a low reputation.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

People at the extremes of political opinion have a tendency -- make that "a habit" -- of parsing statements by their opponents as tightly as possible and statements by those with whom they agree as loosely as possible.

As an example of the former, Senator Dick Durbin read aloud a description by the FBI of the treatment of some prisoners at Abu Ghraib and opined that the average person reading that would have thought it was done by a totalitarian regime such as Hitler's or Stalin's, rather than by Americans. This became "Turban Durbin says our soldiers are Nazis!!!!"

George W Bush sat at a photo op with Kofi Annan and said

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.

As we all know, there were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq who were not having any success at finding WMD stockpiles or factories, so the statement is untrue on its face. For this they were ridiculed as incompetents and buffoons. After a number of weeks of work that did not back the US position, they were told to leave, and then "coalition" forces invaded. Bush supporters said that what Bush "really meant" was that Saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors; this might be so, but it isn't what he actually said.

Therefore, when I read that someone at the Weekly Standard says that George Soros said George Bush was no better than Hitler in a certain interview, my response is "Show me the full transcript."

 

[pomeroo]

People at the extremes of political opinion have a tendency -- make that "a habit" -- of parsing statements by their opponents as tightly as possible and statements by those with whom they agree as loosely as possible.

As an example of the former, Senator Dick Durbin read aloud a description by the FBI of the treatment of some prisoners at Abu Ghraib and opined that the average person reading that would have thought it was done by a totalitarian regime such as Hitler's or Stalin's, rather than by Americans. This became "Turban Durbin says our soldiers are Nazis!!!!"

George W Bush sat at a photo op with Kofi Annan and said As we all know, there were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq who were not having any success at finding WMD stockpiles or factories, so the statement is untrue on its face. For this they were ridiculed as incompetents and buffoons. After a number of weeks of work that did not back the US position, they were told to leave, and then "coalition" forces invaded. Bush supporters said that what Bush "really meant" was that Saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors; this might be so, but it isn't what he actually said.

Hans Blix, who dearly wanted to embarrass Bush, said that Saddam was not cooperating. The Duelfer Report tends to be ignored by everyone on the left. As its findings are extremely inconvenient to the fantasies of the Bush-bashers, it is safe to say that we won't be hearing much about it. The "ridicule" of the U.N. inspectors is a figment of your imagination. It was widely understood that they were being thwarted by another of Saddam's shell games.

Therefore, when I read that someone at the Weekly Standard says that George Soros said George Bush was no better than Hitler in a certain interview, my response is "Show me the full transcript."

Yes, Soros has denied the words he spoke in the Washington Post interview. No, he didn't? Well, for this debate, I guess you'll have to pretend that he did.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

Are you really this obtuse? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question.)

Please provide a link to the Washington Post interview in question or just admit that you haven't the slightest interest in going to the primary source.

 

[pomeroo]

Are you really this obtuse? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question.)

Please provide a link to the Washington Post interview in question or just admit that you haven't the slightest interest in going to the primary source.

The Washington Post interview is long and fawning. The relevant part is the one I keep quoting.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/13/ldt.00.html
News from the campaign trail tonight. Charlie Fisher of Denver wins moveon.org move on President Bush ad contest by focus on the debt that our children will inherit. CNN runs it this weekend. It may also become the first political ad ever broadcast during the Super Bowl. Financier George Soros heavily funded the group which was attacked for ads on its Web site that compared George Bush to Hitler. Soros told CNN, in fact Wolf Blitzer, that he has never compared Bush to Hitler.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE SOROS, SOROS FOUNDATIONS: I have also been accused of comparing Bush to a Nazi and I did not do it, would not do it, exactly because I have lived under a Nazi regime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: But a "Washington Post" interview two months ago contradicted Soros' statement. Reporter Laura Blumenfeld quotes him saying "When I hear Bush saying you are either with us or against us, it reminds me of the Germans."

According to the Post, Soros said it conjures up memories of Nazi slogans on the wall.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

The Washington Post interview is long and fawning. The relevant part is the one I keep quoting.

Thanks for acknowledging what's been apparent all along, that you are quote-mining just like Dembski and the rest of the creationist cohort.

 

[pomeroo]

Let's Hear From Soros

I have been complaining that this whole debate has been characterizied by disingenuousness. Why don't we listen to Soros explain himself to Wolf Blitzer? I like his comment right at the end when he admits that maybe he should have kept this stuff to himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuafAqAHrc

 

[pomeroo]

Thanks for acknowledging what's been apparent all along, that you are quote-mining just like Dembski and the rest of the creationist cohort.

Ah, maybe I'm supposed to be a creationist now? I've been reading "The Skeptical Inquirer" since it was "The Zetetic"--how about you?

Do you understand the meaning of "quote mining"? Yes, it's a rhetorical question. Nobody is disputing what Soros said, least of all Soros. So, tell us what has been apparent all along. Don't be shy. Is it that I, or someone else, distorted what the Post quoted Soros as saying? No, that isn't it. You can read the Post story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer

Is it that Soros really doesn't make comparisons between Bush and the Nazis. No, can't be that. Something is apparent, however. Tell us what it is.

We get the idea that Soros and Moveon had it pounded into their heads that although comparing Bush to Hitler is popular with leftist yahoos, it scares off sane folk. They made a tactical decision to clean up their rhetoric.

 

[articulett]

Saying that Bushes ideology reminds him of the Germans isn't really saying Bush is Hitler. And frankly, Bush's ideology does remind me of the Nazis. If you question the policies you get radicals like pomeroo screaming at you for being unpatriotic, biased, unfair, etc. I think Bush should be tried for war crimes. He lied; lots of people died; lots of money has been spent; Halliburton and Exxon have profited hugely from this war, money should be used for domestic problems such as healthcare, many lives have been destroyed completely--there is no evidence that anyone's life is better (Except for Bush and his main supporters)--we've wasted lives, money, and good will on a war mongering liar. And though Bush may lack the charisma of Hitler, you pomeroo, sure do have the loyalty of a Nazi. Everybody believes they are on the good guys side. The problems with wars is that the people who suffer the most have very little to gain from the war and very little say over the government desicisions that destroy their lives.

Why do you guys avoid the horrors and expenses of this war while failing again and again to say what it is for and what good has come out of it. How are you different than the Nazis who were blind followers of their leader? Your war mongering policies are responsible for many, many destroyed lives. Your loyalties have made a dumb man into an egotistical power hungry idealogue who believes that god told him to invade Iraq.

By the way, I'm registered as an independent, and try to avoid politics because I find it distasteful. I think many people in the sciences are similar. But a large majority of people in the sciences have united in see this presidents destructive tendencies curbed. And you loyalists are an enigma, I can't fathom.

 

[pomeroo]

Shhh, You Don't Exist

Saying that Bushes ideology reminds him of the Germans isn't really saying Bush is Hitler. And frankly, Bush's ideology does remind me of the Nazis.

Soros compared Bush to the Nazis; he didn't say that Bush was Hitler. Yes, many leftist radicals make the ludicrous comparison, although Bush's policies do not resemble Hitler's in the slightest. Your frankness is not what certain disingenuous apologists for this vile smear want to hear. They would prefer you to deny that the BusHitler nonsense resonates with your fellow leftist ideologues. You are being honest; they are not.

If you question the policies you get radicals like pomeroo screaming at you for being unpatriotic, biased, unfair, etc.

To describe a conservative with libertarian leanings as a "radical" suggests that you have no command of the vocabulary of political discourse.

I think Bush should be tried for war crimes. He lied; lots of people died; lots of money has been spent; Halliburton and Exxon have profited hugely from this war, money should be used for domestic problems such as healthcare, many lives have been destroyed completely--there is no evidence that anyone's life is better (Except for Bush and his main supporters)--we've wasted lives, money, and good will on a war mongering liar.

As a leftist radical, you believe that Bush should be tried for war crimes, although he hasn't committed any. The left's Big Lie that Bush really didn't think we would find any WMD in Iraq is sheer insanity, but that doesn't stop the propagandists from parroting it. Sure, sitting atop personal approval ratings in the seventies, Bush decided to invade Iraq on the pretext of finding weapons that he knew weren't there. Politicians often try to lose elections. Great critical thinking skills you've got there.

And though Bush may lack the charisma of Hitler, you pomeroo, sure do have the loyalty of a Nazi. Everybody believes they are on the good guys side. The problems with wars is that the people who suffer the most have very little to gain from the war and very little say over the government desicisions that destroy their lives.

Nah, you guys aren't wedded to the Nazi crap.

Why do you guys avoid the horrors and expenses of this war while failing again and again to say what it is for and what good has come out of it. How are you different than the Nazis who were blind followers of their leader? Your war mongering policies are responsible for many, many destroyed lives. Your loyalties have made a dumb man into an egotistical power hungry idealogue who believes that god told him to invade Iraq.



We guys say over and over what the war was for, but your side is deaf.
Your fact-free assertions show the futility of attempting a debate.




By the way, I'm registered as an independent, and try to avoid politics because I find it distasteful. I think many people in the sciences are similar. But a large majority of people in the sciences have united in see this presidents destructive tendencies curbed. And you loyalists are an enigma, I can't fathom.

There were a lot of similarly "independent" scientists who assured us in the eighties that the proper response to the Soviet Union's massive buildup was unilateral disarmament. Bush's "destructive" tendencies amount to a dogged, perhaps even simplistic, determination to prevent another attack on America and a willingness to adopt bold policies designed to change the dynamic in the Middle East. A poster responding to an article in "The Guardian" hit the nail on the head. Discussing the far-left's bizarre de facto alliance with Saddam Hussein, he pointed that even a fascist dictator is okay if he's an implacably anti-American fascist dictator.

You understand people like me well enough. You understand that we mean to resist the weakening and eventual destruction of America.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

Ah, maybe I'm supposed to be a creationist now? I've been reading "The Skeptical Inquirer" since it was "The Zetetic"--how about you?

Here is a perfect illustration of the fallacy of your entire argument. I am not saying that you are a creationist -- and your choice of reading material has nothing to do with whether you are or not, by the way -- I am saying that you are using a technique that creationists also use.

Do you understand the meaning of "quote mining"? Yes, it's a rhetorical question. Nobody is disputing what Soros said, least of all Soros. So, tell us what has been apparent all along. Don't be shy. Is it that I, or someone else, distorted what the Post quoted Soros as saying?

It is precisely that. You do not differentiate between making comparisons between two entities and equating those two entities; in fact, you shift back and forth between them as if there were no difference. That is distortion prima facie.

Examples:

Are you seriously trying to pretend that leftists haven't trumpeted their Bush-is-Hitler trope for over five years?

leftists have compared Bush to Hitler countless times

The left has promoted the vicious Bush-as-Hitler smear in countless venues.

We get the idea that Soros and Moveon had it pounded into their heads that although comparing Bush to Hitler is popular with leftist yahoos, it scares off sane folk. They made a tactical decision to clean up their rhetoric.

That casts doubt on your challenge

Will you concede that far-left types, as typified by Moveon.org, CONSTANTLY compare Bush to Hitler?

Soros, in that clip, points out that while he did write there were similarities between the fearmongering and accusations of disloyalty by the current administration and the Nazis, that there were also important differences between the two. Yes, he compared the two, but he did not equate them. When you say that there are absolutely no similarities between Bush and Hitler, you are also "comparing" them. Do try to be a bit more precise.

 

[Glenn]

Pomeroo: Quick technical aside. You may know this already, but if you want to break up someone's quote and respond to each part separately, you copy and paste the opening "quote=" in brackets before each section, and copy and paste the "/quote" in brackets after each section. This way your own responses don't look like they're part of the other person's original post, and your words stand out better. I've missed some of your responses because they're hard to distinguish from the posts being quoted. It also makes it harder to quote you, since quotes don't get automatically copied. Hope this helps.

BTW, anyone: If there's an easier way to do this, can someone let us know? Thanks.

 

[pomeroo]

Precision is Good

Here is a perfect illustration of the fallacy of your entire argument. I am not saying that you are a creationist -- and your choice of reading material has nothing to do with whether you are or not, by the way -- I am saying that you are using a technique that creationists also use.

You keep asserting that my argument is fallacious, but you have failed to demonstrate it. You are saying, incorrectly, that I employ a technique favored by creationists. There was no quote mining by me, and I stringly suspect that you are aware of that fact.

Incidentally, my choice of reading material surely has at least something to do with my being a creationist or not. A lifelong skeptic probably isn't a creationist.

It is precisely that. You do not differentiate between making comparisons between two entities and equating those two entities; in fact, you shift back and forth between them as if there were no difference. That is distortion prima facie.

I do differentiate between comparing two entities and equating those entities. It is to your credit that you note the distinction, one that is often blurred. Soros, it is true, did not accuse Bush of being identical to Hitler. His comparison, his evoking of Nazi resonances, is distasteful, and he knows it. My purpose is not to distort, but to object to a leitmotif that runs through much far-left rhetoric. We can split hairs and delineate precisely who equates Bush with Hitler and who merely discerns similarities between the two, but I am offended by the whole schtick.



Examples:

That casts doubt on your challenge

Soros, in that clip, points out that while he did write there were similarities between the fearmongering and accusations of disloyalty by the current administration and the Nazis, that there were also important differences between the two. Yes, he compared the two, but he did not equate them. When you say that there are absolutely no similarities between Bush and Hitler, you are also "comparing" them. Do try to be a bit more precise.

Fair enough. You strike me as a thoughtful person who is making a reasonable request.

 

[pomeroo]

Multi-Quoting

Pomeroo: Quick technical aside. You may know this already, but if you want to break up someone's quote and respond to each part separately, you copy and paste the opening "quote=" in brackets before each section, and copy and paste the "/quote" in brackets after each section. This way your own responses don't look like they're part of the other person's original post, and your words stand out better. I've missed some of your responses because they're hard to distinguish from the posts being quoted. It also makes it harder to quote you, since quotes don't get automatically copied. Hope this helps.

BTW, anyone: If there's an easier way to do this, can someone let us know? Thanks.

Glenn, I sincerely thank you for trying to help me with this problem. Clearly, I'm missing something. Someone in another thread complained about a conspiracist's inability to use the multi-quote function and I remember thinking that I was equally clueless about it. I seem to recall one poster insisting that cutting-and-pasting was not the way to go. I don't want to be a nuisance--not on technical matters, anyway--so I'd like to get a handle on the multi-quoting once and for all.

Is Glenn's suggestion the method I should use?

 

[SkeptiKilt]

Soros, it is true, did not accuse Bush of being identical to Hitler. His comparison, his evoking of Nazi resonances, is distasteful, and he knows it.

The similarities are there, and I find them distasteful and not a little worrisome; I do not consider pointing them out to be distasteful. YMMV, and apparently does. Does your reading include Santayana?

I do find the frequent equation by many on the right of the war in Iraq to WW II and Saddam to Hitler to be both inaccurate and distasteful, particularly the oft-repeated "If liberals had been in charge during WWII, we'd all be speaking German." Hate to break it to you lads, but FDR was denounced as not only a liberal, but a socialist.

 

[Glenn]

Responses to Pomeroo

Re: "Trope":

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "trope" is quite the word you mean to be using. A trope is a figurative use of language to mean something other than it usually means, a rhetorical figure of speech that consists of a play on words, such as irony. True, hyperbole is a type of trope, but it's not the same thing. Maybe you meant "tripe"? Or maybe there's a usage of "trope" I'm unfamiliar with, in which case, you've taught me something.


Re: Hitchens' Niger claim:

Hitchens makes a compelling case that Zawahie was attempting to negotiate the purchase of yellowcake.

Look, you seem to be a decent guy, and there's no reason why this discussion should become acrimonious. Why don't we see how the Libby trial develops and resume our debate later?

I don't find it compelling because he doesn't present any hard evidence. It's interesting, but not compelling. Again, if he does present hard evidence, I'd honestly consider it if you could quote that portion.

Anyway I agree with you, let's wait and resume later. Depending on what the trial reveals, it may not convince either of us, but there's a chance it will.


Re: Presumption of anger:

The presumption that I'm angry is, as you know, a tactical device. By characterizing me as a choleric sort, you hope to convey the impression that my arguments lack intellectual rigor.

Whoops -- not at all, and sorry if that was unclear. I wasn't impugning your intellectual rigor with my question, "Why seek out the nuttiest people to get angry at? I don't get the point." That was in response to you saying [emphasis added]:

For roughly five years, I've been tangling with bloggers and street protesters who scream that Bush is Hitler. Such types are not distinguished by subtle wit or a keen sense of irony.

for five years I have been arguing with people on Cannonfire, the Democratic Underground, Democrats.com, Brad's blog, etc., for comparing Bush to Hitler.

Your insistence that you've debunked something is a bit too reminiscent of my jousts with the fantasists.

I personally don't see the point in tangling/arguing/jousting for five years with the most extreme people -- that would surely make me angry at and frustrated with them. I gathered the same was true for you, in part based on how you describe them and the extreme positions some of them take. Here are some of your descriptions:

• "sites that spew this Bushitler crap"
• "shameful"
• "groteque"
• "madness"
• "ugly smear"
• "vile smear"
• "vile tactic"
• "looney"
• "vicious"
• "repugnant"
• "irrational nonsense"
• "despicable practice"
• "I've spent a little too much time with 9/11 conspiracists have learned the trick of feigning a rational demeanor while spouting fantastic nonsense"
• "who have played this disgraceful game for five years"
• "Just when I conclude that you are the most hopelessly illogical human I've ever encountered outside a conspiracist site, "
• "glassy-eyed 'no-blood-for-oil' loons"
• "shame on them!"

Anyway, no worry, I honestly did not hope to convey anything about the quality of your arguments. Only wondering why you spend so much time with the people you describe as you do above. In any debate, I find it's far more effective (not to mention pleasant and rewarding) to work on the undecideds who are closer to the middle, than the irrational extremes.


Re: Ironic humor:

Maybe the poster was joking. Neither you nor I have any way of knowing. That we are arguing over the question, incidentally, suggests that the technique of our aspiring satirist, assuming that's what he is, could stand sharpening. When you write that his intent "was patently obvious," you really can't expect to fool many people. How was it obvious?

I don't think NotJesus is an "aspiring" satirist. I think the level of NotJesus' satire is top notch. Then again, such things are of course subjective, and even the greatest humorists are always aspiring to be better... so never mind.

Seriously, when I read NotJesus' post:

I'm a Democrat and I think Bush is like Hitler.

So there's one.

I laughed out loud. Perfectly timed dry comedy. Analyzing humor is one of the lamest human endeavors, but if I must, I'd say the two cues are 1) it's so outrageous a statement, so blunt and unadorned that it had to be satire (don't mention the people who do make Bush-Hitler comparisons, it's the way this was stated, in context); and 2) the follow-up, "So there's one," further tips us off to the fact that it's not serious. If it were, the follow-up would have been some variation of "And I'm not alone, there are thousands of us," and it would almost certainly have included explanations for why the comparison is valid. Also, the timing in the thread, after all this serious debate, made it obviously dry wit to me.

That's the last I'll say about analyzing humor, so you can have the last word if you want.


Re: Claim about MoveOn.org:

My facts are quite solid. This discussion began when I complained about MoveOn's odious Bush-is-Hitler stance. I was met with the usual disingenuous counterattack: Move On repudiated the ads, which it did not create.

Only because you accuse me and others of having been disingenuous, I must assure you: it was 100% sincere. And only because you're mischaracterizing it again, please let me set the record straight as simply as possible:

You did not merely complain about "MoveOn's odious Bush-is-Hitler stance" (however even that is a bogus claim -- the organization MoveOn takes no such stance; in fact a Google search of "Hitler" on all of MoveOn.org's pages produces only 6 distinct hits, of which only 4 actually mention Hitler, and all are about that non-MoveOn ad). Several of us responsed specifically to your claim:

If you want to pretend that MoveOn hasn't made a practice of comparing Bush to Hitler, you run into a brick wall of reality.

And that specific claim of yours was accurately countered. With sincerity. That's all.


Re: No "monolithic left":

People here have given me sophomoric lectures explaining that the left is not a monolith. Perhaps if you search hard enough, you might discover someone who actually thinks it is, but that's your problem.

Pomeroo, you've derisively called my (and others') points about the non-monolitic nature of left "banal" and "sophomoric," but I take you at your word that you do not believe in a "monolithic left." Just so you understand why it has sounded like you do, here are some of the statements you've made in this thread [boldface added]:

• "I understand that they are highly inconvenient to the Big Lies of the left, but they are manifestly accurate."
• "The left's ugly smear of Bush continues."
• "Googling "Bush and Hitler" produces about 2,040,000 results. The left has promoted this insane comparison for years, starting with false allegations about the father of George H.W. Bush. Prescott Bush was not the "Nazi's financier," nor did he make money from the death camps. Yet, the madness persists. It is impossible to contend that the Bush-Hitler trope, grotesque though it may be, hasn't been a staple of leftist rhetoric."
• "That leftists have compared Bush to Hitler countless times is shameful."
• "Are you seriously trying to pretend that leftists haven't trumpeted their Bush-is-Hitler trope for over five years? This is a joke, right?"
• "Are you actually pretending that leftists haven't been comparing Bush to Hitler for the last five years?"
• "Can you possibly be contending that leftists DO NOT ROUTINELY compare Bush to Hitler? I can't be the only person who is blinking in disbelief."
• "The National Review, the Weekly Standard, and Commentary, to name only the journals that immediately spring to mind, have published articles examining the left's Bush-as-Hitler trope. You are pretending--and doing a highly unconvincing job--that the vile smear is given voice by a tiny fringe. You are wrong."
• "Move On's official line is that the ads were unpopular. I, along with every other conservative and, I suspect, many centrist Democrats, think they're lying: lefties compare Bush to Hitler all the time and they're not the least bit shy about it"
• "Yes, and the preposterous attempt at denial by a handful of leftists of the left's most repugnant and overused smear is the height of disingenuousness."

Can you see how repeated use of blanket terms like "the left," "leftists" and "lefties" gives the clear impression that you are lumping all on the left together? In the last quote above, you even suggest that only a "handful" of those on the left are distinguishable from the rest of the left who supposedly regularly compare Bush to Hitler. Many of us on the left find such a suggestion objectionable, just as many on the right find it objectionable when they're confused with being the same as some extremists of their wing.

Even the phrase "moveon types" is inaccurate, considering the vast numbers of MoveOn.org supporters who do not engage in the sort of rhetoric you're arguing against.

Also, since you mention people like Margaret Cho, I think it's important to distinguish between comedians and straight political commentators. The former -- which includes cartoonists and other satirists -- are always granted much more license to use hyperbole, sarcasm and irony. It's their job. Even if you believe there's truth behind what they're saying, you have to take it with a grain of salt, whether they lean left or right (e.g., PJ O'Rourke, Dennis Miller, etc.).

Finally, it's not always an egregious thing to draw loose comparisons between something bad and its most extreme extension or distortion -- depending on how it's stated and the point being made. I agree with you that it's usually mindless and inflammatory. But sometimes it's perfectly legitimate to sound the alarm on curtailments of freedom in a free society, and remind us of the most drastic consequences of such a path. It doesn't mean the speaker actually believes the current administration is similar to Hitler's; often the point is far subtler than that.

Never mind, SkeptiKilt clarified the distinction between comparing and equating better.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

But sometimes it's perfectly legitimate to sound the alarm on curtailments of freedom in a free society, and remind us of the most drastic consequences of such a path.

I quibble with the word "sometimes"; I think "always" is more appropriate.

It used to be considered a duty for conservatives to do this, but since 9/11, people who identify themselves as such have turned a blind eye, telling us that the events of that day "changed everything," and that if we do not accept every intrusion and limitation imposed on us by the current administration, we're all going to die. This is shameless fearmongering, and the results of the 2006 Congressional elections suggest that a majority of the electorate has heard the cry of "WOLF!!!" too often.


I thank you for the compliment.

 

[articulett]

I guess everyone who doesn't agree with pomeroo is a leftist with evil intent.
It reminds me of Ann Coulter--assuming that every "darwinist" is godless and every godless person is liberal (and presumably every liberal person is godless).

To me it seems that the right wing are fanatictical about labeling people. They never tell us what this war is good for--what successes we can expect nor how much they are willing to risk in lives and money. And they blame the left everytime someone speaks up instead of blaming the liar they worship. To me, Pomeroo sounds like Muslim extremists and all other extremists --certain of his rightness...and not at all concerned as to who suffers to meet his nebulous ideals. Like our President, he seems completely unable to engage in discourse or take advice and blames everything on the media and the left instead of looking out his own shortcomings or possible flaws in logic.

I just find such people scary. Do you not understand that the people whom you advocate killing think your government is as evil as theirs is. Do you think it's okay to destroy a bunch of innocent lives because you've concluded that the people at the top are evil? If so, then why wouldn't you expect that others would do the same to us. They did that to us on 9-11; and now we've done it to Iraq--only much worse. Your fidelity to your party has made you mentally incoherent, pomeroo.

Maybe it really isn't everybody else who has been "brainwashed" by the media.--Maybe it's you. And maybe you're (gasp) wrong.

 

[varwoche]

From the all roads lead to Rome department...

Pomeroo, rather than array quotes from Soros so I can evaluate if he engages in a practice of comparing Bush to Hitler, you expect me to play a game of whack-a-mole (you as mole) by providing one link after another, mostly to opinion pieces:

1. Frontpage Magazine
2. National Review
3. Worldnet Daily
4. WA Post (news story)

Seeing these links, a reader (who is lazy and gullible) might think you have supported your claim by citing four different quotes from Soros.

Except, each of these sources contains the same Soros quote, and as best as I can tell, no other quote.

(Since you insist on debate via link, it can't be ruled out that I overlooked something. Or maybe I inserted a bent quarter.)

It's quite misleading to hype your evidence this way.