When someone says that someone is “the most shamelessly dishonest — if crudely effective — propagandist since Joseph Goebbels and Nazi documentarian Leni Riefenstahl,” they are specifically AVOIDING calling that individual a NAZI. What is eing referenced is the skill of Goebbels and Riefenstahl at dispensing propoganda, and not their NAZI ideals.
Therefore, this response is a touch overblown:
Yep. Moore’s a Nazi. Again. Regardless of what you think of his relationship to the truth, the most he’s calling for is electoral change through the avenues of constitutional democracy – not genocide. Correct his facts, please! If he gets something wrong, let us know what’s right. But he’s not a Nazi.
Can we indict the entire right yet? Please? I’ve got my indictin’ shoes on!
If you want to know what it is like to be called a Nazi, here is a refresher course from the folks at DC Indymedia:
Or you might go watch the two ads submitted to MoveOn.
It can’t be said often enough- being a liberal means never being able to pass up the opportunity to play victim.
Liberals thrive on the blood of the underclass. If the underclass ever went away, liberals would starve.
All liberals major in victimology in college. It fits their temperament and prepares them for a lifetime of victimizing through victimhood.
Dude, seek professional help. Seriously.
Those who equate Bush to Hitler should seek professional help too. Seriously.
Perhaps Kimmitt could recommend someone who could provide the “professional help” he’s talking about.
What people who equate Bush to Hitler need is a goddamn history lesson.
Please, John, please.
Between this and the post above, you’ve really just gone over the edge into self-parody.
I’d say “propogandist on the level of the Nazis” makes some pretty unsavory connections, but apparently being a conservative means never having to recognize anything unless it’s either insanely blatant, or hurts the other side.
I don’t like anyone calling anyone else a Nazi unless they subscribe to socialist principles. I’m also honest enough to admit when anyone’s doing it. You, apparently, aren’t.
Sad, bucko. Sad.
Okay, let me get this straight.
The ‘anti-whatever they are called’ believes that Bush = Hitler and that the neo-con Jews in the White House are causing this war in order to protect Israel?
At the same time they are stating that Saddam, who ruled a country surrounded by radical Islamic fascists and allowed for radical Islamic fascists to train in his country, had no relationship with radical Islamic fascism whatsoever simply on the premise that Saddam was secular in belief?
It is amazing how absurd are the arguments coming from the ‘anti-whatever they are called’ group.
Do they even keep track of the irrational reasoning put forth in the debates?
Now I understand why the anti-everything groups do not understand that people hear them talking but do not believe in anything said.
Their arguments are irrational and faulty.
So saying Bush is like Hitler is wrong but saying Moore is like Goebbels is okay? Your distinction is completely illogical. To pretend calling Moore the next Goebbels isn’t equating him with the Nazis is just dishonest.
Moore is the next Goebbels because both practiced the art of presenting a lie then stating that lie over and over to the point it becomes truth. They both engaged in propaganda in order to influence the political process.
Bush liberated people, Hilter conquered people. Now, if you said Bush = Roosevelt then I would accept your argument.
“To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken.”
Which is what has been done with Bush.
No one compared Moore to a Nazi, but made a statement along the lines of:
“Glenn Reynolds post so much that his efficiency surpasses that of the Nazi’s who made sure the trains ran on time.”
OMG- I just called Glenn Reynolds a NAZI!
Well, yes, you just did.
“What people who equate Bush to Hitler need is a goddamn history lesson.”
You got that right.
I mean, seriously. Franco’s a far better analogue.
(Though I’m starting to come around to the Bush = Poor Man’s Wilson concept.)
Although a monarchist, Franco had no particular desire for a king. As such, he left the throne vacant, with himself as de facto un-crowned king. He wore the uniform of a captain general (a rank traditionally reserved for the King), resided in the Pardo Palace, and appropriated the kingly privilege of walking beneath a canopy. Indeed, although his formal titles were Jefe del Estado (Chief of State) and General
Same ideas, different times. Wait until this election; if Kerry manages to win despite the massive voter fraud, and Bush actually hands power over peacefully, I’ll change my mind.
If referencing “it’s all about oooiilllll” is a strawman, what the H*LL is one to make of that last statement?
I’m sure you’ll claim that it was a joke or sarcasm or somesuch, but I have to say, judging from some of your past comments, one is left wondering just how much is sarcasm, and how much is the propellor atop the beanie spinning??
You can take that last one quite seriously; I expect massive voter fraud, especially in states with no paper trails to audit, and I would be startled if Bush handed over power peacefully to Kerry in the event that the election comes out that way. There will be lawsuits, dire warnings, and convenient terror alerts.
I expect that if Bush wins the election at all, whether it is a landslide (doubtful) or a close vote, you will automatically cry foul and that Bush stole the election (again). You will absolutely refuse to entertain the possibility that he was elected because the people wanted him in office instead of Kerry. Your prediction is a convenient cop-out for what you fear may happen.
“I expect that if Bush wins the election at all, whether it is a landslide (doubtful) or a close vote, you will automatically cry foul and that Bush stole the election (again).”
Well, that is the problem with making the electoral system less secure — you do win the election, but you decrease the verisimilitude.