In case you want to send an email to Sterling Burnett, the right wing tool who compared Al Gore to a Nazi, you can contact him at sterling.burnett@ncpa.org. Send him your love.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Because Tools Must Be Smacked
May 23rd, 2006
62 Comments
Because pointing out the actual propaganda of the Bush administration and denying that global warming exists are exactly the same thing.
If I had nickel for every time Democrats compared Republicans to Nazis, I’d be a freaking millionaire.
Oh by the way, you’ve done it.
Can anybody say, hypocrite?
Ollie you didn’t do very well on the english section of the SAT did you?
He made no nazi comparisons. He simply said he was a propagandist, which in fact, he is.
Aren’t you the one who is always saying the truth isn’t biased?
Does Oliver “Hey, Hey, Hey” Willis really want to be taken seriously by referencing this non-story?
How dare anyone compare an irrelevent has-been to a nazi!!
Compare the President to hitler, par for the liberal course…
Your hypocricy knows no bounds
I don’t know about past uses of comparison made by Democrats. Let’s stick to the now.
Jay C, drpedro, DCPanic,
Do you think it’s ok to compare what Gore said to what the Nazis said?
Yes, or No.
Frame, get a grip. You were an apologist for Oliver because he did it and think comparing the GOP to Nazis is justified. I merely pointed out the facts.
Now go take the knot out of your panties.
Because pointing out the actual propaganda of the Bush administration and denying that global warming exists are exactly the same thing.
Heh. Took a total of 17 minutes for somebody take up the flag of apologia and justification.
Pathetic.
Christ, Jay you’ve been flying the Flag of Stupid since as long you’ve been posting here.
The Bush administration is notorious for its propaganda efforts, including paying off journalists and pundits, suppressing or rewriting scientific findings, cooking the books on the budget and social security, manipulating language to obfuscate a bill’s real impact and who could forget all those spectacular photo ops that make you feel all tingly inside. In the face of this record, you come hastily to the defense of a dipshit who has made a carrer of taking money from the oil industry to deny that global warming exists. God forbid anyone should actually give an accurate description to the tactics of this administration and its defenders.
Since that isn’t what happened sundowner, why not ask another question?
Sundown, when it comes to American politics, I don’t think Nazi comparisons are ever warranted.
“I merely pointed out the facts.”
What facts exactly? Did you notice the irony of the post you selected to call out Oliver on his comparison? It was a post on how Bush was trying to peddle his illegal spying program as a Terrorist Surveillance Program when, as we now know, he was eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant while amassing a database on millions of American phone calls. Night is day and 2+2=5! And what did Al Gore do to provoke the Nazi comparison? Make a documentary about the existence of global warming. And you wet yourself in a tizzy of moral indignation.
Of course if you want to actually discuss the facts you’d have to return to your good friend Roger Pilon. Were you ever going to point out for all of us what you felt were Pilon’s strongest point was in his debate against Robert A. Levy? Here’s your second chance, Jay. ttp://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2877
Thank you for frankly answering the question, Jay.
“when it comes to American politics, I don t think Nazi comparisons are ever warranted.”
Oh classic. Jay, that stout defender of American political discourse does not believe that even if American politicians or their supporters pursue facist tactics you should be allowed to call them what they are. What a glorious triumph for democracy!
Oh for goodness sake. The dude in the clip said “You don’t go to Joseph Goebels’ films to get the truth on nazi Germany, you don’t go to Al Gore films to get the truth on global warming”.
The guy did not compare Al Gore to a nazi, he compared Al Gore’s film to Goebels’ propaganda.
I once met an honest-God-nazi. I live in a resort town and we get visitors from all over. I sat down at a bar in town (Huggo’s in kailua-Kona) Next to this guy. He was old, at least 70. He was missing most of the fingers on one hand and had a scar on his neck and he spoke with a thick accent. He had little piggy eyes. The guy asked me if I was German, and when I told him I was an American, he told me he was Austrian. He then began to tell me about his service in the SS. He went on about how he had been tricked into surendering at the end of the war. He asked me again and again if I was German. I called him a liar & he showed a burned spot on one of his forearms where he said he had been tattoed. I told him that I thought it was disgraceful that the SS had killed women and children. He told me there were no civilians at the front, and that “where the SS is, there is also the front”. He got pissed off at me and accused me of being a Jew. He then loudly accused the bartender, the waitresses, and everyone else in the place of being a Jew. I left.
These days it really ticks me off when people call one another nazi’s when they have no freakin’ idea idea what they are talking about.
Frame, until someone actually goes the distance and kills people by the millions, you don’t get to compare them to Nazis.
What Oliver did was just as despicable as this clown. What you’re doing is worse, because you think that calling people Nazis is somehow justifiable absent all the genocide.
Frame, did Oliver compare Republicans to Nazis, yes or no?
Answer: Yes
Did Oliver call Sterling Burnett “scum” because he dismissed the notion of global warming?
Answer: No.
Did Oliver call Sterling Burnett “scum” because he compared Gore to a Nazi?
Answer: Yes
There was nothing about context or circumstances.
We know what your position is. You think comparisons of Republicans to Nazis is justified based on circumstance. I want to know what Oliver thinks.
actually a great post Pyle…..(The ReRun reference is a classic too)
Burnett is a nobody right wing flack supposedly taking oil money, and Ollie is a left wing flack supposedly taking Soros’ money….
Birds of a feather eh?
Farris, although I agree with you that the comparison to Nazis is distasteful and unwarranted in both Burnett’s case and when Oliver has done it, I think your criteria for any comparison at all is a bit ridiculous.
Can we not compare the Klan, the Neo-Nazi movements, the World Church of the Creator, or the Aryan Brotherhood to Nazis, just because they haven’t yet “gone the distance” (which is really cheap phrasing, by the way)? Do their principles account for anything, or just their butchery?
I’m not sure what a “racist fuck” is, but OK. How did you come to that conclusion mjb?
“Frame, did Oliver compare Republicans to Nazis, yes or no?
Answer: Yes”
I think, being rational adults (except for pedro) we can agree that while calling someone a nazi is at least bad form, and horribly dishones in most cases, there are degrees. Oliver calling someone a nazi for doing things the nazis did (though not exclusively the nazis, and that’s where oliver’s comparison loses credibility) is LESS BAD than someone crying nazi during a discussion over policies and science which were never contemplated by the nazis. If you don’t see that, there is no helping you.
and DCpanic, you’re a racist fuck.
“Does Oliver Hey, Hey, Hey Willis really want to be taken seriously by referencing this non-story?”
He’s not interested in being “taken seriously.” He concerned with taking George Soros’ money by posting bullshit like this on a daily basis, whether it has a grain of truth to it or not….which, in the case of this blog and MMFA, usually means “not”.
“He concerned with taking George Soros money”
Oliver, why don’t spread some of the fat soros money around to your commentors, you must be burning twenties just to keep it from getting cluttered in your palatial estate.
The problem is the Nazis reached such a level of evil that they’re in a class by themselves. The groups you mention are certainly despicable. But (to stay cheap) when you say those groups are deserving of the comparison, you cheapen the Nazi brand.
Let’s save this slur for those who truly deserve it.
naa, Ollie is in for the long play….
Cushy government job in the secretariat for liberal Propaganda, fat consulting job afterwards with a nice government pension…you know the liberal american dream…making money on the taxpayers
“Frame, until someone actually goes the distance and kills people by the millions, you don t get to compare them to Nazis.”
I guess you better tell that all your right wing idiot friends who are comparing the leadership of Iran to Nazis. Setting aside for the moment that the story appears to be 100 percent wrong, as soon as they heard rumors that Iran passed a law forcing non-muslims to wear distinguishing badges to identify their religion it was Nazi, Nazi Nazi all day long. But according to you this was unjustified because the Iranians had not yet “gone the distance.” How exactly does one prevent a party or government from “going the distance” if one can’t accurately describe what it is that is happening?
The Nazis did a lot of things before they started they started gassing Jews, each act leading incrimentally, but not inevitably, up to the final horror.
When a political party in power unleashes a full tilt propaganda campaign on its own country in order protect itself from political damage and to stiffle dissent, it is entirely justifiable to call them Nazis because such behavior is entirely unacceptable in a democracy.
“You think comparisons of Republicans to Nazis is justified based on circumstance.”
Wow, what a radical position. Call someone a Nazi when they run a facistic propaganda machine. Your position is that no one in American politics should ever be compared to Nazis even when, in fact, they behave like Nazis. Makes sense.
“How are you still posting? Shouldn t the Gestapo have imprisoned you in Gitmo yet?”
Leaving aside the fact that there are people being held in Gitmo without cause, a propaganda machine is a different thing from the secret police you dolt. There’s a post above waiting moderation but here’s the gist:
The Nazis did a lot of things before they started they started gassing Jews, each act leading incrimentally, but not inevitably, up to the final horror.
Anyone here ever actually seen Triumph of the Will? It opens with Hitler descending from the clouds in a plane before being whisked through cheering throngs to a massive military/political rally at Nuremberg. Does that scenario sound familiar?
Oliver calling someone a nazi for doing things the nazis did (though not exclusively the nazis, and that s where oliver s comparison loses credibility) is LESS BAD than someone crying nazi during a discussion over policies and science which were never contemplated by the nazis.
mjb what are you talking about? Burnett used the comparison to Goebbels in the same exact context Oliver did, ie propaganda. He was referring to Gore’s movie.
Oliver apparently was angry enough at such a comparison that he referred to Burnett as “scum.” Now, reading Oliver as long as I have, I am pretty sure he wasn’t referring to him as “scum” because Burnett doesn’t agree with Al Gore on the issue of global warming. He called him “scum” because of the whole parallel with Goebbels. It’s as simple as that.
Yet, he did the very same thing.
If one is discussing what’s going on in Darfur or what happened with the Khmer Rouge, then comparisons to Nazis are perfectly justified. But in the context of American politics (and we’re talking MAINSTREAM politics here. Not the Aryan Nation or KKK allright?), I think comparisons to people who murdered 6 million people and committed atrocities against many more is out of line.
Frame seems to think Oliver’s comparison is justified and I find that pathetic.
Facistic propaganda machine?!?
How are you still posting? Shouldn’t the Gestapo have imprisoned you in Gitmo yet?
The Nazis did a lot of things before they started they started gassing Jews, each act leading incrimentally, but not inevitably, up to the final horror.
Yes, but killing Jews was the goal from the start you twit! Goebells was involved Kristallnacht in 1938. Now you’re saying the comparison is justified because Nazis didn’t jump right in and start gassing Jews? Right, I guess destroying synagogues, Jewish cemetaries, Jewish shops and just beating on them and deporting them was no big deal.
Good grief.
A longish post in response to Jay got eaten, it may reappear but if not here’s a recap:
I never said that the NAzis weren’t targeting Jews from the beginning or that Bush is intending to gas people. What I said was that the Nazis were engaged a multi-faceted, far-reaching campaign to transform the nature and face of German culture and that when an American politian or political party begins using tactics that resemble one of those facets it’s entirely justifiable to call it what it is.
In the post you cited from Oliver, Oliver compared the Bush administration’s tactics of obfuscating the truth to Goebbels’ tactics. From the Wikipedia post that Oliver linked to:
“The Goebbels technique, also known as argumentum ad nauseam, is the name given to a policy of repeating a point until it is taken to be the truth.”
From the mouth of George Bush:
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
Okay, now you want to say that Bush misspoke? Fine. But look at the Bush administration’s whole approach to policy matters. It isn’t about making rational arguments it’s about repeating bullshit over and over and over again until people stop asking questions. They’ve even paid journalists and pundits at home and abroad to repeat the party line.
You keep conflating Nazi content with Nazi tactics in order to preclude any discussion of the seriousness of Bush’s propaganda efforts.
“Facistic”, you dolt.
So… wearing military garb is Step #7 towards genocide? I guess we should prepare the gas chambers. (4th Item)
There’s an old rule in debate called the Nazi rule: Whoever invokes the Nazis first wins because the other side has to spend all of his time proving he’s NOT a Nazi.
And while I say that Oliver is a little foolish for making this argument, since he has said in the past (Sorry OW), I have to say that I don’t think your argument is helped by fat jokes, profanities and slurs, Pyle…
“I guess we should prepare the gas chambers. (4th Item)”
It’sa question of degrees isn’t it, Save? And a facistic propaganda machine is still different from a facist secret police force.
“Yes, but killing Jews was the goal from the start you twit!”
Once again, I didn’t say that this is wasn’t their intention from the start and neither am I saying that Bush has any intention of gassing people. But let’s look at Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” moment and the Nuremberg rallies that form the center of Triumph of the Will. You can parse it all you want but both events were carefully staged specifically for media consumption with specific political purposesin mind. The Nazis wanted to totally erase any distinction between the Nazi party and the German state while elevating Hitler himself to national hero/icon. They turned to military symbolism and imagery to accomplish this. The Bush propaganda machine set out to accomplish the same goals on that aircraft carrier and that’s just plain bad for democracy.
You guys went apeshit on a bunch of retired generals when they criticized Rumsfeld because they were somehow usurping the Constitutionally distinct role of the civilian leadership over the military. But when Bush sets out to deliberately conflate the civilian and the military in a staged media event by strutting around in a military flight suit you swooned over his codpiece for weeks on end.
It is perfectly justifiable to call Bush’s stunt exactly what it is: facistic propaganda. The same goes for the post you cited in which Oliver acussed the Bush administration of using Nazi tactics. They were. They were attempting to stifle all dissent on their illegal spying operations by distorting the language used to describe it. Bush didn’t want an honest debate about the actual legality of the program, hell, if he did, he would have gone to the FISA court for warrants in the first place. Instead he wanted to accuse anyone who criticized the program of being soft on terrorists and unconcerned about protecting American lives.
Ironically, you yourself are engaged in using the Holocaust of all things to stifle legitimate criticism of Bush administration policies.
“It s FASCISTIC, both of you!”
What r u some kind of spelling Nazi?
YOU were the one that brought up degrees, remember? (”Does that scenario sound familiar?”) Hitler wore a uniform to a rally. Ergo, Bush is re-opening Auschwitz? No and no.
How exactly do you run a “facistic” regime without a secret police force. It’s in the very definition (”suppression of opposition through terror and censorship”)
Happened to me last night on the Katrina thread too. I’d complain, but since the entire site has been out intermittently in the last few weeks, I’ll take what I can get.
Posts keep getting eaten. They may all show up at once. Stay tuned …
Editorial rant:
It’s FASCISTIC, both of you!
Now please return to the arguing.
Um Save, I didn’t say that the Bush administration was a facistic regime I said it uses facistic propaganda. And to both Jay and yourself:
I never said that the NAzis weren’t targeting Jews from the beginning or that Bush is intending to gas people. What I said was that the Nazis were engaged a multi-faceted, far-reaching campaign to transform the nature and face of German culture and that when an American politician or political party begins using tactics that resemble one of those facets it’s entirely justifiable to call it what it is.
In the post you cited from Oliver, Oliver compared the Bush administration’s tactics of obfuscating the truth to Goebbels’ tactics. From the Wikipedia post that Oliver linked to:
“The Goebbels technique, also known as argumentum ad nauseam, is the name given to a policy of repeating a point until it is taken to be the truth.”
From the mouth of George Bush:
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
Okay, now you want to say that Bush misspoke? Fine. But look at the Bush administration’s whole approach to policy matters. It isn’t about making rational arguments it’s about repeating bullshit over and over and over again until people stop asking questions. They’ve even paid journalists and pundits at home and abroad to repeat the party line.
You keep conflating Nazi content with Nazi tactics in order to preclude any discussion of the seriousness of Bush’s propaganda efforts. Save, you talk about censorship but both of you guys are using the Holocaust to shut down a reasonable comparison of propaganda tactics between two political parties. Again, I’m saying they share tactics not content.
I’ll try one more time ….
Save, I never said Bush was running a facistic regime, I said his administration deploys Nazi propaganda tactics.
I also never said that the NAzis weren’t targeting Jews from the beginning or that Bush is intending to gas people. What I said was that the Nazis were engaged a multi-faceted, far-reaching campaign to transform the nature and face of German culture and that when an American politian or political party begins using tactics that resemble one of those facets it’s entirely justifiable to call it what it is.
In the post you cited from Oliver, Oliver compared the Bush administration’s tactics of obfuscating the truth to Goebbels’ tactics. From the Wikipedia post that Oliver linked to:
“The Goebbels technique, also known as argumentum ad nauseam, is the name given to a policy of repeating a point until it is taken to be the truth.”
From the mouth of George Bush:
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
Okay, now you want to say that Bush misspoke? Fine. But look at the Bush administration’s whole approach to policy matters. It isn’t about making rational arguments it’s about repeating bullshit over and over and over again until people stop asking questions. They’ve even paid journalists and pundits at home and abroad to repeat the party line. You guys have yet actually debate the specifics of the Bush administration’s propaganda machine. You just keep repeating: You can’t call them facistic or compare them to Nazi tactics because of the Holocaust.
You keep conflating Nazi content with Nazi tactics in order to preclude any discussion of the seriousness of Bush’s propaganda efforts.
So are jay c, drpedro, farris and the other winger posters rising to the defense of Burnett? Do they agrees with what he said about Gore? Or are they just hyperventilating?
Touche, frame.
He said Gore is a propagandist….and that is true.
What else do you call a guy who flies around in a private jet claiming that the sky is falling because of internal combustion engine exhaust? well, ok, he is a hypocrite too….
Who’s defending Burnett? I for one am saying of that, given Oliver’s history of using the exact same language, his outrage is disingenuous at best.
Well first off, the Nazis were successful in getting the press to toe the party line. I don’t see ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, WaPo falling all over themselves to praise Bush to the heavens. In fact, it’s the polar opposite.
Second of all, the reason it worked in Germany was because the only press allowed was the state-run press. Until the White House liquidates the Associated Press, the comparison isn’t warranted.
And to say someone is using “Nazi” tactics, those tactics really should be specific to Nazis. They built a lot of roads too. Does that mean someone a Nazi for supporting the Highway bill?
The problem here is that you (and the left in general) have twisted the meaning of the word ‘propaganda’ to mean ’someone in power publicly expressing an opinion’. Bush and the Admin are well within their right to higlight specific stories to the detriment of others. It’s called the bully pulpit, and at least 42 other administrations have used it before. (Well, maybe not WH Harrison. Wanker.)
ok, can we just agree that it’s okay for Democrats to use the Nazi comparison, but not Republicans, and then call this thread closed?
ugh. Sorry about the repetition guys. Just trying to do like Bush says: “keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in.”
And Save, the Nazis invented neither roads nor propaganda but they perfected and were particularly good at propaganda in the age of mass media. Watch Triumph of the Will and you will never again look at public military spectacles with posing politicians (be it a Kennedy or a Bush) the same way again. This administration has been especially aggressive at wrapping itself in military imagery and symbolism to deliberately blur the lines between the armed forces of this country, the Bush administration and the Republican Party. Ever major network covered that charade on the aircraft carrier. They were tools of the Bush administration’s propaganda machine.
In Oliver’s example,cited by Jay, the media was and is still complicit in feeding the Bush administration ’s distortions of its spying program to the public. The Bush administration was and is engaged in a deliberate program of obfuscation and propaganda directly at the American people and its political critics. They are not merely expressing an opinion or haveing a debate. They are circumventing debate by waging a war on the very terms being used in that debate and they are using the media to do it.
Example:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/24/gonzales-misleading-legal-analysis/
“mjb what are you talking about? Burnett used the comparison to Goebbels in the same exact context Oliver did, ie propaganda. He was referring to Gore s movie. ”
Oliver was talking about propaganda regarding allegedly illegal surveillance by the government, the other guy was talking a movie, made by private citizens regarding a well established (whether you agree or not, there is an overwhelming consensus) scientific position. One is similar to totalitarian regimes (nazis included), one is not at all similar.
My point is not all propaganda is the same, some is more like nazis than others.
BTW, the next time a right wing idiot like Dugger wants to refer to the New Deal or any liberal policy as communist or Stalinist I’ll look for your swift condemnation.
According to Frame’s pretzel logic, it would be fair to compare the Roosevelt administration during WWII to the Nazis. After all, propaganda aimed at keeping approval of the war high was done with the subtlety of an 18 wheeler busting through a wall made of styrofoam. They did it through posters, through the media, and most especially through Hollywood.
Frame’s defense of the comparison falls way short in this era. Why? Aren’t Bush’s approval numbers in the tank? If the administration were so easily able to affect change the way Frame claims they do, he’d have overwhelming support from the majority of the public. What the Bush administration is doing is no different than what the Clinton administration often did, but I would bet that if anybody compared that administration to Nazis, Frame would be shrieking like a stuck pig and we’d feel the spittle of outrage.
As such, Frame’s justification is a bunch of bullshit.
“It would be fair to compare the Roosevelt administration during WWII to the Nazis.”
Bzzzt. Wrongo there Jay. Were talking about directing propaganda at the American people not to help the war effort but to help protect the interests of a single political party. To the extent that FDR and the Dems did the same thing during WWII your damn straight you could make that comparison and I wouldn’t hesitate to criticize it as such. Got any examples? And Hollywood did indeed produce a lot of propaganda films for the government that you could put right alongside Axis films in terms of their aesthetic qualities if not their actual content (Hollywood was none to kind to the Japanese in a lot of this material but never produced anything like Jud Suss). One difference is that many of the most egregious examples of propaganda were intended solely for US military consumption for the troops only. Big difference. The most of famous of these films, Frank Capra’s Why We Fight series was originally intended for US soldiers and later shown to the public in edited form. Have you ever watched these films? Capra wanted to make them as a direct response to Triumph of the Will and borrowed heavily from Riefenstahl and Goebbells techniques not to mention Soviet montage editing. So again, they were definitely fascistic in their form if not their content. Such is the nature of the beast. I think it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize the Bush administration for making this beast a central part of its public relations machine often in the place of any actual policies. The effectiveness of that machine does not preclude criticism of its methods and intents. I note that Bush’s approval rating was once at 90 percent. Please engligten us on the similar tactics used by Clinton.
Reporting for Duty, anyone?
Oh, and your link chides Gonzales because his actions, while not violating the Constitution, violate (in their opinion) some statutes. Funny, I thought when in doubt, the Constitution wins.
It is designed to help the war effort. It’s not Bush’s fault that Democrats don’t support the effort. In fact, that’s why it exists in the first place.
oh man paul, you will want apply a little pressure to that massive epistaxis you have going from that titanic smackdown!
“It s not Bush s fault that Democrats don t support the effort. In fact, that s why it exists in the first place.”
Beautiful, positively poetic….
Hahahahaha…..This is just WAY too funny. Frame, you’re a joke. You keep making justifications and excuses.
Cripes, just say it already: It’s ok for Democrats to compare Republicans to Nazis but not for Republicans to do the same.
That’s if you can untwist yourself after turning into a human pretzel.
“It is designed to help the war effort. It s not Bush s fault that Democrats don t support the effort. In fact, that s why it exists in the first place.”
Here we have a classic example of a victim of propaganda struggling to reconcile his world view with reality. Did I say that the recent phone trolling operation violated the Constitution? No. I did say that the BUsh administration has been, as per Oliver’s original accusation, distorting the language in a manner that would have made Goebbell’s proud. What the administration is doing is illegal but rather than actually have a debate abot the legality of the program they have attempted to paint anyone who even questions the legality of the program as soft on terror if not an out right traitor. Naturally, the administration leaves direct assertions of the latter more serious charges to its ever willing minions who gladly spread the message without a second thought. Hell, I sat through the entirety of Roger Pilon’s argument for the legality of the warrantless wiretapping and I’m astonished that anyone takes the argument seriously. He literally began the debate by suggesting that nothing is really lost when the government eavesdrops on Americans so there’s really nothing to complain about. I doubt the founding fathers would have agreed. (And Jay you have yet to take up the challenge of pointing out that portion of Pilon’s argument you found persuasive. Do you have trouble putting ideas into your own words?)
BUt back to the propaganda question, all propaganda has a negative effect on a democratic society that is supposed to be founded on the free flow of ideas and information. The power of propaganda is its ability to interrupt, impede and shutdown that exchange of ideas typically through powerful emotional appeals backed up by manipulated images, distorted facts and/or outright lies. Michael Moore and Karl Rove are both propagandists. The Bush administration engages in strain of propaganda straight from the Nazi playbook with its deeply emotional appeals to huamn fear and in an attempt to erase the differences between the interests of the nation and the interests of the Republican party and Bush himself. To critcize Bush, the administration’s propaganda goes, is to criticize the very nation itself — inspire of the fact that the Bush administration is violating the laws of the land and, the the extent that the President is supposed to faithfully execute the law and not break it, the Constitution itself.
Is it legitimate to compare the practices of an American politician to Nazi practices? Of course it is if they are, indeed, similar to Nazis practices. None of you dipshits has even come close to making a case that Bush is not engaged in a fascistic propaganda campaign as Oliver asserted. Hell, all Save can do is repeat, in toto, the very sentiments that Bush wants him to repeat: To question Bush is question the war effort and thus call into question ones own loyalty to the country. Guys, that isn’t an argument that Bush isn’t engaged in fascistic propaganda, it’s fascistic propaganda in action. Idiots.
so paul, you completely ignored the implicit question in the opening paragraph of your monologue…
Do democrats support the war effort?
No. I did say that the BUsh administration has been, as per Oliver s original accusation, distorting the language in a manner that would have made Goebbell s proud. What the administration is doing is illegal but rather than actually have a debate abot the legality of the program they have attempted to paint anyone who even questions the legality of the program as soft on terror if not an out right traitor.
This is hilarious. Frame criticizes the administration and supporters for not wanting to debate the legality of a program that Frame has already deemed to be illegal. Again, what is the point of having a debate if you’ve already reached a conclusion?
And Jay you have yet to take up the challenge of pointing out that portion of Pilon s argument you found persuasive. Do you have trouble putting ideas into your own words?)
This from the man who says, “The program is illegal because so and so said it was”, provides and link and then as I have pointed out before, resorts to appealing to authority to claim victory. You’re the one who cannot explain why the program is illegal. Why? Because you don’t know. You’re merely parroting the point of view of a person that supports your conclusion. It’s evidence of a weak and lazy mind.
BUt back to the propaganda question, all propaganda has a negative effect on a democratic society that is supposed to be founded on the free flow of ideas and information.
Oh please. The purpose of propaganda is to influence opinion. It’s information presented in a way that stokes emotion. However, the notion that it has an effect on a democratic society is bullshit. The rest of your ‘argument’ is bullshit as well and it’s finally time to shed the light on your nonsense.
First of all, you’re a democratic suck-ass, ok? Everything Democratic is good. Everything Republican is bad. When I saw that you asked for examples of propaganda on the part of the Clinton administration, I knew immediately it was pointless effort to even name one time when they engaged in such activity. All politicians and all parties engage in propaganda, especially those in power. But you obviously don’t believe the Clinton administration did because you asked for examples. I won’t name any because you’ll dispute it. The Democratic efforts accusing Republicans of wanting to “starve” children wasn’t propaganda to you. You probably believe it to be true. Why? Because you’re a suck-ass.
Secondly, the comparing the Bush administration to Goebbels is beyond the pale when considering the intent of their efforts. For Bush and co. it is to foster acceptance of certain policies and yes, in part to instill emotions in the public for them to act (ie vote). Again, this is nothing new as most politicians do it. Goebbels on the other hand had one purpose in mind: to foster an environment that made it not only possible but acceptable to kill Jews.
Third, your comparison falls short precisely because we do live in a democratic society. Contrary to what you dolts on the left believe, Bush does not control the media. The free flow and exchange of ideas and dissenting views exist. Blogs, radio, magazines, newspapers, television, film, etc. It all exists and is used by those opposed to President Bush and his policies to present a different point of view. The Nazis in Germany had a stranglehold on all the media. They controlled everything that was read and heard. It was not a democratic society. As such, your claims that Bush is engaging in fascistic propaganda is truly absurd.
Later suck-ass.
“However, the notion that it has an effect on a democratic society is bullshit.”
Propaganda has no impact on a democratic society but it is strictly verbotten to refer to an American politician as a Nazi. Why is that Jay? But gosh, why do I even ask? How can you argue with someone who is willing to make an assertion but won t back it up with any facts: “I won’t name any because you ll dispute it,” says Jay. Brilliant.
And Bush is not simply trying to foster support for his policies. He is trying to shut down dissent againstthose policies. Big difference. The fact that dissent still exists does not diminish in anyway the dishonesty of Bush’s campaign to shut it down. Look at pedro’s typically idiotic response:
“you completely ignored the implicit question in the opening paragraph of your monologue& Do democrats support the war effort? ”
That isn’t a response to anything I’ve laid out here. It is a classic example of BUsh’s propaganda in action: Rather than respond in kind to legitimate questions about the legality of the spying program, pedro questions my and democrats patriotism. Nice.
Why is it necessary to respond to any questions about these programs in such a way? Because the president is trying to foster an environment in this country where it is perfectably acceptable for the executive branch to arrest or spy on anyone it wants without warrants, without due process, without trial or any oversight whatsoever. That’s a dangerous thing you’d have to admit, Jay. Right? Or do you even really understand what’s at stake here? Probably not, otherwise you’d never hold out Roger Pilon as a voice of reason. Let me ask you, did you even watch the debate?
Rather than respond in kind to legitimate questions about the legality of the spying program, pedro questions my and democrats patriotism. Nice.
And Paul, as usual, doesn’t bother to answer the simple question. And for good reason….his answer in either the affirmative or the negative, will collapse the house of cards he has built.
“And Paul, as usual, doesn t bother to answer the simple question. And for good reason& .his answer in either the affirmative or the negative, will collapse the house of cards he has built.”
Hey pedro, when did you stop beating your wife?