Savage: Rep. Ellison, atheists share "hatred of Christianity and hatred of Jews"
On the July 16 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Michael Savage responded to a recent speech given by Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) to the organization Atheists for Human Rights by saying, "[W]hat would a devout Muslim radical have in common with atheists? Answer: hatred of Christianity and hatred of Jews."
Ellison sparked controversy during his speech by saying the Bush administration's response to the Sept. 11 tragedies "kind of reminds me of" Adolf Hitler's accumulation of power following a fire at the Reichstag, the German parliament building, in 1933. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted," Ellison said.
Savage denounced Ellison's remarks, saying: "So now Keith Ellison now calls Bush Hitler, thereby degrading what was done to the people by Hitler and diminishing what was done to the people by Hitler." But as Media Matters for America has noted (here, here, here, and here), Savage himself often compares progressives and Democrats to Nazis. For instance, on the June 12 broadcast of The Savage Nation, Savage described the "progressive movement" as "the brownshirts of today" and "the same rabble that brought Hitler to power."
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the July 16 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: How about the former member of the Nation of Islam who pretended he was reformed, Keith Ellison, Democrat in Minnesota, who ran for office, and he was elected by all the good liberals, including Jewish liberals, in Minnesota who thought he was going to be, "Right on! All power to the people. Bring it down, Keith. Right on, all power to the people. We're behind you, man. Right on!"
So now Keith Ellison now calls Bush Hitler, thereby degrading what was done to the people by Hitler and diminishing what was done to the people by Hitler, and of course the "All-power-to-the-people-right-on" people don't even know who Keith Ellison is. But he spoke at the Atheists for Human Rights organization. Now here's a devout Muslim convert who's speaking to Atheists for Human Rights. Now what would a devout Muslim radical have in common with atheists? Answer: hatred of Christianity and hatred of Jews. I'll be right back.
Funny I know both Muslims and Athiests and neither group seems to hate me or Christians in general nor Christianity. Nor do I get why Atheists would hate Jews. Then again it is the Wienerdog we are talking about. The man is insane so I dont know why I would expect him to make sense. Just pull BS directly out of his ass for its propaganda value and ignore the basic stupidity of it. The man needs some rest in a rubber room
If Savage is insane, he's crazy like a fox.
He's making tons of $$$ pandering to the "Red Meat More-American-Than-Thou" knuckledrag contingent.
Ann Coulter's crowd.
But that's Savage's schtick. Screaming and yelling about his imaginary "Christian haters" on "the left."
Ellison did not directly compare Bush to Hitler, he said the truth, that some of Bush's actions remind him of Hitler's actions.
Hitler used fear of "the enemy" (in his case, Jews, Bush has Al-Qaeda,) to run roughshod over basic rights, including the right for elected representatives to question his actions.
What possible motivation does Ellison have for making such a comparison? What did he hope to achieve by it? What reason does he have for what he said? Other than a cheap attempt to make a headline, I mean.
Because that is EXACTLY what Bush, Cheney and their goons are doing.
Nothing but fear, fear, fear.
Cronyism and incompetence.
"You're either with us, or against us."
Blaming the "enemy," even if it ISN'T the "enemy" causing the problems.
Contemptuously dismissing any and all critics.
Total lack of accountability.
Relexive secrecy, even on the most minor points.
Refusal to admit to even the most glaring mistakes, blaming the "enemy" instead.
Corruption going up to the highest levels.
I am disappointed by Ellison's statement.
Hitler's rise to power was marked by widespread propaganda, manipulation, censorship, persecution, subjugation and ruthless violence.
Granted, Ellison did not call Bush "Hitler", but he did draw a parallel that I'd expect from a synonymous web poster, not a member of Congress.
Right-wing wackos in general and the Bush Administration in particular are notorious for propaganda, manipulation, censorship, persecution, subjugation and ruthless violence.
Ellison is just warming up. When are you people gonna realize he is a traitor to what everything America stands for?
Savage is right to take him to task.
BRAVO MIKE!
I don't know of any liberal who hates christians. I know of lots of liberals who hate what the right wing calls christianity.
And I totally resent Savage calling christianity "our" religion (referring to his base, not "all" i.e. liberals too) when the guy is a Jew. He's never renounced his religion to become a christian, he's got no business saying he is one...
"And I totally resent Savage calling christianity "our" religion (referring to his base, not "all" i.e. liberals too) when the guy is a Jew. He's never renounced his religion to become a christian, he's got no business saying he is one..."
But it makes perfect sense if he is just a big phony taking his listeners on a ride. The guys a fraud and this is all a show to make money.
When will these liberal vermin understand that only the eminent doctor is entitled to compare others to Uncle Adolph?
"Now what would a devout Muslim radical have in common with atheists? Answer: hatred of Christianity and hatred of Jews. I'll be right back."--Savage
The thing he said here that really scared me was "I'll be right back."
I hate nothing except lima beans.
Brussell Sprouts come in a close second.
Y'all are both wrong. I love Lima Beans, and grow Brussel Sprouts next to my Jalapeno's and Red Peppers. You just don't have a good preparation plan for the homity goodness of the beloved Lima Sprout mix...
What a salsa that combo might make! Actually, I've heard certain bugs prefer lima beans and brussel sprouts to Jalapenos and Red Peppers, so maybe you have a perfect organic defense mechanism for your garden.
yes, but what say you to okra? gotta be either fried or cooked with stewed tomatoes.
Frued Orka with Stewed tomatoes is ok (once every decade or so.)
Same can be said for Okra as for Orka.
Only one word, gentlemen:
Durian...
and if there be more, along the lines of man's machinations:
Lutefisk
Don't think I've had the pleasure(?) of trying either one of those.
Mayonaisse. I dont even like to walk down the aisle at the store that HAS mayonaisse.
BEETS!!!
Not only are they vile tasting... but they turn everything else on your plat red!
Beets are to my palate what the Savage Weiner is to reasoned discourse.
Solon,
I too can't stand mayonaisse. Anyone who eats rotten eggs has issues. The smell is awful as well.
Agreed!
Except, I do love potato salad, egg salad and tuna salad. I don't understand it. Mayonaise is repulsive, yet can be combined to make something so wonderful.
Alas, I discover that perhaps I really am the only radically liberal Southerner in the nation -- or at least on these postings. Okra boiled is wonderful, and it's even better in a gumbo. Mayonnaise is a staple. It's as crucial as sweet tea. Perhaps you haven't had the pleasure of Duke's; I don't think they sell it much up north. Lima beans are a noble legume. Next thing, y'all will start bashing grtis! By the way, before you do that, I will listen to no comments from anyone who puts sugar or milk on them. Grits only need salt and butter to please the palate!
Hey, now. I love grits, cheese grits with pepper. And I love okra, lima beans and most any vegetable. I can't think of a vegetable I will not eat.
It's just mayo that I dislike, but I'll admit I haven't tried Duke's.
Now, what would devout ignorant right-wing radicals have in common with each other? Answer: hatred of logic, hatred of gays, and bizarre hatred of anyone who dares disagree with them in the slightest.
The difference is that Savage, a hyperbole driven talk show host, calling liberals Nazis is hardly the same as a sitting Senator comparing the president to Hitler.
One has come to expect such inflammatory crap from Savage, it's quite another to act as though it carries the same weight as coming from an elected official.
Pardon me, a sitting Congressman.
But, if there actually WERE very close comparison's of Bush (or any other President for that matter) to Hitler, don't you think that a congressperson is OBLIGATED to point it out? Seems to me it would be required by duty. What do you think Tomy.
I read Ellison's transcript and I've gotta say he makes a valid point.
Except that Ellison's description is wholly accurate and did not call Bush Hitler. Thom Hartmann has covered this quite well. Bush has used 9-11 in the same way Hitler and the Nazis used the Reichstag. To a tee. Kudos to Ellison for having the courage to say it.
You can parse Ellison's words to try and squirm his way out of what he said and what comparison he was trying to make. I don't buy it.
I do not expect our elected officials to conduct their words so recklessly. If I lived in Minnesota, I would be embarassed for him.
"I do not expect our elected officials to conduct their words so recklessly."
I thought he made an accurate assessment.
I am all for politicians speaking their minds and coming out from behind their handlers and spokespeople......but their words should be from respect with regards to the office they hold.
So you wanted him to compare the rise of Hitler to the rise of Bush in a nice way?
The "galvanizing event", the usurpation of POWER, the demonizing of any criticism, the TORTURE as policy, the seizure of media for propaganda purposes, the secrecy, the denial of individual rights "for security reasons', the identification of "enemies" who are a danger to ALL in the nation (and ONLY the "leader" can protect us), a doctrine of "preemptive WAR", the use of "special" internment camps, the reaching out to exploit the resources of other nations ...
GEE, I guess to finally compare Bush to Hitler's rise, Bush would have to actually grow a little black mustache?
Right. Sure thing, sure you do. But only from the left I would suspect.
Did you pop a forehead vein over the Republican refrain of a vote for a Democrat is a vote for the terrorists?
Sounds like Ellison was right on the money.
I agree. It's a reasonable, thoughtful comparison. A terrorist attack was used as the rational to consolidate power, revoke freedoms and gain public support -- all in the name of fear.
I dont care what you buy or are trying to sell. If I say my gerbil has the same coloration as a German Shepherd it doesnt mean I think it can protect my yard like a German Shepherd. He made the comparison he made not the one that would be useful for your propaganda. The use of a tragic event like the Reichstag fire. That isnt saying Bush is like Hitler anymore than saying I can sing the same song as Celine Dion is saying I can sing as WELL as Celine Dion
Tommy, you must be have been as embarrassed as I was on July 2003 when Junior recklessly said “bring them on” while US military forces were at war. Somehow inviting our enemies to attack our troops takes “reckless” to another level.
Tommy, you're missing the point a bit.
Ellison wasn't comparing Bush, the person to Hitler, the person. He was comparing Bush's abuse of power and fear after 9/11 to Hitler's similar abuses after the Reichstag incident.
Like Hitler, Bush has suspended many civil rights, consolidated power in the executive branch, has worked tirelessly to quell opposition (the "Permanent Republican Majority"), and is a master propagandist. Like Hitler, Bush's administration lies on the extreme right of the political spectrum.
No one is saying that Bush=Hitler. Hitler was a heartless sociopath with a fierce and ill-conceived hatred for Jews, Socialists, political opposition, other ethnic and religious minorities, the handicapped, and so on. Hitler was a power-hungry lunatic, and although many on the left would like to say the same about Bush, the reality is that Bush is not nearly the dynamic leader nor the deranged psychopath Hitler was.
That said, Ellison's comparison of post-Reichstag-fire politics and post-9/11 politics is valid. If anything, you might say that Bush's power-grab has been more disturbing. Hitler expolited merely a burning building, while Bush has exploited the deaths of 3000 Americans.
Oh by the way, if Bush's efforts were solely about protecting us from terrorism, then how is the war on terror going these days? Al Qaeda is a strong as they were on 9/11, and they have more bases of operation. Libs would be willing to set aside a few personal liberties if we knew it would help fight terrorism. But outside of the absense of another 9/11 (a completely bogus rationale), where's the evidence that we are any safer as a result of Bush's power-grab?
First, what civil rights have been suspended since Bush began his "hitler" like power grab?? Can't think of any? Neither can I.
Libs would be willing to set aside a few personal liberties if we knew it would help fight terrorism. But outside of the absense of another 9/11 (a completely bogus rationale), where's the evidence that we are any safer as a result of Bush's power-grab?
Liar! No lib would be willing to set aside anything to help defeat terrorism. They have done nothing but complain since 9/11 happened and they would continue to complain after any other event even close to the magnitude of 9/11.
And, since no other 9/11 event has happened, (which libs don't count as being safer) I guess you should count the muslim drivers who mowed down a dozen people in Va. and in SF and count the muslim who shot a dozen people in the Colo. shopping mall. Let's not forget the muslims who planned on attacking the military base in NJ. Oh wait that one was stopped so the libs say it wasn't a threat! Liberals are so screwed up they say an attack by a muslim is not related to the war on terror and then say when an attack is stopped it is unrelated to the war on terror. Then complaint because the muslim's rights were violated while the attack was stopped! Liberalism is certainly a mental disorder. It is mere fact that anyone who believes in liberalism should be in that rubber room. Funny how the liberals will call Savage a mental case yet whine about being called mental cases! But, that is certainly typical of a mental case.
AUTO,
What freedoms are you willing to forego to fight terrorism? It seems to me that if the conservative talking point that; the terrorist hate us because of our freedoms and that is why they want to destroy us is true, then by logic are they not accomplishing something by scaring us into giving up our freedoms?
Like Hitler, Bush has suspended many civil rights
Don't change the question. I asked what civil rights were suspended. If you can't answer just say so. Otherwise you're just using a typical liberal tactic which is to change the subject once caught in a lie.
The discussion was about civil liberties. The fact that I can be eavesdropped upon, as an American citizen, is a loss of liberty.
That my library habits are monitored is a loss of liberty.
That my banking records are monitored is a loss of liberty.
That I can only assemble in designated free speech zones is a loss of liberty.
All of these infringements, and more, are enshrined in the Patriot Act which was enacted under authoritarian Republican control.
That I can only assemble in designated free speech zones is a loss of liberty.
You lost THAT liberty at the hands of the liberals who demanded children only pray in 'designated free speach' zones.
And since when is monitering your library habits a loss of a civil rights (which is the discussion I am responding to).
"You lost THAT liberty at the hands of the liberals who demanded children only pray in 'designated free speach' zones."
What the hell are you talking about? When was this "demanded"?
Don't play stupid! School kids are not allowed to pray in school (out loud), only in designated area's where they won't 'disturb' other children. You want your free speach rights back?? Give them to everyone, not just those YOU feel are worthy of them. That rule is thanks to the ACLU and liberal cronies who feel that is a "right" that some don't need to have. Well, at least until the liberals think they lose the same "civil right" then they whine about losing them.
Now you're gonna try to tell is Christians are oppressed by the state? Please, get back to us when the Office of Faith Based Initiatives is kicked out of DC and its members sent to prison.
Free speech has never been an unlimited right. What's the dream scenario here for you, that kids will be able to pray out loud during lessons?
If students aren't allowed to say grace out loud before eating, I would disagree with that. But otherwise, I don't see a big problem with that, since they can pray silently any time they like. God doesn't know what you're thinking, or what?
YOU are out of your mind. Kids can pray anywhere they want. They cant disrupt other kids in class in ANY WAY. You NEVER know what you are talking about or you just pull this BS directly out of your ass.
Hey, Autopsychic is correct actually ... we've never had any "Free Speach." I can only assume it's thanks to some liberal with one of those "brian disorders."
Good thing no person at MMfA ever resorts to the utilization of petreous substances whilst residing in vitreous edifices ...
Oh, and Auto ... that's for you, in case you missed it. Something about stones and glass houses.
The monitoring of library habits is an invasion of privacy.
Face it. Republicans like you lust to be dominated and coddled by the loving arms of theocratic authoritarian dictators.
Yeah, your right. Who would want to track a man of middle eastern decent who is taking out books on chemical compounds and weapons? That would be asinine...and uh oh...watch out...RACIAL PROFILING! Despite the fact that there have been thounsands of acts of terror carried out in various parts of the world by middle eastern muslim men since 9/11, we would just be racist white people if we profiled them, right?
Hey, sure, no problem. I assume they're tracking every ethnicity with any history of "blowing schtuff up," including Christians, those of British descent, those of Irish descent, et cetera.
Heck, why don't we just clip out the middleman and ban all potentially dangerous books, from bomb-making to dangerous thought like how dissent can be the highest form of patriotism
In fact, why don't we start having some separate schools and water fountains for those "middle eastern men," this way, we'll know where they're meeting and it'll save us a pile of cash to illegally eavesdrop and violate their right to privacy. Then again, we'll have to do the same for all the above mentioned groups who have history of violence, too ... heck, why don't we start dividing up the states by religion and ethnicity?
Yeah. What a great idea.
You are way off kilter, talking about segregation when the discussion is on stopping muslim terrorists. If you had any sense of clarity or common sense, you might realize that nearly every terrorist act carried out since 9/11 has been commited by muslim men of middle eastern decent. That doesnt mean it is the only people who can commit the act, but it does give us a great lead as to who we should watch more carefully than say, a white irish nun.
Have you been hasseled by the government since they started tracking library rentals? Doubt it. You just like to complain about an invisible privacy violation that has no real effect on you. If you think this is so wrong, what pre-emptive measures would you take to thwart terrorist activity? If the current system is wrong, tell me your idea which must be better, please.
Oooh, first I'd like to thank you for defending my right to say anything!
Now, on to the meat of your post.
You are way off kilter, talking about segregation when the discussion is on stopping muslim terrorists.
Yes, because singling out a group of people based on Religion or Ethnicity has nothing to do with segregation.
If you had any sense of clarity or common sense, you might realize that nearly every terrorist act carried out since 9/11 has been commited by muslim men of middle eastern decent.
Can we assume that you have parsed these figures, figuring in domestic "terror" attacks against clinics, hate crimes, and any other negative events motivated by an irrational hatred of another race, religion, creed, et cetera are included in your figures? Or are you only talking about "big-picture" crimes performed by people with slightly off-white skin?
That doesnt mean it is the only people who can commit the act, but it does give us a great lead as to who we should watch more carefully than say, a white irish nun.
But then, you agree, that while the IRA was in full swing, we should've been watching every Irish Nun in every part of the world, since at that time they were the most publicized terrorists.
Have you been hasseled by the government since they started tracking library rentals? Doubt it. You just like to complain about an invisible privacy violation that has no real effect on you.
I beg to differ. I have been singled out for 'random' baggage checks at airports and extra security measures at monuments more recently. Of course, I have had, to my knowledge, no ties to terrorism other than public disagreement with our President and his "With Us or Against Us" mindset. Coincidence? Maybe, but then again, I don't see a lot of non-muslims being screened, either.
If you think this is so wrong, what pre-emptive measures would you take to thwart terrorist activity? If the current system is wrong, tell me your idea which must be better, please.
Sure, I'll tell you some pre-emptive measures to thwart terrorist activities. We treat everyone the same so that they don't feel oppressed, they don't feel a need to align themselves with some group that promises them nebulous revenge and invisible friends and relations after they blow themselves up because they have nothing to look forward to here in the temporal other than bigotry based on color and choice of imaginary friends. That's the first one.
Next, let's say we have some kind of law-enforcement division or agency of spies who don't get exposed at the drop of a hat, and whom the government supports through swift and just prosecution of those found guilty of being related to such crimes.
Maybe we can even have some sort of ... diplomacy to build bridges instead of blow them up ... maybe even ask some people to moderate their voices instead of calling for one million deaths or detonations of nuclear weapons to prove our "bad-assitude" ...
And, WOW, that's for free. I don't get paid a radio salary for sitting on my butt, preaching hate and destruction and hypocritically challenging others for actions I engage in. I don't draw an immense congressional salary or any sort of special compensation because I happen to be friends with someone in the upper echelons of government.
You want more ideas, why don't you start paying me and I'll take time off from my work to actually research this and develop ideas, interview experts, and maybe just maybe come up with a workable plan that doesn't involve singling out segments of the population.
Your solutions are gems. hahaha, typical. My favorite part was about getting hassled at the airport. What a weak argument, seeing that people or all races are constantly being stopped and randomly searched now. Actually, you are better off if you are a muslim, because you can act as suspciciously as you want, and if anyone says anything about it, you can go to CAIR or the ACLU and get a discrimination case (i.e. the flying imams mess).
"Be nice so they dont feel opressed" "Stop taking is out on one group" I've already stated that I support tracking anyone who is acting in a suspicious manner that could lead to terrorism. Your denial of the reality that middle eastern muslim men are the #1 culprit of such activity, in current times, shows that you either do not follow current events or you put your extreme racial compassion in front of the safety of America.
I wont even get into the fact that Muslims have been fighting with non-muslims for over 1000 years...that has no significance right? Or what about the fact that muslim terrorists constantly cite the koran as justification for their acts? I'm sure that book is just taken out of context when it says "death by 1000 slashes" for infidels.
Anybody denying the fact that young middle eastern muslim men are the most likely group to carry out a terrorist attack is a complete idiot.
Ah, allow me to laugh right back at you John of the many numbers.
I've already stated that I support tracking anyone who is acting in a suspicious manner that could lead to terrorism.
Define "suspicious" beyond "Middle Eastern," and you'll have a leg to stand on. Do we start tracking everyone who shows an interest in arming themselves (militias), radical social movements (anyone ever involved or learning about racial struggles in the States and/or Revolutions around the world), explosives (chemists), religious wars and/or jihads (Religious scholars)?
So do we start preventing diseases by using hot irons to cut off infected body parts now? You know, it's awful suspicious that people with hands steal stuff, also. You never see people without hands stealing things ...
Your denial of the reality that middle eastern muslim men are the #1 culprit of such activity
What, being suspicious?
shows that you either do not follow current events or you put your extreme racial compassion in front of the safety of America.
I'm sorry, how is it putting racial compassion in front of the safety of America? Statistically, the poor commit more crimes. Shall we start rounding them up and constantly surveilling them now? After all, what difference is it to challenge racially, socially, or religiously?
You're right, I couldn't possibly follow current events with the media the way it is. They don't report news, they report "newsy stuff."
But, amazing mindreading aside, your staggering lack of concept as to how to treat a problem by eliminating the root causes is amazing. I mean, you're right. If I were to, say, try to include and support less radical Muslims and show them that the promises and words of their radical clerics have no teeth, it's a lot less likely they'll help me and perhaps even turn their dangerous friends in, then if I make sure to subject every single one of them to humiliating searches by assuming them guilty until proven innocent and treating them like criminals, giving the radicals fertile ground in which to sow their discord.
I wont even get into the fact that Muslims have been fighting with non-muslims for over 1000 years...that has no significance right?
You're right. No one has EVER changed. Christians are still bloodthirsty crusaders, Germans are still Nazis, oh, and don't forget the sinister Chinese are still trying to make everyone Chinese by welcoming them into their borders. Hey, have you heard the latest from Rome? I don't keep up with current events, so I have no idea how the games are going, how the senate's running, and so forth.
Of course, even if they WERE going to change the best way to try and bring them into the world of modern ideas and acceptance of their fellow man is to constantly refer to their bloody past and the fact that they're a terribly violent people, like those terrible Goth people who were troubling those nice Roman boys, last I heard.
Then again, it's not like there's ANY other centuries-old religion that spawns radical groups that take up arms and explosives against causes they hate, is there?
Or what about the fact that muslim terrorists constantly cite the koran as justification for their acts? I'm sure that book is just taken out of context when it says "death by 1000 slashes" for infidels.
Again, you're spot-on. I'm sure there's not a "civilized" religious text that calls for anything as horrific as, say, death because you worked a day you shouldn't, according to someone's imaginary friend (Old Testament) or, say, cursing your father or mother (New Testament). I'm sure they'd just slowly bludgeon you (aka stoning) rather than cutting you 1000 times.
Anybody denying the fact that young middle eastern muslim men are the most likely group to carry out a terrorist attack is a complete idiot.
And again, define "Terrorist Attack." Who are terrorists? What are their goals? Do they need to have specific targets? Are you speaking about organized murder of innocents? Random murder of innocents? Attacks on a person, place, or thing? An institution or idea? Define Terrorism if you can-can.
I notice you're content, however, with what is being done. Or would you like additional security against people of (apparent) Middle Eastern descent who (may or may not) subscribe to a Radical system of Islam?
"But, amazing mindreading aside, your staggering lack of concept as to how to treat a problem by eliminating the root causes is amazing."
Lack? I'll tell you how to eliminate the root cause of radical islam. FIrst, you wire tap every mosque in America se we can monitor which ones are preaching anti-American hatred and jihad. Then, we shut down the radical mosques while deporting the imam preaching there, his family, and all the others who worship there. I'm sorry but you lost your rights when you preached treasonous hatred and violence towards America on American soil.
Second, since we are fighting a stupid PC war, and do not allow our troops to fire on mosques, we need to remove the handcuffs and start sending cruise missiles into the mosques in the middle east where all the terrorists are hiding.
Third, we insert nukes deep down into the mountains where all these terrorists are running around in pakistan and surrounding areas, and blow them to high heaven. This would create a very effective blast, without killing civilians on the surface.
Basically, we need to kill as many radicals as humanly possible and break their will to fight...like we did with the japanese in WWII. At this point, and only at this point will the millions of moderate muslims have the courage and the ability to take back their religion, and make peaceful amends with the western world.
How 'bout we just arrest all terrorists:
• April 26: 150 state, federal, and local cops raid four militia compounds in Alabama, one of them trip-wired with grenades, sweeping up a rocket launcher, 2,500 rounds of ammunition, and 130 grenades.
• April 25: nail-bomb found in an Austin abortion clinic parking lot "configured in such a way to cause serious bodily injury or death."
• May 1: Washington DC Minuteman and Freeper in good standing found with stash of semi-automatic weapons and explosives after his arrest at an immigration march.
• May 20: Aryan Nations member Jason Kenneth Hamilton kills wife, police officer, and church sexton at a Moscow, Idaho courthouse, wounding three others, then killed himself.
• May 22: Liberty University students arrested for possession of napalm bombs at Jerry Falwell's funeral.
John,
We all know that argument, so please spare us another refrain. "What do I care if they spy on me? I've got nothing to hide." Does that sound about right?
I personally have no problem with profiling. Profiling is just common sense, a natural, logical shortcut that contributes to efficiency. The problem though, is that at no point has the government been willing to disclose how they are using their monitoring powers. Warrantless domestic spy programs are unprecedented because when an actual threat exists, the NSA and FBI have always been able to get warrants. ALWAYS. Which makes the need for warrantless domestic spying very suspect, especially when coupled with the most secretive White House in US history.
"The problem though, is that at no point has the government been willing to disclose how they are using their monitoring powers."
Why would they disclose that information? It would be plain dumb to tell everyone (including those they are trying to monitor) how they will be looking for them. Its like saying "I'm going to use a secret strategy" while displaying it (the strategy) on a billboard for your apponent to read.
With the domestic surveillance program, someone impartial needs to know and approve of who is being targeted. That's called oversight. It doesn't have to be a damn billboard.
For example, we could have a panel of judges who do it. Maybe we could call it the FISA court?
Oh no, B. You said the "O" word.
Republicans prefer a very small group of like-minded people running the government in secret. Granted, that's about as far away from Democracy as you can get, yet Republicans seem comitted to sustaining this trend.
I understand what you guys are saying, however, there comes a point where effectivness is overridden by beurocracy. Think about it, its just like all those times you complain about your work preventing you from doing your job by throwing minescule rules and red tape in the way of a fairly simple process.
Complain about the invasion of privacy you want, untill we start hearing about INNOCENT US citizens suffering damages due to it, your complains will fall upon deaf ears.
But you see, the problem is that we're talking about secrecy and lack of oversight. Unless some insider blows the whistle, how would we ever know about abuses, on a specific basis?
We do have some idea that innocent U.S. citizens are being targeted. From reading about this back at the time I believe the number of cases one person estimated was about 5,000. FBI agents said that the leads from that warrantless wiretapping led them nowhere. And as I've pointed out elsewhere, if any sizable percentage of those cases were actual terrorists, where are the thousands of arrests being made?
"Bureaucracy" is not enough of a threat to eliminate oversight for, especially considering that under FISA one could get a warrant retroactively, so any red tape was not going to prevent anyone from listening in on a suspect.
Liberals love these so called "free speech zones" which are most prevelant on college campuses, where conservative thinking is discriminated against. Case in point: At University of Illinois - Chicago, a small group was handing out some fliers with conservative news/information on them. This group was arrested and told they could only do that in the free speech zone. However, a plethora of liberal based news and information (global warming, gay events, support obama, etc) is handed out freely anwhere on the campus, and the students are not arrested and told to go to the free speech zone.
Can any good free-speech loving, right to assemble loving liberal explain to me why this happens, and still maintain that liberals are not at fault for creating these free speech zones?
No I cant explain it and dont agree with it but it is a delusional take that they are mostly on campus. I never HEARD of a free speech zone until Bush started making protesters stay miles away from him. Before that I thought America WAS a free speech zone.
You really think its a good idea to allow protestors on the white house lawn? That goes for any president. Keep the protestors away from the people running the country, whether you support them or not.
Absoultely! Those horrible protesters might actually give the people they protest against some crazy ideas or something.
Strawman alert, protestors have NEVER been allowed on the White House Lawn they HAVE however until Bush been allowed to speaking events and to appearances. BUSH keeps them far FAR out of sight in these free speech zones which I never HEARD of before him and which Clinton CERTAINLY didnt do.
Why don't you tell us what the content is of those fliers the conservatives were handing out?
Or better yet, give us a link to the original news article that tells the story. I hope you'll forgive us if we don't accept your version of the facts.
Found this when I googled, conservative group arrested on U of I-Chicago campus:
March 10, 2006
Gay Activists Arrested at Liberty U.
More than 20 gay-rights activists were arrested today on trespassing charges as they tried to enter the campus of Liberty University, the Christian college founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Associated Press reported. The activists were members of Soulforce, a group that is promoting gay rights on a nationwide tour of conservative Christian universities and military academies. Mr. Falwell, the Virginia college’s chancellor, had earlier said the activists were not welcome because he did not want to expose his students to “a ‘media circus’ that might present immorality in a positive light.”
But I didn't find any search matches that fit your story. Also, don't forget the Bong Hits for Jesus ruling either.
Conservative schools arrest liberals, Liberal schools arrest conservatives...we should all agree that none of it is correct. Free speech can and does exist everywhere, and to make these "zones" is just weird.
Also, although your "gays arrested" rebuttal is good, you should have looked harder. Look on page 5 of this document. Points (b) and (f) are both good, but the whole thing is interesting. These universities are crazy.
http://www.ilaaup.org/news/newsletter_030625.pdf
Habeus Corpus, right to a speedy trial (see Padilla, Jose), right to privacy (NSA unwarranted eavesdropping program).
The issue with the "war on terror" isn't that foiled attacks don't fit into it, it's that the whole thing doesn't make any sense in general.
The war in Iraq is supposedly synonymous with the war on terror. But if the idea is that by replacing Iraq's government it's somehow going to cut down the number of terrorists, it doesn't seem to be working. And if the "flypaper theory" works, why are there more attempted attacks? The Fort Dix example is exactly what should be done to fight terrorism, using intelligence and infiltration, like police work. See, we like that. Catch the actual terrorists, instead of trying to create some domino effect in the Middle East which boosts terrorist recruitment instead. That's the problem people have with the war on terror, that it's being waged in a nonsensical manner.
What's so crazy about that?
Hogwash! Abdullah al-Muhajir wasn't gauranteed a speedy trial. Every court in the land agreed with the fact he was an enemy combatant (isn't that the same reasoning liberals use to authenticate Terry Schiavo's murder, that every court in the land agreed with Michael?)
You can't seriously believe that you lost a civil right because the CIA is monitering terrorists? If they are monitering YOU, then there is probably good reason for it. Otherwise you are argueing a strawman arguement!
How did they determine he was an enemy combatant without any sort of trial? You could be labeled an enemy combatant by the government, then it's OK for them to do anything they want?
If they're monitoring terrorists, then there shouldn't be any reason for going around FISA. They should be able to easily get any warrants for that. Instead, we have a system where no judge signs off on surveillance, so we have no idea who they're eavesdropping on. With supposedly thousands of these warrantless operations, we're supposed to believe that all or even most of them are actual terrorists? Where are the thousands of arrests that would naturally follow that?
Otherwise, innocent people are being spied on without a warrant.
Incidentally, I'm not sure you have any idea what a "strawman argument" is. You might want to look that up.
Jose Padilla is an AMERICAN CITIZEN. I dont care WHAT George Bush said he was THIS
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Was NOT complied with. Either everyone has rights or they are lost. Your argument was ludicrous. He is NOT a terrorist until 12 people say he is. That is flat out a lost liberty.
Auto,
The pentagon is spying on anti-war groups. That much we know already, and there's certainly much we don't know.
If the Pentagon can declare a peaceful anti-war group a "Threat" to national security (which they did), it's not too far a stretch to declare them "enemy combatants," and taken away to God knows where indefinitely. That's when people just start disappearing, and I would hope for your sake, AUTO, that this isn't the America you would want to see.
Please. Name 1 anti war person who has disappeared as a result of spying. Additionally, congressman Hinchey labeled Michael Savage a threat to national security...I guess because his words are powerful and represent the opinions of millions of Americans? The left is just as guilty as the right when it comes to absurd practices.
How would we know the name of someone who disappeared like that? Is it supposed to be convincing if nobody here can name someone who was taken away in secret? Please, indeed.
The point isn't that it has happened, anyway, the point is that it could happen. You can't give the government carte blanc and trust that they'll always be responsible and noble.
It's interesting that the GOP leaders are true Machiavellians in every sense, yet a Machiavellian believes that humans are inherently evil. So what makes the leadership any different? Do we still believe our leaders are ordained by God? A true Machiavellian ruler must then believe that his subjects are flawed, while he himself is infallible. That level of delusion sounds about right for the Bush administration.
Maybe I need to read that book again.
Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'
Machavellian indeed, if your description is accurate.
"How would we know the name of someone who disappeared like that? "
Are you kidding me? The person who disappears has a name, and probably has family and friends. Maybe, just maybe, these people would be able to vouch that their friend/family member was an anti-war activist and has gone missing? Or do the far left anti-war jerks just forget the name and existence of their friends if they disappear?
Wouldn't that obviously be dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theory? I mean, our government just doesn't do things like that, as everyone knows.
Please. Name 1 anti war person who has disappeared as a result of spying.
Well, I can't. Because I never made that claim. But it is within the realm of possibility, which is disturbing.
As for Savage, I don't know. Having a guy spew anti-Muslim propaganda on the airwaves all day long might just "embolden" a few terrorists. No one thinks Muslim extremists are justified, but why fuel the fire? To prove yourself right? To help usher in your own sordid self-fulfilling prophecy? One big "I-told-you-so?" Savage is a sick person, so I agree that he is a threat to himself and the country.
Well lets see. I USED to have a fourth amendment that said if the government wanted to wiretap any of MY phone conversations they needed to get a warrant. They had up to 72 hrs AFTER they began the wiretap but they had to have one. Thats gone. I used to have a sixth amendment right to a speedy trial. Ever hear of Jose Padilla? Three years, no trial, solitary, couldnt see a lawyer. That is gone, well I guess that is only about 20% of my BILL OF RIGHTS. Conservatives bedwetters like you want to hide under the bed and worship at the Bush alter. There had never been ANY ATTACKS like 9/11 in over 100 years. Bush, deep into ignore the terrorist mode, ignored all the warnings inclucing a memo ENTITLED Ben Laden determined to attack in US never did a THING but you are telling me how well he has protected us though the ports are still unsecured and Ben Laden is still out there plotting because BUSH says he just doesnt think much about him. There hasnt been ANOTHER terrorist attack and YOU think that proves something. I guess one wasnt enough to prove the obvious. Bush is an incompetent moron. Hey I have a polar bear charm you might want to buy, I can prove it works since in the last six years I have NEVER been attacked by a Polar Bear. Man you DEFINE logically challenged.
I'm glad people like you didn't exist when FDR suspended constitutional rights and threw japanese americans into detention camps. If the japanese spies/america haters were allowed to run freely, history probably wouldnt be the same.
People like you and your cronies didn't exist because the people in the 40's understood that it was necessary to sacrifice everything in order to preserve everything. Did you get that? I doubt you have any sense of the sacrifices the average common man living in America during WWII had to make...and yet, they knew it was best for America. People like you are so self centered that you wont give up one shred of your precious "rights" to things that dont even effect you, such as wire tapping or library tracking. If you put America's future ahead of your own personal complaints and "discomforts," you might realize that we don't have it too bad for a nation that is at war.
Actually, you're probably right John of the numerical string. After all, if the Terrorists hate us for our "rights" if we give them up, they won't fight us anymore. We can be just like them! Appeaser.
You're also probably right about the Japanese Internment camps. I'm sure that the presence of so many Japanese spies (do you have a final count on the number of spies in the assorted branches of local, state, and federal government, by the way?) would have somehow allowed Japan to conquer America despite the reports by at least one Japanese general who had toured the States and stated it COULDN'T BE DONE.
Of course, we couldn't possibly have any inkling of the rights our forefathers might have given up to ensure the safety of our country.
Unless maybe we were Japanese, or just looked 'asian enough,' right?
" After all, if the Terrorists hate us for our "rights" if we give them up, they won't fight us anymore. "
-Fool, I never said that, nor do I agree with that notion. They hate us because their interpretation of their religion tells them to hate us. It really is that simple. Well, actually i'm sure all the gays running around freely here angers them a great deal....seeing that they stone them to death in Iran, and see it as "honorable." Gee, I wonder why MMFA fails to report on that extreme violation of human rights, yet they attack Savage for voicing traditional family values?
Is America the only country that has gays "running around freely"? Interesting choice of words, by the way.
If things like homosexuality, drugs, or porn are reasons they are attacking us, why aren't they instead concentrating on countries like Canada or the Netherlands? Not only are they more liberal in such areas, but they don't have near the military capabilities we do.
Idiot.
The "Lagre Net" approach to fighting terrorism always seems like a good idea. Sure, lets just round up all Iraqis, or all Muslims. I'm sure we'll catch some terrorists.
Is that really what you want, John? What if the government decided to crack down on wife-beaters by arresting every man in America. Sure, spousal abuse would likely decrease significantly, but that would obviously be a lazy and rather insane method of law enforcement.
That anyone would actually praise Japanese internment camps is troubling, so I doubt I could construct an analogy clever enough to get through to you.
Feel free to live on your knees. I would rather die on my feet. Feel free to hide under your bed crying MOMMY, protect me from the evil wolves. I agree with Benjamin Franklin those who would give up freedom for security deserve NEITHER and the internment of the Japanese is now almost universally seen as a mistake, except in most fascist circles. Which is PROBABLY why the government formally appologized and sent them reperations checks. I bet the Americans of Japanese descent wish therehad been MORE principled people like me, not cowering under my bed and snivelling and less cowering, simpering please take away our rights I am scared people like YOU, at the time.
Exactly. While FDR's legacy was tarnished a bit by the Japanese Internment, it was FDR who calmed a nation, saying, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
The current administration seems to endorse a view that, "We have nothing to fear but not being afraid enough."
I stopped reading after your first sentence because it is devoid of reality. The list of constitutional abuses is long friend. Do some research. Idiots who don't get affected directly like to make believe that rights aren't being violated. "If you don't do anything wrong there is nothing to hide..." Tell that to the president. Your complacency is part of the problem.
Do you ever tell the truth, or are you just programmed to lie every couple of seconds?
First, what civil rights have been suspended since Bush began his "hitler" like power grab?? Can't think of any? Neither can I.
Actually, I can think of a few:
1. If the government thinks you are an enemy, you can kiss your habeas corpus rights goodbye.
2. The government can now spy on anyone without a warrant.
3. They can monitor your library habits without a warrant.
4. If you are unfortunate to be deemed an "enemy combatant," you have no right to a trial, and your attorney-client privilege is waived.
5. The President has eliminated your rights to know what the President is doing via executive orders to ignore the Presidential Records Act and by classifying documents not worthy of classification.
6. The President can declare martial law using the national guard without the consent of the states.
Come on, Auto. How did you stray from Homestead long enough to post this nonsense? Do you have a copywrite to post the words of Michael Savage verbatim on another website? I'd be careful when you go cutting pasting around the internet.
"1. If the government thinks you are an enemy, you can kiss your habeas corpus rights goodbye."
-When terrorists are picked up by the military on the battlefield, it makes little to no sense to enact the same rules and regulations as would be used with a criminal on a city street. Do you think it is logical to give enemies picked up on the field of battle the right to have a lawyer flown in before we can do anythign with them? It's just so illogical to assume things can work by treating enemies capured on the battlefield the same way you would treat any other criminal.
Additionally, habeas corpus was orginally honored for those detained at Gitmo. It was abandoned because all the nonsense with lawyer-client confidentiality prevented the military from opening up "legal" correspondence being sent to the detainees. I put legal in quotes because the detainees abused this privilage by placing notes to eachother in these confidential envelopes, effectively creating a secret communication platform.
"Do you think it is logical to give enemies picked up on the field of battle the right to have a lawyer flown in before we can do anythign with them?"
Yes. And most of the people were not picked up on the battlefield. They were either caught up in sweeps or someone turned them in for money. We have people sitting in Guantenamo Bay that have been there for years and they have not been charged with a crime. Either let them go or charged them with a crime and let them have their day in court.
Your post is delusional IF they are picked up on the battlefield it is fine to treat them as POWs. IF you are going to treat them instead as criminals then they must have access to legal protection. YOU and Bush want this black hole where no law applies. No country that would call itself just can simply CALL people criminals and treat them as if they were without an establishment of guilt in accordance to law. The previous poster is of course correct the majority of the detainees were NOT picked up on the battlefield but were SOLD to us by mercenary bounty hunters in Afghanistan.
Auto,
I know. Every act of violence by a Muslim is a terrorist act, right? But I'm willing to concede that to you because that isn't really the point. Assuming the mall shooting (actually in Utah) and the hit-and-runs could be considered terrorist acts, how would you propose we prevent these things from happening?
If you think torturing someone in Guantanamo or checking people's library behavior is going to stop a Bosnian refugee from losing his mind and going on a shooting rampage, by all means, torture away. By bringing up these incidents, you are admitting that the provisions of the Patriot Act intended to make us safer are not working. What works is intelligence and law enforcement, which is what worked in New Jersey and in London.
And don't get me started on Iraq. If you somehow are delusional enough to think attacking a Muslim nation is the best way to make us safe from Muslim extremism, then Wiener has truly twisted your mind beyond repair.
Why so much support for this Ellison jerk?
I would bet good money he's a stone-hearted racist. Let him keep speaking: you'll see the light one day.
If such a pattern of behavior is established, we can address that then. This example doesn't come close to showing any such thing, though.
And really, why should anyone listen to you? I'm betting you're a child molester. See, dismissing someone on a baseless smear isn't really fair now, is it?
You said it brother. You don't care. You don't care enough to consider the validity and historical accuracy of the comparison of Hitler's use of an act of terrorism to justify all kinds of bad things and Bush's use of 9/11. It's an accurate historical and very valid comparison. A specific event in time. He did not say Bush was Hitler, or was another Hitler in the sense of the true horror of the evils Hitler committed. But regardless you don't care. And you have your opinion about it. I respect it but am disappointed you would dismiss it so quickly. Whether you agree or not many of us feel the country is headed down a similar and dark path that deserves real comparisons to put things in perspective and to make people aware of what may lie ahead if they aren't paying attention, and their rights are stripped before they know it.
Tommy,
I don't think Ellison is going to be long for this seat talking nonsense like this. But it will have to be another Democrat that challenges him in two years because his district is strongly DFL. And yes, I am embarrassed for Minnesota.
then what was your reaction to "bring them on" The comparison is accurate and it frightens me that we want to censor or representatives from making the connection. If more had we might still have a democracy.
Agreed. The Bush administration has used many tactics which resemble those used by the Nazi Party, especially its use of propaganda and scapegoating. This doesn't mean that Bush is as evil as Hitler, just that he's using similar political tactics. Black and White thinkers have trouble with such subtle distinctions, hence all the hysterics when someone mentions Bush and Hitler in the same sentence.
Right, Ellison only made the comment in the context of using a horrific event towards the accumulation of power.
Not even comparable to Weiner's illogical Liberals-are-Nazis remarks.
Tommy, I get your point, one made here often about comparing, say, an anonymous poster or talk show host with an elected official regarding the standards of their speech.
But, as the weiner fans often remind us, the good Dr. has a large audience,probably getting his message out to more people than Ellison does.
Even if Weiner is really a performance artist doing satire, and 90% of his audience listens as a joke, he's still spewing some nasty stuff to quite a few people.
HBL,
Their "audience" size is irrelevant. Ellison is elected to represent the people in his district in MN. He should choose his words more carefully. Savage is a private citizen.
He did choose his words carefully. Those afflicted with a simplistic Manichean brian malfunction may not be able to understand the difference between what he said and calling Bush Hitler but that doesnt mean there wasnt one.
Are you actually suggesting our elected representatives muzzle their words accordingly? I find a little honesty refreshing. I may think what they say is idiotic, but at least it isn't scripted. It is a far better view into the soul than all that scripted rhetoric on why they voted the way they did line we get.
Adolf Hitler's accumulation of power following a fire at the Reichstag, the German parliament building, in 1933. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted
It sounds like Ellison is suggesting that Bush purposely planned & executed 9/11 then placed the blame on Islamic extremists so he could gain power.
That's nutty conspiracy stuff. And Ellison should be called on it.
Now did Bush & company use the 9/11 tragedy executed by Islamic radicals to gain power? Yup, I think we've all seen proof of that.
Not really since what he said was Bush's RESPONSE to 9/11. He didnt say Bush manipulated events like Hitler did with the Riechstag fire. So that one wont really fly either.
No. Ellison is a truther with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. How's that for a whacko combination.
"Muslim Brotherhood?"
You're full of it.
Post his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood so we can debunk it.
Do you EVER stop lying?!
Now that's a fair statement, did Ellison mean Bush Co planned and perpetrated 9-11, or just use it to their advantage? This is the most logical response I've seen against Ellison. Now personally, I would assume Ellison meant what you just said - that bush co used it to their advantage. I didn't see him say the nazi's set the reichstag on fire, so if you aren't aware of the exact history I wouldn't make that assumption. It sounded like a fire of unknown origins the way he said it...
Does any of this sound familiar?
Segmant from "The World at War" "The Reichstag Fire" by Soren Swigart
"The fire quickly raced out of control despite the efforts of the fire fighters and soon only the walls of the gutted building were still standing. Within minutes police arrested a half naked and seemingly dazed Dutchman, Marinus van der Lubbe, who was discovered at the scene."
"It wasn't long before Chancellor Hitler and Prussian Minister Göring arrived amid a flurry of reporters and photographers. Although he had just stepped out of his car, Göring at once accused the communists of setting the fire. The debate over who set the fire continues and may never be solved to everyone's satisfaction. Despite attempts to support the case against van der Lubbe, who was tried and executed for the crime, a great deal of evidence collected and analyzed by Walther Hofer of Bern points in the direction of a SA/SS Sondergruppe headed by Reinhard Heydrich and an official of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior, Kurt Dalüge. Less important than the cause of the fire however was the result. Before the sun rose on the morning of the 28th, over 4,000 communists and a miscellany of intellectuals and professional men who had incurred the wrath of the Nazi Party were arrested. A shaken President Hindenburg, 86 years old, was easily convinced that the nation was on the verge of a communist revolution, was induced by Hitler to sign an emergency decree suspending the basic rights of the citizens for the duration of the emergency."
" This decree also authorized the Reich government to assume full powers in any federal state whose government proved unable to restore public order, ordered death or imprisonment for a number of crimes including some newly invented such as resistance to the decree itself. The decree did not include any provision guaranteeing an arrested person a quick hearing, access to legal counsel, or redress for false arrest. Those arrested often found their detention extended indefinitely without legal proceedings of any kind."
Oops...segment, not segmant
Grey, I LOVE the world at war series! I'm hoping my wife buys it for me for christmas. I buy all the best war movies, specials, etc. on DVD now and started on the series/specials now that I can afford more. That special is priceless in more ways than one!
sorry, Gray! Not Grey.
Snoopy...could you imagine a World at War series on 9/11 and the Bush administration years from now.
Fox devotees watching the series, screaming at their TVs; "DANG, that's not what happened, Sadam was behind 9/11, and Bush stopped him from using WMDs on the US"
"Path to 9-11" pretty much says what they want to see as the truth, doesn't it? ;)
Snoop I love the World At War series too. They used to show it on PBS back in the 70's. I'm busy collecting all my favorites on DVD too. And that's one that's on my list. So is Victory At Sea.
For my birthday or Christmas I'm hoping the fam gets me the Sherlock Holmes Series [starring Basil Rathbone]...
I've got Victory at Sea, and prelude to war. If you want a few good ideas for cinema effect, get "Cross of Iron" and then Breakthrough (circa 1979). "Band of Brothers" climbed to the top of my list, got it last christmas!
Best ever? Tie between Too late the hero and "Patton".
Great ideas Snoop..thanks!
For a bit of WWII levity I own Hogan's Heroes [1st season]...hoping to add to that soon.
Now that's classic!
Oh, and ya gotta get "Captain Horatio Hornblower". Classic!
My wife got me the 10 CD Poirot set. Man it is cool
That's a good one too. I'd add it beside my Columbo collection!
Young Sherlock Holmes was a great movie as well.
Snoop,
Some did indeed speculate that the Nazis set the fire in an effort to discredit the Communists and justify Nazi seizure of emergency powers. Some say it was a lone arsonist. It's actually still up for debate.[oops I just noticed Graydog has this covered] well anyway...
That's why I'm not sure IF Ellison was insinuating that Bush executed 9/11 then blamed Islamic terrorists in order to solidify his power.
Bush & the neocons used 9/11 but I don't believe for a second that they carried it out. And I do believe Islamic terrorists did.
"That's why I'm not sure IF Ellison was insinuating that Bush executed 9/11 then blamed Islamic terrorists in order to solidify his power."
Send him an email or call his office.
"Adolf Hitler's accumulation of power following a fire at the Reichstag, the German parliament building, in 1933. "After the Reichstag was burned..."
Note the passive language. He's not saying Hitler was responsible for the fire at all. To think that he was saying so, thereby saying Bush planned 9/11, is a reckless assumption.
It seems clear that Ellison chose his words very carefully in order to not make any such accusation against Bush.
Brabantio,
Up for debate is: Who set the fire?
As Graydog & myself have pointed out there is some speculation about this.
Some think it was the Nazis themselves. Some think a lone arsonist. Either way the fire was blamed on the Communists. And it helped Hilter grab power.
Now, I don't know IF Ellison was aware of this before he made the remark. And that would make a difference in interpreting his meaning.
"Some think it was the Nazis themselves. Some think a lone arsonist. Either way the fire was blamed on the Communists. And it helped Hilter grab power."
The Nazi did do it but the comparison is between the accumulation of power after a catalyzing event irregardless of it being staged or being an actual attack.
So because some people think the Nazis set the fire, we're supposed to think Ellison is accusing Bush of executing 9/11?
Ellison didn't refer in any way, shape or form to who set the fire. He could have said "after they set the fire..." or similar wording, but he didn't. Why? The whole point is about the reaction to the fire, and taking advantage of it. Anything outside of that is mindreading.
Of course, you can't say anything without desperate right-wingers like Savage spinning it furiously. Ellison should state that he doesn't think Bush was responsible for 9/11, and note that he made no allusions to who set the fire, and that should be the end of it as far as reasonable people are concerned. Don't you think?
How sad it must be then, that we have come to the point where everyone must analyze, and explain in detail everything they plan to say to be sure it can't be spun by the media to mean something else.
So how would Ellison avoid the spin?............ "Now I want to be clear that I don't think that Hitler set the fire, or the Nazis, or the comunists, or Bush or anyone connected to him or his family, and I don't think Bush planned, or organized 9/11, or anyone connected to him, and the fact that I mention Hitler and Bush in the same sentence doesn't mean that I think Bush is the same as Hilter. A continuation of these disclaimers of my press statement can be found on my website, followed by detailed explainations of my disclaimer's, disclaimers"
;-)
And then right-wingers would say that Ellison can't speak, is hedging, is a milquetoast, etc. I thought we wanted politicians who said what they believed and had the courage of their convictions. People who "tell it like it is".
Jonah Goldberg recently fawned over Cheney because Cheney doesn't care what people think about him or his policies. But when Ellison makes a perfectly legitimate point about a man who looks likely to be one of the least popular and respected presidents in our history, a man who most Americans believe led us into a pointless war at the cost of American lives, then he's supposed to care what people think about that?
I saw something from "john" the other day on a Savage thread talking about not letting personal failings be a definition of who can and can't comment on any subject. And I thought to myself, does that apply to Babs' website, where she gave great ideas on how to conserve energy (the assumption being she doesn't follow even one of her ideas?). Or Edward's haircut vs. Romney's makeup fees? Hypocrisy abounds on the right these days...
Absolutely!
If Ellison was informed enough about the history of the fire and rise to power of Hilter following this incident..informed enough to know the similarities of the aftermath of 9/11 and this incident..... then he probably knew about the arrest and execution of the Dutchman for setting the fire.
I can't see anywhere in his statement that he accuses this administration of staging 9/11, or where he suggests that the fire was set by Hitler.
The most frightening aspect of all this, is that THERE ARE so many instances in the rise of Hilter to power, that can be compared to things that are happening now. Are we supposed to not mention any similarities out of fear of being accused of bringing up Hilter or Nazis?
"Are we supposed to not mention any similarities out of fear of being accused of bringing up Hilter or Nazis?"
Exactly. The issue suddenly isn't Bush's fearmongering, it's an uproar about an accurate description of it. Talking about Nazis and the office of the president in the same breath? Get the smelling salts!
Priorities, people. Try to avoid Hitler references if it's not a very serious matter, but when it is serious then the nature of the issue clearly trumps those concerns.
And that's a good point. How often have liberals been accused of "reading" into statements by Savage, Coulter, or any other bobblehead et al?
Hence this call on my part - are we gonna word parse, or debate the basics? I don't think we really have too many word parsers here. Where does't thou lie? ;)
The last question, "where does't thou lie" as in where do you fall, was meant for everyone, by the way! I'll start.
I try not to be a word parser.
Bullcrap! Ellison has since apologized for these disgusting remarks, but it's too late for me to forgive him. I wouldn't trust him for one second.
Your lack of fairness and open-mindedness is duly noted, thank you.
Well tommy. Savage is using a broad stroke of the brush calling anyone that doesn't agree with him Nazies.
On the other hand Ellison is being particular. He is singling out one individual. His statement about that one individual is fitting. He should alert the public to that one individual's effort to become dictator of our nation. Bush doesn't get that way on his own; he gets that way because Republicans and Conservative are allowing him to behave as if he alone is God.
Your attempt to make Savage and Ellison out to be similar doesn't wash.
Savage is a private citizen who does not represent anyone else, he isn't elected to any public office.
Ellison is an elected official and I hold them to very different standards when it comes to their words and actions.
I have no clue where you thought I was comparing them?
Tommy,
You are comparing. You stated Savage is a private citizen but you entirely ignore the fact that he has an audience of 8 million people who listens to him on a daily basis. He has more influence then that lone voice out in the wilderness Ellison.
As for what you call your standard what is that supposed to mean? That only Tommy is the dictator of standards?
What about everyone elses standards?
Perhaps some might appreciate the fact that they are alerted to how Bush is exploiting the tragedy of 911 for political gain and that this type of exploitation must stop.
Ellison must be appreciated for alerting us to this fact and reminding us that history must not repeat itself.
I explained the differences in the two voices and their responsibilities, if you can't understand that or disagree, fine.
What you claim is Ellison is below standard. Your standard as if it had any legitimate value at all.
Bush is exploiting 911. He exploited it to wage a war against an innocent nation. He has made what has to be the most stupid remark in all of U.S. History a remark that says we have to fight in Irag to fight terrorists.
This remark is idiotic for several reasons. One which is Al Qaeda is know for writing pamphlets. They are quite open about the fact that they cannot militarily defeat the United States, they don't have the money, means, weapons, man power to do so. They are not stupid.
Their goal isn't to defeat us militarily they can't do this. Their goal is to defeat us on the propaganda front and the war in Iraq is helping Al Qaeda win this propaganda battle.
If we were to leave the the issue in Iraq will only be a domestic issue even if a civil war breaks out this issue is domestic without foreign intervention. Al Qaeda will lose if this happens as the people of the Middle East will not appreciate Al Qaeda being reponsible for killing anyone of Middle Eastern origin.
Bush is in this for the oil. You would be a fool to think he would have attacked Iraq if all they had for resources is cabbage and no oil.
You drag out standard because you don't want to face the fact that what Ellison stated is true.
Hey, Tommy, where does Cheney use of the F word on the floor of the Senate fall in your judgment of elected officials, or "Bring em on!" or "Mission Accomplished" or "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie?" Do you really expect people to buy your line of reasoning when it is only applied to those politicians you disagree with.
BTW, how much do they professional bloggers like yourself?
I'm not sure Tommy would defend any of those comments. That's not a fair assumption to make, really.
Here's the thing. The Nazis were evil, and did many evil things. They were also masters of political manipulation, and terrific liars. It is totally accurate to compare the modern Republican party with the Nazi party in terms of political tactics. Conservatives need to get over it. After all, they constantly compare Democrats to Communists. Does the name Stalin ring a bell?
Nerzog,
You are free to make any comparison you want to. So is Ellison for that matter. However, he should handle his words with more deference and respect. He did not.
According to YOU. I think he DID choose his words carefully. Just because YOU refuse to see the nuance doesnt mean there isnt one. You would put people into a straitjacket where they can draw no parellels to historic events unless every detail were the same. Nowhere did he even imply Bush was as evil as Hitler nor as dictatorial only that he used the tragic event of 9/11 in much the same way as Hitler used the tragic event of the Riechstag fire any other comparisons happened only in you mind. He is responsible for what he SAID not what you heard
If you are fine with your liberal representatives comparing our president to Hitler in any way, even in a sweet way that pleases you, then by all means so be it.
I hardly think rhetoric from our public officials such as this is hardly useful. But you seem to think it advances the dialogue.
What is funny is how you and your fellow liberals get all huffy over some dumb talk show host's words, but if it's some Congressmen conflating Bush to Hilter it's perfectly acceptable. How nice for you.
Of course that is not what he did. You can just keep repeating that he compared Bush to Hitler another couple dozen times in the vain hope it will magically become true or we will just accept it as IF it were true but that isnt what he did. He didnt say Bush is like Hiter or Bush is like Hitler in this way he comapared something Hitler DID with something Bush DID. That isnt the same thing Your wishing it were wont make it so. LIke I said saying I can sing the same SONG as Celine Dion is not saying I can sing as WELL as Celine Dion and saying Bush did something in the same WAY as Hitler did is not saying he is the same as Hitler. This is a simple thing to understand if you will just tone down the simplistic black/white Manichean way of thinking.
Keep singing the same Celine tune Solon, your excusing Ellison's words or parsing their meaning is ridiculous. Any reasonable person knows exactly what he meant. Sorry you aren't there today.
Everyone knows what he meant: the rise of Hitler compared to the rise of Bush. It was a succinct and accurate assessment.
It's not accurate at all. It is stupid. Bush is out of office in a couple of years. If he decides not to leave, I'll concede your point. Otherwise it is an insanely ignorant statement. And that doesn't even count his alluding to Bush blowing up the twin towers.
The reason many on the left here are so comfortable with the Hitler/Bush comparison is because they actually view Bush as worse than Hitler. How can one have a legitimate discussion from that point? Whew.
Straw man. Perfect example of your stock in trade.
"Bush as worse than Hitler"
Bush is nowhere near the monster Hitler was but I do believe he'll end up in the same place Hitler did and I'm not even Christian.
Name one poster who is discussing this very point with you in this thread who thinks that Bush is "worse than Hitler."
You mean from the point of your strawman argument? We cant that is the point of strawman arguments. Who in this thread said Bush was worse than Hitler? Why no one did but since you are getting waxed its time to argue what NO ONE SAID as its much easier than arguing the actual points being made. I am comfortable with a well thought out and measured historical comparison why is it YOU are comfortable with spinning and distorting what was said into whatever bizarre connotations YOU added to it in your mind? Why are YOU comfortable with telling us what Ellison MEANT when what he SAID is right there. You DO know that you dont have amazing mind reading powers dont you? IF you object to what he SAID, not to the implications YOU added tell us why.
Some liberals think Bush is worse that Hitler? Who are they, please? I have never heard anyone make that kind of statement.
I'm sure there are some. None of them posted that opinion in this discussion, though.
Let's say that some people on here have come right out and said Bush is worse than Hitler, just for fun.
We hear about people like Savage being guilty of "hyperbole" when they make outrageous comments. The defense is that they don't really believe it, they're just exaggerating for effect. But anonymous posters on message boards must think Bush is worse than Hitler if they say he is. What's to say that the anonymous posters aren't simply exaggerating for effect?
Another argument we hear often is that people like Savage don't represent anyone but themselves. Well, neither do these supposed posters who say Bush is worse than Hitler. If we can't draw any general conclusions from someone who has eight million listeners, then we certainly can't make any generalizations based on a handful of people, even if they do exist and really mean what they're saying.
The problem with Savage is that whether he really means what he says or whether he represents anyone or not, his rhetoric lowers the level of public discourse, and pushes the boundaries of what's acceptable ever outward. Anyone who throws around comments about Bush being worse than Hitler do the same thing, but I don't remember anyone here saying that offhand.
Well, let's see. I am a Liberal, have been for near 20 years. but I'm dang near 50. Soooo, in that time, I've seen liberals called communists for oh, ever! And now we are all of a sudden nazi's. So for a good 20 odd years we've been compared to the worst of the worst, and your point is what? Don't return in kind, or something like that?
What does this have to do with the rise of Hitler vs the rise of Bush?
Let me get this straight. You can't compare one fearmongering power grab to another unless Bush tries to stay in office until he dies?
That is stupid.
Let me get this straight. You can't compare one fearmongering power grab to another unless Bush tries to stay in office until he dies?
No. You can do it. You just can't do it if you're a sitting congressman.
It's still stupid, though. That part still stands. =)
He alluded no such thing. Man you guys are all about the delusions arent you. NOR did he allude that Bush was a dictator. ONLY that he used 9/11 in the same way Hitler used the Riechstag fire to accumulate power nowhere did he say nor imply that he used it to beome a dictator. You guys just push YOUR delusions into the statement that has no such implications.
Apparantly everyone did NOT know what he meant. YOU for instance are spinning furiously in the vain hope you will convince us that your simplistic version somehow represents reality. It doesnt. Get over it. Some of us have the capacity to see beyond Hitler evil, say Hitler mean calling Bush evil. Its dumb, some of us arent that simpleminded. Comparing the color of an apple with the color of a fire engine is not comparing an apple to a fire engine. This is so simple you are just comitted to the propaganda.
Tommy, I won't get upset if you call me Hitler, but if you ever compare me to celine Dion, we're going out back.
And not in a clustering, fabulous hat way.
Whats wrong HBL cant hit that high note? Maybe while you are out back with Tommy...
Your "Holier than thou" attitude on this issue is galling. That you actually expect us to believe that a straight talker and independent thinker like yourself thinks all politicians must carefully watch every word they say is ridiculous. I don't know why you do this except when you wish to distract the thread from the fact that Savage is a hate-mongering, self-promoter who says whatever he can to get ratings from the lowest common denomenators of society in order to make outrageous amounts of money. If he hadn't pointed Ellison's statement out and you had heard it live and in person, you probably wouldn't have thought twice about and even nodded your head, if your independence and intelligence are to be believed. So drop the act. The man said what we all know to be true. Bush used 9-11 as a tool to consolidate power and rally the country to an illegal war!
This was a reply to Tommy.
Used? What was Bush supposed to do after 9/11? Send a stern letter to the caves of the Middle East and hope they didn't try again? Recommend sanctions? Let the UN worry about it What were we supposed to do after Pearl Harbor? Send a stern telegram back to Tokyo?
The country needed to be unified on 9/12. Bush happened to be in office. Unfortunately the Bush Bullhorn moment was the pinnacle of his presidency. I shudder to think how things would be different if Kerry was in office.
The difference between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is that we were attacked by a country, not a group of radicals. It's a completely different situation that requires different tactics.
America was united after 9/11, but not through any stellar bullhorn talents of Bush. Surely the same effect would have happened under any president, after such a tragic day. That unity is a big part of what helped Bush push the neocon social experiment through Congress. And that's the whole point, he used the opportunity to further his own ends, starting a war and consolidating power in the Executive branch.
It's frightening to imagine if Kerry was in office, isn't it? Maybe he would have tried to actually catch Bin Laden at Tora Bora, and not put him out of his mind as Bush did. Maybe he would have used the goodwill we had with other countries to help root out the extremists. Maybe he wouldn't have invaded a country that had nothing to do with it at the expense of billions upon billions of dollars and thousands of American troops. In fact, considering Bush's failure to act on warnings of 9/11 to begin with, maybe it never would have happened at all.
Truly, these are the things nightmares are made of. It's probably better not to dwell on such horrible possibilities.
"Maybe he would have tried to actually catch Bin Laden"
-So, if a Democrat is going to be the great leader who would capture Bin Laden, explain to me why Clinton didn't give the order to have him killed when our men had Bin Laden in the crosshairs?
What crosshairs? Are you basing that off of that inaccurate "path to 9/11" movie?
Another difference between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is that after Pearl Harbor Roosevelt didnt invade MEXICO. What was Bush supposed to do? I dont know maybe GET THEY GUY ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. Instead Bush took a Halliburton time out, forgot all about Ben Laden and invaded a more profit friendly country.
we've had opportunities to kill Bin Laden in the past. However, decisions made by lawyers, not generals, caused us to let him live. Too much concern for collateral damage has held us back throughout this entire war. If we could fight like the enemy, or at least fairly, this war could be over.
Sure, we certainly should have no qualms about how many innocent people have to DIE as long as something in our best interest is accomplished.
Yes, if we could only be more like the terrorists, we'd be much better off. Let's kill them all and let Allah sort them out, right?
How would we know when we won, anyway? How would we know there were no more terrorists? It's not like where you have a surrender or a treaty or anything like that. That's exactly why the war should have never started. Fight terrorism through intelligence, instead of invading a country,killing insurgents and pretending they're terrorists.
Agreed, if Bin Laden would just be fair and stand up at the head of his army of terrorists, and GWBush would stand up at the head of our army of Blackwater mercenaries, this WOULD be all over.
I think Ellison left out the part about appeasement. We constantly heard during the run-up to the Iraq War that *we* were practicing a policy of appeasement with regards to a fully contained *Saddam*, as Hitler was "appeased" after his occupation of the Sudetenland.
Truth is, it was the US that the world granted appeasement after we invaded Iraq. "Okay, but no more. If you go any further, THEN we'll be mad." Of course, now Cheney is pushing this administration toward Iran, and that war of propaganda is well underway.
So are we saying that the name "Hitler" is off the board completely, here? I mean, we can refer to the tactics Hitler used, but not tie them directly to Hitler? Is a default Hitler-characterization whenever the man's name is uttered? Because, I gotta tell ya, it seems to me that a fascist government would be free to use those identical methods if we had a self-imposed boycott on illustrating tactical parallels.
And really, wouldn't it make more sense to just debunk the claimed similarities? Unless, of course, you couldn't....
Debunk the claims! Be serious. It's far more effective to attack the messenger!
It's the Rove Plan. Started way back with the campaign against Ann Richards. Never debate the issues, instead make yourself out to be the victim of your opponents' nasty attacks, thereby passively aggressively tarring your opponent as an attacker.
It let's you pretend you're the nice guy all the while avoiding answering any hard questions.
We're seeing it right here in this topic. Doesn't matter what Ellison said or meant -- it wasn't propert to even have uttered it!
Sorry, if Ellison can't make his points without headline grabbing tactics of invoking Hitler's name, then his motivation for speaking these words are strictly political in nature and the claims made therein are secondary.
Actually to ADULTS the point he is making is what it is all about. We get that it is secondary to YOU. That is secondary to whatever propaganda you can spin out of it. You are projecting again.
It seems to me like if Bush's fearmongering tactics are similar to those as someone as horrible as Hitler, then Bush doesn't deserve the respect you think people should automatically give him. If there's a valid point to be made there, and it seems like there is, then obviously it's important that someone has the right to point it out.
Let me put it this way, if Hillary gets elected and sends neocons to concentration camps, I would expect a few Hitler comparisons from our elected officials. Obviously we're not talking about that extreme a level of action from Bush, but the idea that you have to respect the office when talking about reprehensible behavior is a bit odd.
Can't we just remind Tommy that Ellison's words are his opinion? Isn't the magic word "opinion" supposed to make everything ok?
Seriously though, Tommy has reframed this entire topic by trying to make it about what he thinks a Senator can say vs. what he thinks a radio talk show host can say. The accepted levels of discourse from each are really beside the point. Savage attacked Ellison for making a Nazi comparison, yet Savage himself makes frequent Nazi comparisons. That's hypocrisy no matter who Savage is talking about. Whether it's a random nut on the street or the King of the World who's making the Nazi comparisons, Savage is in absolutely no position to critcize.
BANG and the relevant point is made. Good job Clams
Solon,
I have made the distinction crystal clear here and elsewhere - just because you and others don't accept it, so be it.
One more time - the "accepted levels of discourse" is absolutely the entire point of my argument here. Ellison is a sitting Congressperson entrusted to represent his constituents who elected him to public office. Savage is a private citizen who speaks his big mouth only for himself.
That is the difference, if you and others disagree and hold talk show hosts to the same standards as elected officials that is your business.
A) Your crystal clear declaration is a DODGE of the POINT of the thread that the Weinerdog is a hypocrite and B) You are still claiming a comparison that was never made. YOU can keep claiming it but YOUR wishes wont make it so.
You want to focus on Savage and not Ellison's words, fine by me. If his words and actions are more important to you than an elected representative, fine by me. Savage's words may be hypocritical, fine by me - frankly his big mouth is basically irrelevant to me, but if they are what you want to focus on....well, as I said earlier many of you are far more concerned with talk show hosts than Congresspeople.
I would suggest a priority alert, but do what you want.
HELLO, that IS what the thread is about after all. I have already covered what Ellison said he was absolutly right. Bush USED 9/11 in much the same way as Hitler used the Riechstag fire. That isnt saying he is Hitler nor that he is like Hitler nor that he uses the same shampoo Hitler did. YOU have no point. Ellison did NOT compare Bush to Hitler anymore than saying the color of that that fire engine is the same as this apple is comparing in any appreciable way, OTHER than the color ,apples and fire engines.
no BANG.
The point that Ellison is a congressmen is quite relevant. Radio hosts are entertainers, not writers of legislation and law. Ellison's comments are inflammatory and need to be retracted. With his job comes responsibility. Comments from radio show hosts can be offensive, but they don't have the power that politicians at Ellison's level do.
Thanks Cannon, Some people here can't seem to understand that.......focusing on some talk show host is easier than addressing the Congressman's reckless statement, I guess if I had to defend Ellisons's comments, I would play the diversion card too.
You are getting delusional. We DID defend his comments they were accurate YOURS saying he compared Bush to Hitler were NOT accurate it really is that simple. However this is not YOUR website MMFA decides the topic and the topic of the day is why is the Weinerdog such a blatant hypocrite. Your weak attempt to pretend that the TOPIC OF THE THREAD is not relevant is laughable.
The relevance seems to be that YOU guys want to change the topic. You do KNOW this is a media watch website? The TOPIC is not Ellison it is Weinerdog and his hypocrisy. YOU want to tell us that the TOPIC is irrelevant because of what YOU want to talk about. No what Ellison said does NOT need to be retracted he was right and he did NOT compare Bush to Hitler.
Let me say that I agree with Bruce's post earlier.......and considering he lives in Minnesota and said he was embarassed for Ellison, I am inclined to go with Bruce on this. He can be your hero though, go for it.
You can be as irrational as you want. What he said was accurate what you said WASNT. That is a plain fact.
Ellison has backtracked from his comments, probably due to public pressure, as you can see here. That's good enough for me.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/politics/main3069391.shtml
Thanks Bruce for the link, I agree with you and am glad the Congressman corrected his statement.
Apparently he did so before reading all the high fives he was getting around here.
"They told me they understood the point I was trying to make, but they didn't think it was the right way to use that historical example, because they thought any sort of comparison to the modern world we live in in some way diminishes the horror of the Nazi era," Ellison said. "I told them I feel they're right."
In other words, the ADL isn't questioning the validity of his comments, they just don't like any references to Hitler. So what Bush did is similar to what Hitler did, it's just that nobody can say so because it supposedly trivializes the horror of the holocaust (which has nothing to do with consolidating power through fearmongering, which is what Ellison was talking about).
I think this is what right-wingers used to call "polical correctness".
I suggest you contact Mr. Ellison and urge him to reinstate his Hilter comparison right way.
He would appreciate that.
I don't care if he reinstates it or not. He made his point, and he didn't backtrack because the comparison was invalid, he did it because the ADL is offended by any mention of Hitler.
You want to prevent people from making valid points because of sensitivity to a purely tangential aspect of the argument?
Another suggestion, now that you have shown the worthlessness and idiocy of all this "political correctness" running amok in our society, could you please relay this message to the dozens of others on this board who do not share your opinion.
Now, I would appreciate that.
Why didn't you answer the question?
The phrase is mostly used as a blanket defense of saying anything, no matter how offensive or baseless. Because of that it doesn't really have a lot of meaning. There are cases where people are oversensitive and lose their sense of priorities, and I disagree with people who do that on either side.
I'm not sure who these dozens of people are who are going to disagree with that.
What question? You have already made up your mind as to Ellison's motives for backing off his statements. You are entitled to your opinion.
His motives are irrelevant to me, him doing the right thing is what's important.
"You want to prevent people from making valid points because of sensitivity to a purely tangential aspect of the argument?"
That question. I know it's there, I copied it from my post. Funny it doesn't show up on your screen.
What other reason for his comment is shown here? The ADL objected, and Ellison backed off. I don't see any other explanation, or how that invalidates what he said in any way, especially when those that objected to his comments said they understood his point.
Brab,
No. Your attempt to take me down a road of arguing whether or not this comment retraction was because of political correctness, which is your assumption, not mine, is pointless and diversionary. So your question is invalid and irrelevant where I am concerned.
Ellison made the Hilter reference and now he has corrected it. Those are the facts. The reasons you attribute to why he did it are your own. If I say it was due to PC, then you have me admitting Ellison was correct. If I say PC was in play here, then you still have me admitting Ellison was correct in his initial Hitler reference.
Sorry, you will have to argue with yourself or somebody on this. My views have been thoroughly explained. If you don't agree, or don't accept them, so be it.
I really don't see how it's much of an assumption. It fits with the explanation he gave and the comments of the ADL, and I don't see any other explanation for it.
The point is that you were trying to make it look like we should all be embarrassed for defending Ellison's comments, while the nature of the correction doesn't reflect on the valiidity of his comments whatsoever. I know you want to pretend otherwise, but nobody is going to buy that.
That's a fair point. I would only add that if Ellison wants more people to listen to his message and his overall point, that making the Hitler analogy isn't the right way to do it. I think he understands that after the fact.
However, for the right to make analogies about appeasement, particularly during the run up to the Iraq War, that's perfectly fine.
Ellison did the politically expedient thing, but his analogy is still correct.
To insinuate that anyone is an appeaser, an indirect comparison to a faceless descriptor, is anyway near the same as comparing the president to the most evil dictator of our time, is, well, ridiculous.
"You called me an appeaser so I am calling you Hitler" "There, take that!"
Except as we pointed out HE DIDNT DO THAT. No matter how often you repeat it that statement wont magically become true no matter how much you wish it were it wont make it so.
As I said before, the need to accurately describe and criticize those in power trumps concerns about invoking the name of Hitler. If it's thrown about recklessly, of course that's wrong. But if there's a valid parallel to be drawn, then there's no reason that should be censored.
The reason for this is that any country can get a bad leader at any time. America is great, but there is simply nothing about our system or our people that makes us impervious to that possibility. Additionally, the entire purpose of history is to learn from mistakes, and recognize patterns. It's a child's conception of "put finger on stove, get burned, not going to do that again" on a global and millenium-spanning scale.
So when we see the recognition of a pattern that we know we should avoid, then that has to be noted. We could dismiss any comparisons to fascism on similar grounds, but the fact is that the ideology of the Bush administration is startlingly similar. While it's obviously not Mussolini's exact vision of it, the parallels constitute a clear warning that we're heading the wrong way, as most Americans recognize now.
Further, this carries over into the realm of the possible as well. Like with the NSA program, we don't know that the power is being abused, but we have to avoid the possibility of such abuse. If it was proposed that Bush have unlimited power to wage war, then I would truly hope that someone would bring up Hitler's name. This isn't because Bush is anything like him, but because the historical example shows the potential catastrophe that could result.
We could have someone who is literally just like Hitler. How would anyone ever be able to say so, or establish the pattern that we must avoid, if any mention of the horrifying similarity is forbidden? Most importantly, if we're not going to use history to recognize reprehensible behavior and try to address it, then why do we bother keeping track of it at all?
Sorry for the long and narrow post.
I think the bigger threat is from outside radical forces that want to destroy us, but that's just me........
Even if that's true (and I'm not sure how America could be overthrown or radically changed by terrorists on their own), the existence of one threat doesn't eliminate the existence of the other. We can and must protect ourselves against both radicals and the possibility of an out-of-control executive branch.
I can't wait to see what sort of disagreement you can have with that.
Did I say that one threat eliminates the other? I said the bigger threat........you seem to have quite the penchant today for inventing arguments and then wanting me to follow you there.....perhaps we'd better take a little break from each other until you can figure out how not to do that anymore.
Then what on earth was your point about the bigger threat? If the purpose of your comment wasn't to trivialize the risks I was talking about, perhaps you can explain what your purpose was?
I assumed you had a point, apparently that was wrong of me.
I cant get to that site. I tried half a dozen times it just freezes up my computer. I would like to read the text to see if he is really backing down in the traditional cowardly political way when challenged or claifying in the face of the kind of rightwing spin I am seeing from you and tommy. Based on what is here I dont think he said anything wrong and he flatly did NOT compare Bush to Hitler in any meaningful way. What he said is accurate if unflattering. I wouldnt have said it that way but he wasnt wrong.
his motivation for speaking these words are strictly political in nature
Heaven forfend a politician say something political in nature!
Savage has atheist friends, he's getting a rise out of people.
Sure and maybe Ellison has Republican friends and is just getting a rise out of insane Wienerdogs.
Awww, come on now. Give the guy a break. Last time Savageweiner got a rise out of anybody was in Fiji, swimming with Ginsberg.
Hi-yooo !
Seriously, we're down to the "some of weiner's best friends are Atheists" part of the barrel? I can't imagine who Weiner's friends are, but I'd guess bizarro cult members would be more likely than mainstream humans of any faith or atheists.
Don't ask me why, but the image of Savageweiner going out to the barn and peering into a dark musty cask as he chooses from one of several dirty hands reaching up toward him to be his friend for the week came to my mind's eye waaaay too quickly after you mentioned "barrel"...
Bush as Fortunato - his craving for the wine has led him to his doom. Substitute oil for wine.
Savage is making a good living now.
Give him enough bricks...
Really this approach should be understood from before the Reichstag fire. This is interesting because Leo Strauss, an important thinker for contemporary US politics, read Carl Schmitt and followed his ideas. OK, going back, Schmitt was an intellectual force behind Hitler assuming power in the Weimar Republic. This involved a response to a divided legislature by the empowerment of the executive branch. Consider this the Bush executive has been assuming power while the dvided legislature has been less than effective. Consider this in the context of both the senate and its problems in dealing with filibusters of siginifcant legislation. This is while the executive branch has claimed executive powers that have been to the point of ignoring the legislature, including through executive orders and signing statements. Anyone heard of article 48 of the Weimar Constitution? Perhaps Bush found his own version of Article 48. In any case the broader relationship between executive and legislative powers, and the efficacy of those institutions do have historic precedent.
Ohhh, I'm sorry.
While well-reasoned and relevant, your unfortunate utterance of the name "Hitler" disqualifies your comment from consideration. All topically significant points you made relating to "the name that shall not be spoken" will be disregarded.
Too bad. You probably know what you're talking about. And that has no place in a discussion regarding Savageweiner.
Apparently, according to Savage no one can talk to anyone else unless they both agree on everything. In that case why talk at all. His audience seem to all be listening just to confirm their own prejudices. Sorry Mike that is not communication. In Nazi Germany or Communist Russia you got shot if you did not at least say you agreed with everything the Leader spouted. Savage seems to want to put King George in that same position. The question is would Savage, Limbaugh, or Hannity by King George's Joseph Goebbels?
Tommy,so when a sitting president,who by the way is an stting offical call other countries axis of evil then it's o.k.?
OK, let's ignore the Hitler/Bush comparison for the momen (even though any rational person can see the reference if they understand history). Ellison went on to say:
"I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."
Let's see. Coulter implied the use of the word f a g g o t in a sideways comment about Edwards and she was ripped apart. Ellison uses the exact same tactic, and implies that he would say the US was in on the 9/11 attacks, but he can't because he doesn't want to be put in the 'nut-ball box.'
What is the difference? There is no difference. To spin Ellison's comments in any other way is to act like an over protective parent covering for a sassy-mouthed student that did something wrong.
Ellison needs to retract or clarify his statement a.s.a.p.
That's not as carefully worded as the rest of it, which implies nothing about the cause of the fire. It was nice of the Telegraph and FoxNews.com to say that the Nazis probably started the fire themselves, as if that was central to Ellison's point. This comment is ambiguous (unlike Coulter's comments), because it doesn't necessarily suggest that Ellison thinks people are being wrongfully dismissed for such comments.
In the FoxNews.com article, I found this directly under the quote you posted;
Later in the week, Ellison told one of the newspaper's columnists that he thinks Usama bin Laden — not the Bush administration — was responsible for the attacks. On Monday he suggested the administration's response to Sept. 11 was one of "fear and rage."
"Obviously, Usama bin Laden and the hijackers who carried out the murderous events are responsible for 9/11. The question is, however, how do we respond to this tragedy? With fear and rage? Or with courage and reason? I'm for courage and reason," Ellison said in a statement.
There's your clarification.
Thanks for the follow-up quote, I had not read that. I think it's an attempt tp spin his original comment and soften the blow, but I'm glad he clarified.
Well of course you think that. You wanted clarification, but it doesn't mean anything to you once he does so. Why did you even pretend to be interested in his explanation?
Ellison has made a statement regarding his remarks. I think he did the right thing by backing away from this.
"Nazi Germany committed unprecedented crimes against Europe's Jews and others. Invoking the Holocaust to make a point about the United States is unfounded, minimizes the evil of Nazism, and is an offense to its victims."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/politics/main3069391.shtml
The statement above is from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, not Ellison. I misread the text from the article.
And you get that they aren't disagreeing with Ellison's original sentiment, right?
According to the article, they said they understood the point Ellison was trying to make. They didn't say they agreed with that point IMO.
The thing is that the holocaust is a result of Hitler's rise to power, which makes it tangential to Ellison's point. They seem to think that a reference to Hitler automatically equates every aspect, which is absurd. It doesn't trivialize the horror of the holocaust because it's got nothing to do with what he said at all.
Of course the first Muslim congressman isn't going to pick a fight with a Jewish lobby. His backtracking doesn't reflect on the validity or accuracy of his comments whatsoever.
I'm curious what would happen if someone was elected in Spain and then invaded France, Italy, Portugal, etc. Would it then be acceptable to break out a Hitler reference or two? Or would the ADL say that because nobody's in a concentration camp that such a comment would be offensive?
Did MMFA call AP on there assertation that the Virgina campus shooter was "anti-christian".I never saw the substantiation.It's cropping up often now.
So what if they hate Christianity and Jews, at least atheists are not walking around faking respect for some supreme being while breaking all his supposed rules only for personal esteem. Savage, Bush, Blair, Robertson and Limbaugh all share their hatred for liberals while they're all claiming to be 'men of God'. THEY can't even uphold the ten commandments and THEY keep spewing acid because non-believers are not upholding them? Sorry dude, but they're YOUR rules, not THEIRS/ours.
It is fitting that a discussion of Savage turns into a discussion of fruits and vegetables.
"kind of reminds me of" Adolf Hitler's accumulation of power following a fire at the Reichstag, the German parliament building, in 1933. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted," Ellison said.
AND....YES it does.
Again, bush used and uses fear mongering to further the executive power.
Once again we have the DHS Chertoff telling us about his "gut" feeling that we will have attacks this summer. Really? You think Bush and Cheney had nothing to do with that television speech from Chertoff?
The president and the vp ignore supeaneos (sp?) now, I bet you would go to jail if you ignored one.
We are on the verge of becoming a full fledged fascist country and people are ignoring, pooh poohing, and sweeping under the rug any comments that show that we are!
When you see the same tactics being used by bush and co. that were USED by other DICTATORS, beware.
Our country needs people that will point it out!
Keith Ellison should not be comparing, alluding or making comparisons between President Bush and Hitler. As a Muslim with a bully pulpit, he SHOULD be speaking out against radical Islam, which to my knowledge he has not done.
Suddenly, Glenn Beck's "poorly worded question" to Mr. Ellison; "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.", takes on a different spin:
Comments comparing Bush to Hitler make me wonder if Ellison is working for our enemies by working against the president.
First he didnt compare Bush to Hitler. He compared something Bush did to something Hitler did. Second I agree with Teddy Roosevelt who said to say there must be no criticism of a sitting president, that we must support him right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but morally treasonable to the American public. I think YOU should stop being unpatriotic, servile and morally treasonable.
So...what about Keith Ellison's refusal to speak out against radical Muslim murderers and terrorists? He could have a great influence on Muslins by renouncing violence and terrorism, and yet, he does not.
Maybe he does not beleive they are wrong.
"Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies". Perhaps Glenn Beck asks a good question
I am sure it sounded like a good question to bigots everywhere. I tell you what why dont YOU prove you arent a fascist bigot?
As for why doesnt he speak agains radical terrorism who says he hasnt?
http://www.keithellison.org/issues-israel.htm
Right now Hamas represents the greatest obstacle to this path, and until Hamas denounces terrorism, recognizes the absolute right of Israel to exist peacefully and honors past agreements, it cannot be considered legitimate partners in this process. Sensible and moderate elements in Palestinian society could possibly provide credible negotiating partners. The United States should encourage dialogue with peaceful Palestinian leaders that recognize Israel, condemn terrorism, and honor past accords.
Terrorism is the greatest impediment to peace. At this point the Palestinian Authority (PA) has yet to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank. The United States cannot support any government that condones or embraces terrorism.
Do you honestly believe that a comparison of similar circumstance, in light of what has occured, has less significance than stating the obvious?
Oh, wait ... I forgot, we're not talking about Dr. Savage hypocritically criticizing someone for making a Nazi / Hitler reference between several of his own, we're talking about Rep. Ellison now.
Well, funny thing is we have this thing in the US called "Innocent Until Proven Guilty." Why are we assuming Rep. Ellison is guilty until he proves himself innocent? Or is this one of these "rights" that we haven't really lost under the current administration?
But sure, why not have Ellison state that "Radical Fundamental Beliefs are Bad." He can also announce "Fire is Hot," and of course "Socks Before Shoes," just to make sure we know where he stands on those obvious issues as well.
But sure, why not have Ellison state that "Radical Fundamental Beliefs are Bad." He can also announce "Fire is Hot," and of course "Socks Before Shoes," just to make sure we know where he stands on those obvious issues as well.- RedRightHand / Wednesday July 18, 2007 01:22:55 PM EST
He should state it because he is a Muslim. Maybe he could influence other Muslims who are on the fence in a way that non-Muslims can't.
Since you are a rightwinger You should denounce imperialism and warmongering and Bushs lying too, why wont you denounce them. Do you SUPPORT the president lying to America. Do you support Imperialism? If you dont then you should denounce it. Also torture why havent I seen you denounce torture, could it be you support torturing people? Do you support starving children? I havent seen you denounce starving children. Do you support causing children to starve, perhaps you do I havent seen you denounce it. And how about Satanism I think its suspicious that I havent seen you denounce Satanism. Good grief back away from the bigotry kool-aid
I will concede your point that as a Muslim he might be able to reach out to Muslims who are on the fence and help them to choose a less Radical, more inclusive, more constructive set of beliefs. However, I also think that such a function would be understood.
As an acting representative, acting for the good of the people of his district and, yes, the good of the people of the United States should stand as an example of what a Muslim can do when he chooses to work with and inside the system. However, by pressing him to "prove" himself, we are also implying that no matter how he acts, no matter what he does, we, as Americans, do not trust him simply because he is Muslim, which will imply futility in working within and with our system.
In other words, by pressing him to prove himself in ways that we choose, we indicate that his body of work and life is insufficient, that all we see is his religious belief, rather than any works and such.
If the Representative feels he is serving America best without speaking at length or repeatedly about Radical religious beliefs, isn't that his choice?
And, as a side note, didn't he state a disdain for Radical beliefs that lead to terrorism on Glenn Beck's show? I honestly can't recall.
" he SHOULD be speaking out against radical Islam, which to my knowledge he has not done. "
That is the best point made in this discussion yet. Ellison has distanced himself from all things Islam since he has taken office. Why isnt this democrat using his power to peacefully unite moderates and take back their religion that has been hijacked by extremists?
And for the record, I just want to say that I have met muslims that do not hate christians/jews, but I have never met an atheist that does not hate christians/jews. Any mention of God or religion and they throw out a bunch of negative comments. Thats OK though, because atheists are moronic nobodies. Show me an atheist nation that has done anything great.
That's hilarious. Atheists hate Christians, but then you make a blanket statement about "moronic nobodies". No hate there, right?
I don't hate anyone for believing in anything. I disagree with organized religion in general, since I believe faith should be a personal matter, not something that's taught to children like it's some sort of verifiable truth. My fiancee believes in God, but I obviously don't have a problem with that. People are free to believe whatever makes them happy, there's no hatred for that.
The backlash comes when people try to push their faith on everyone else, or try to use God to form public policy. And that's how it should be, because we're not a "Christian nation". We're not a "religious nation" as far as our government is concerned.
We don't do great things because we're not an "atheist nation", we do great things because we have a strong set of principles for our foundation, a set of principles that has nothing to do with faith at all. If you want to look for examples of religious nations that have done great things, though, you might want to look up the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades (on both sides).
I think you've met plenty of atheists that don't hate Christians, you just fail to understand the distinction between "don't push your views on me" and "I hate you for what you believe".
If you're going to equate hatred with calling a person a moronic nobody, that is stupid. Solon and others in this conistantly belittle those they disagree with with name calling along the same lines. So, if you want to consider Solon and others here as people filled with hatred for other, be my guest. I don't think descriptive name calling equates with hatred though.
Additionally, we are a Christian nation in the sense that since its founding, America has been overwhelmingly populated with people of Christian faith and values, which is a big reason of why we have always been the most charitable nation in the world. Most of the people here who are not Christians do practice other faiths, and this is because our government cannot mandate any single religion. Besides liberal rhetoric, there is nothing that separates church and state. There is only the Constitution which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You see, if the liberal interpretation of this amendment (separation of church and state) were true, we only be able to elect atheists to office. Since this is not the case, I'll feel free to [correctly] refer to America as a nation with a Christian identity.
Um, sorry, no. Solon doesn't lump all conservatives together like you did with atheists. You weren't talking about one person, you were making a blanket generalization. Your excuse is lame and dishonest.
The argument that there's no separation of church and state because we elect Christians to office is truly one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Wouldn't prohibiting Christians from holding office obviously be a violation of that rule? Basically what you're saying is the only way we can have that standard is if we violate it in a flagrant manner. Obviously electing someone to public office is not a government establishment of religion. My lord, what are you smoking?
If the basis for calling us a religious nation is the number of people who believe in a higher power, how many "atheist nations" are there?
The other valid comparison between Bush and Hitler, which Rep. Ellison omitted, is that, under Bush, America's radio and TV airwaves have been saturated with right-wing propagandists very much in the tradition of Josef Goebbels -- including Savage, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. These people have no interest in the truth, and you rarely hear any truth coming from them. They are strictly out to saturate this country with rigid right-wing propaganda -- in the finest tradition of Goebbels.
They are also cast in the mold of Stalin's newscasters. Under Stalin, there were Pravda ("Truth") and Izvestia ("News"). Folks in the good old Soviet Union used to say: "There is no News in Pravda and no Truth in Izvestia". Now, isn't that a perfect description of Fox News today?
Judging by the "conservative" dunderheads who put their ignorant postings on this Web-site, today's right-wing media propagandists have a huge audience of blockheads out there who swallow their rantings whole and keep coming back for more.
So, when Savage says that atheists and Muslims hate Christians and Jews, that makes perfect sense to his listeners. Unfortunately, there is no IQ Test required before you can listen to these "newscasters" and 'pundits".
Chuck Prentiss Fort Lauderdale, FL