Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Time to adopt a new line
Published on June 19, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

Recently we had an article comparing Nazis to Bush.  That is nothing new.  This one was only new in that it was from a non-american (as in they are not of America, not that they were unpatriotic).

But it was the same old tripe and the only purpose it served was to cheapen the holocaust.  The quote he provided was so generic that I dare say that virtually every citizen of this planet that is trying to convince another of their viewpoint is guilty of it.

And so it was just another lame attempt to equate Nazism with the current leadership in America.

And it accomplished nothing.  Indeed, the only thing it did do was piss off some liberals who might have agreed with the poster had the poster not tried this hyperbole.  Instead it just got him some flames and some trolls.

The problem is the use of the analogy.  Analogy is fine to drive home a point.  But using extreme examples that are easily debunked does nothing.  And so he accomplished nothing.

Except one thing.  You see, in this country (since the barb was aimed at it), we have the extreme left (who likes to use 4 letter words like there is a clearance sale on them), the Extreme right (who cannot speak of any subject without invoking Religion), and the vast middle.

The middle is easily swayed one way or another as evidenced by Bill Clintons election and now George Bush's.  They are not on the extreme.  They are in the middle.  But they are not stupid either.  So when the Left uses Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot to describe the opponents, they get kuzzaws from their extreme left, but no converts.  For the middle sees it as an anathema.  An aboration of what they dont want this country to become.

When the extreme right uses similar (altho no where near the hate filled images) to drive home a point, the leadership on the right repudiates them.  The leadership on the left never repudiates their extremes, they only seem to embrace them.

This latest post on JU is just an extension of the left embracing their extremist. instead of repudiating them.  I saw one thread where someone listed the KKK activities of Byrd (just listed).  Thje left, instead of repudiating it, cited Helms.  WHile an extreme conservative, he never had anything to do with the KKK so the poster lost before they hit the enter key.

And so it goes on and on and on.  Most of the posters on the "Bush is a nazi" thread were not arguing "yes he is or no he is not". For there was no need to.  They were calling the poster to task for a statemtent that could just as easily have been applied to the originator.

There are many on the left here on JU that do not attempt these tactics.  They argue policy and results.  And very well I might add.  But there are also some of their brethren that march in lock step to the mind numbed robots of the left leadership and no longer know how to argue issues and points.

Dont get me wrong, there are some on the right who do the same thing.  But how many on the rigth rush to their defense?  Few if any.

This is a wake up call for those on the left (not the rational left that post opposing viewpoints) that must defend everything left.  You earn no points, you only make sure that no one in the targeted middle will listen to you.

When will you learn?  If history is any indication, not in my lifetime.  you have demonstrated that already.


Comments (Page 6)
6 PagesFirst 4 5 6 
on Jun 24, 2005

thanks...you just did exactly what you were whining about others doing.

I listed names.  I accused no one of listing names, but I am sure some do.  I fail to see how that is relevant.  It is clear that LW is right here.  You refuse to face the issue and will try to drag it off topic.

You lost.  You have no argument.  And I am through responding to your off topic issues.  For you simply refuse to admit when you are wrong.  Too bad.  That is actually not a fault, but a good characteristic to have.

on Jun 24, 2005

It looks like kb has once again sidetracked a topic with his insane nitpicking about irrelevant asides.

Let him argue with himself.  I see that no matter what ammunition and facts you bring to bear, he refuses to admit he could ever be wrong, or is wrong.

In that, he is being a very good liberal.

on Jun 24, 2005

despite your innacurate analysis of the situation, at least you were honest about limbaugh--something drguy's hypocrisy seemingly prevents him from doing.

When next I blog on Limbaugh, I will be honest about Limbaugh.  I have not, so you cannot accuse me of something I have not done.

I have not blogged on Sean Hannity yet either.  So I must be hypocritical about him as well?  Your arguments are less than logical, they are now just getting down right stupid.

on Jun 24, 2005
despite your innacurate analysis of the situation, at least you were honest about limbaugh--something drguy's hypocrisy seemingly prevents him from doing.


I posed the very question of this back on reply #69. KB has not as of yet bothered to respond!
on Jun 24, 2005
Rush's feminazi thing isn't particularly nice, no, nor do I suppose it is intended to be. If there is any difference between a statement like that and Dean's silliness, and I'm not saying there is, it is that Rush Limbaugh says such stuff tongue-in-cheek to get a laugh.

Dean on the other hand says this stuff seriously. No one gets frightened with Bush calls Pat Ireland a feminazi, but there are Dems out there programmed to believe that the Republican leadership is out for totalitarian control, and will someday suspend Democracy or something.

Heck, we have people here that believe Christians are trying to take over the world, right Kingbee? Do you think Rush intended to motivate people in that way with the Feminazi thing, or do you think, as I do, that it just gets laughs?
on Jun 24, 2005
Do you think Rush intended to motivate people in that way with the Feminazi thing, or do you think, as I do, that it just gets laughs?


considering dr guy's list of women he considers brownblouses wasn't presented with any sorta indication that he intended it humorously, i'd have to say that whether rush was serious or not, his observation was taken seriously and produced the effect described and deplored by dr guy in his article.

rather than simply acknowledging that, dr guy first tried to make it seem as if his article targeted elected officials rather than than the ubiquitous 'unnamed ju blogger' (to whom it was clearly addressed), then made a big deal of denying his article was about limbaugh (which of course it wasn't unless limbaugh reveals himself to be one of ju's irresponsible 'another blogger' people hoping to to cheapen the holocaust'), etc. etc. etc.

leads me to suspect dg takes rush wayyyyy seriously and thinks far too highly of him.

Heck, we have people here that believe Christians are trying to take over the world, right Kingbee?


not nearly as many as those who are sure islam plans to do the same thing. my concerns were only for the usa, not the world. i have no problem admitting that i may have overreacted nor in pointing out i've reconsidered the issue and found it seems much less likely than it did right after the election.
on Jun 24, 2005
Do you think Rush intended to motivate people in that way with the Feminazi thing, or do you think, as I do, that it just gets laughs?


just outta curiousity, do you find michael moore or al franken as amusing as i do limbaugh?
on Jun 25, 2005
I see them as different beasts. I have actually sat in a "Rush Room" along with 30 or 40 other people who watched the show circa mid-90's when he started having steaks brought in to eat on the show and the whole femenazi thing.

Laughter was the main response. Granted, it is probably no different with Al Franken, i consider them polar equals. Michael Moore, on the other hand, is a totally different beast. I couldn't really find a Republican mirror for him after sitting here 10 minutes thinking.

Regardless, if Franken did a Conservative-targetted 'feminazi' thing, I wouldn't be upset about it. I don't feel threatened by satirists who use inflamatory language. Moore isn't a satirist, and even when he tries it he is taken dead seriously by people who are very motivated. When he uses the word Nazi, it means Nazi to his drones.

" i have no problem admitting that i may have overreacted nor in pointing out i've reconsidered the issue and found it seems much less likely than it did right after the election."


No need to admit anything. I'm just glad you see that sect of Christianity as a little closer to what it really is, a marginalized, politicized, group pretending to represent Christianity for political gain.
on Jun 25, 2005

Reply By: kingbee

A bunch of clowns just got together down at yorktown.  They beleive in Nationalism Socialism.  They want us to beieve as such.

Do you call them nazis?

Calling a Nazi a Nazi is not hyperbole. I gave you names of radical antifeminists.  Do you agree with them?

Calling John Q public A Nazi is hyperbole.  DO you now understand the differnece?

Probably not. You still have not addresses the theme of the article, or the meat of it.  I expected better from you.

I am very disappointed that you cannot mount a  valid rebuttal. 

I hoped that you were a thinking liberal. 

That is my mistake.

on Jun 25, 2005

Reply By: kingbee

Just out of curiousity, do you know what hyperbole, hipocrisy and this article is about?  SO far you have not a clue.

on Jun 25, 2005
Just out of curiousity, do you know what hyperbole, hipocrisy and this article is about? SO far you have not a clue


while i wouldn't dare attempt to claim i comprehend all (or even close to all) the layers of complexity presented by joyce, proust, pynchon, the simpsons or the instruction booklet which accompanies irs tax filing forms, i don't believe i'm having any problem reading what you wrote.

considering your responses, i'm not nearly so sure you know what you wrote, wrote what you intended or, perhaps, wrote what you think you wrote in your article.

unless they've changed the meaning of hyperbole or hypocrisy recently, i've got them covered. once again, i'm not so confident in that regard about you.

if you consider radical feminists the equivalent of nazis (which is what you've seemed to say at least twice in the last couple rounds of comments on this thread), you're engaging in exactly the type of hyperbole you're supposedly criticizing in your article.

if, on the other hand, you don't truly equate radical feminists with hitler, eichman, bormann or himler BUT you defend those who do, the following can then reasonably be considered hypocritical since you're suggesting others handle a situation in a particular way...then doing the exact opposite yourself.

Dont get me wrong, there are some on the right who do the same thing. But how many on the rigth rush to their defense? Few if any.
This is a wake up call for those on the left (not the rational left that post opposing viewpoints) that must defend everything left. You earn no points, you only make sure that no one in the targeted middle will listen to you.
on Jun 26, 2005

Reply By: kingbeePosted: Saturday, June 25, 2005
Just out of curiousity, do you know what hyperbole, hipocrisy and this article is about? SO far you have not a clue


while i wouldn't dare attempt to claim i comprehend all (or even close to all) the layers of complexity presented by joyce, proust, pynchon, the simpsons or the instruction booklet which accompanies irs tax filing forms, i don't believe i'm having any problem reading what you wrote.

I gather that is a no then.  Yawn.....

6 PagesFirst 4 5 6