Fair & Balanced
Tweet
According to conservative Bill Quick, Helen Thomas is the same as Soviet dictator Stalin because asking tough questions is just like executing millions of people.
Can’t make stupidity like that up, you wouldn’t believe it if I did.
69 Responses to “Fair & Balanced”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
It sounds like the sci-fi writer Quick has lost a few heat tiles upon re-entry..
Oh for crying out loud. Where exactly is he saying she’s the same as Stalin?
More likely, he’s drawing a parallel with regard to how long she’s been around. Stalin was in office for 30+ years.
The only stupidity here is exhibited by our host who believes Quick was drawing a direct comparison between Helen Thomas and Joseph Stalin.
We can always count on Jay to race to the defense of idiocy.
“Helen Thomas has been around forever, just like Joseph Stalin.” What a completely innocuous analogy. Clearly no pejorative was meant. Afterall, Stalin did a lot of other things besides kill millions of people.
You know George Bush likes Wagner, just like Hitler.
You know George Bush likes Wagner, just like Hitler.
I think Bush is more of a Lyle Waggoner fan – but I’m sure if you explain to him that Wagner was the guy who wrote that dum-da-da-dum-dum music for the movies, he’d say he likes him too.
Oh yeah. Dogs. They both like dogs.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld;
and he was elected democratically, just like Hugo Chavez…and Hitler.
We can always count on Jay to race to the defense of idiocy.
And we can always count on Frame to just be an idiot.
Sorry, but only idiots would come to the conclusion that somehow Quick was drawing a direct comparison between Stalin and Thomas because it makes no logical sense. But then again, look who I’m addressing.
Jay, are you suggesting that of all the possible analogies Quick could have used, his turn to Stalin was an entirely neutral choice?
Of course it wasn’t a neutral choice! Quick isn’t a neutral kind of guy.
It still doesn’t mean Quick was attempting to draw a direct comparison between the two. Is it a provocative post? Sure. But it’s just dumb to reach the conclusion that Quick was attempting to equate Helen Thomas’s questioning style with that of Stalin’s murderous regime.
I mean, what does, “Even Stalin eventually left the stage” mean to you?
Stalin was in power that long because he was a ruthless dictator. Helen Thomas has been sitting in the front row of the press room because, why?, she’s a pushy bitch or something? Please. She’s earned her place there as a respected journalist. And what did Thomas say when she was asked about being moved to the second row? THis:
How so like Stalin. Quick is an idiot and you’re an idiot for defending him. You don’t just toss off analogies to Stalin without intending to associate someone with the ruthlessness of his regime. Hell, if someone did the same thing about Bush and Hitler you’d be going nuts about how the the person was suffering from “BDS”.
How so like Stalin. Quick is an idiot and you’re an idiot for defending him.
I knew I shouldn’t have wasted my time even bothering. I knew you would come around to your time honored tradition of just calling people idiots. What a freaking shock.
If you ever had an original thought in that tiny brain if yours it would die of loneliness.
You don’t just toss off analogies to Stalin without intending to associate someone with the ruthlessness of his regime. Hell, if someone did the same thing about Bush and Hitler you’d be going nuts about how the the person was suffering from “BDS”.
Funny. This coming from somebody that actually agrees with DIRECT comparisons between Bush and Hitler.
So long simp.
frame
It is ironic that you are criticizing someone -anyone- for hyperbolic namecalling. I suspect even you admit you are by far the most prolific of name callers here. And second place ain’t even on the radar scope.
He was trying to think of someone with staying power. It came down to either Stalin or Bob Barker, and the coin just happened to come up “heads”. I’m sure.
Um, I call you guys idiots because you are idiots. I don’t compare you to Stalin or Hitler (although it’s clear that you, Dugs, are a home grown American fascist).
And, no, Jay, I don’t think Bush is much like Hitler.
But how do I know you’re idiots? Look at our good friend Jay here.
How did Jay respond to my criticism of Quick? He suggests that making a “direct comparison” to Stalin makes no logical sense, but nevertheless Quick was making a direct comparison between Thomas and Stalin, most likely, with regards to the length of time they’ve held their positions in the limelight.
Is that a fair comparison? Jay suggests that it’s more logical than Oliver’s interpretation. Really? Thomas’s logevity as a front row reporter is comprabale to to Stalin’s longevity as a dictator? That makes reasonable sense to Jay? On what grounds does that make any more sense that Oliver’s interpretation? Because Thomas was in the front row because she was a ruthless power hungry tyrrant? Because Thomas was forced from that position and is now bitter, angry manner?
The record indicates otherwise. Does Jay want to actually address me answer to his question — “What does, “Even Stalin eventually left the stage” mean to you? — in which I explained all this to him?
No, of course, not, he storms off in a huff accussing me of being nothing but a name caller. Seriously?
Check the thread, Dugs, and see who calls who an idiot first.
Well, since I’m not even on the radar scope, I guess I can say that I think frameone is absolutely correct here without Jay or dugger slapping me with their pathetic “you too” argument.
Far more pertinent comparisons of Bush to Stalin, or Bush to Hitler, could be drawn, and you two would be pushing the waaaaah! button for every one of them.
Michael makes my point extactly.
Between Stalin and anyone else on the planet who’s held a certain position for a long time, Quick went with Stalin in reference to Helen Thomas.
How does that make any sense unless Quick is suggesting parallels between how and why Thomas has remained in her front row seat for so long?
Um, I call you guys idiots because you are idiots.
Well, you’re an asshole so I’ll just address you as Asshole from now on. How’s that?
And, no, Jay, I don’t think Bush is much like Hitler.
Nonsense. I’m not about to go searching for it, but you defended a comparison between Hitler and Bush at some point.
Really? Thomas’s logevity as a front row reporter is comprabale to to Stalin’s longevity as a dictator? That makes reasonable sense to Jay?
I never said it made reasonable sense. I just said it made more sense than the conclusion Oliver reached.
On what grounds does that make any more sense that Oliver’s interpretation?
Because of what Quick wrote. It’s called reading for content. Try it sometime.
Because Thomas was forced from that position and is now bitter, angry manner?
Thomas has always been bitter and angry. This didn’t change anything.
And let’s not sit around giving BS praise to Thomas’s position in the press room as some kind of reward for her journalistic endeavors. She’s been there for so long because she has become part of a tradition, nothing more.
And exactly how was Quick attempting to equate her with Stalin if you’re so convinced that was his intent.
And I’m seriously interested in reading some kind of coherent explanation as to why Oliver is correct. Here is what Quick’s post said:
Helen Thomas Moving Back After 46 Years Down Front – Politico.com
Even Stalin eventually left the stage.
Oliver says that because Quick wrote this he is saying “Helen Thomas is the same as Soviet dictator Stalin because asking tough questions is just like executing millions of people.
Now please. Somebody in some rational way explain how Oliver made that leap because I can’t even imagine Evel Knievel being able to do it.
“And exactly how was Quick attempting to equate her with Stalin if you’re so convinced that was his intent.”
Jesus fucking keerist, Jay. How do I know it was Quick’s intent to compare her to Stalin? BECAUSE HE FUCKING COMPARED HER TO STALIN!
Talk about reading for content. Now you want to deny that he intended any comparison whatsoever?
Why did he compare her to Stalin? Because aside from killing millions of people Stalin is famous for, you know, doing his job well, being well liked and becoming sort of a “tradition” around the Kremlin?
What a moron.
And Jay, how exactly is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you can write this:
“And we can always count on Frame to just be an idiot.”
And this shortly thereafter:
“I knew you would come around to your time honored tradition of just calling people idiots.”
And to top it all off you seemingly sign off with “So long simp” only to return minutes later with more incoherence: “He compared her to Stalin but how do you know that was his intent?”
Sheesh.
“And I’m seriously interested in reading some kind of coherent explanation as to why Oliver is correct.”
Um, Jay, you are defending Quick because, as you said, “Quick isn’t a neutral kind of guy” and he’s just trying to get as rise out of liberals, or something.
And yet you are attacking Oliver for the same kind of polemicism that is Quick’s motivation.
You’re only real defense of this hypocrisy is that your interpretation of what Quick meant makes more sense than Oliver’s interpretation.
The point, however, is that Quick’s comparison makes as much sense as yourinterpretation because the comparison on any level for any reason is ridiculous and inane.
Get it?
Jesus fucking keerist, Jay. How do I know it was Quick’s intent to compare her to Stalin? BECAUSE HE FUCKING COMPARED HER TO STALIN!
No shit Sherlock. We’re talking about CONTEXT here. Like I said from the beginning you simple minded twerp, I said he used Stalin’s name in a parallel to how long he was around. A neutral choice? Of course not, but to say Quick was thinking, “Oh man, Helen Thomas’s mean questions are like Stalin killing 20 million people!! Yeah!!” is just lame.
But you believe it. I have to conclude that must you get some kind of strange sexual pleasure or something out of being such a complete twit. Or it’s just something that comes naturally to you. Like Rainman or something.
Come on, you guys. It’s Some Guy With a Web Site(©August Pollack), for god’s sakes. If Tony Snow had said it-or more likely Rush or Coulter or Beck or O’Rilly- then you would both have justification for the outrage. But this guy? WGAF?
The point, however, is that Quick’s comparison makes as much sense as your interpretation because the comparison on any level for any reason is ridiculous and inane.
Oh finally. Some reasonableness. Amazing.
That’s all Oliver had to write. Frankly, I think the Stalin analogy was off, but reading Quick as much as I have, I know what he was referring to and it wasn’t Oliver’s lazy conclusion. But that’s the conclusion Oliver came to and lame as it was, you guys ate it up like the studio audience at a taping of ‘Emeril Live!’
There are more important things to be outraged about.
Like ice cream.
And I would have gone for Bob Barker, myself.
Jay and frame, why don’t you guys agree to meet up in a dark alley somewhere and settle this once and for all? For crying out loud, don’t you people have jobs?
I’ve got to say, the trolls here really do keep me from participating. When I see a thread like this with such an obvious intent to troll that Jay brings to the table I just go right back to the front page and promise myself I won’t check out the comments again for a while. Great blog though!
Jay and frame, why don’t you guys agree to meet up in a dark alley somewhere and settle this once and for all?
Good idea. I’ll slap him upside his head for every time he called somebody an idiot in the comments section at this blog.
I figure I’ll be done by 2014.
Jay mounted the most spirited defense since the CHewbacca defense.
I love it when I’m called a ‘troll.’ Considering I’ve been commenting at Oliver’s blog for like 5 years now, it’s a silly accusation.
And here’s another question: Why is the conservative always called the troll? I mean, isn’t Frameone and Factcheck’s standard of doing nothing but namecalling (Yeah I namecalled too, but unfortunately, Frame knows no other form of communication aside from scratching and grunting) more trollish than anything else?
“Like I said from the beginning you simple minded twerp …”
Jay, remember yourself, you’re the voice of reason and civility …
“I’ll slap him upside his head for every time he called somebody an idiot in the comments section at this blog.”
Wow. Threats of physical violenc. You’re bitchin, Jay. Just bitchin.
“Frameone and Factcheck’s standard of doing nothing but namecalling…”
It’s fairly clear from just looking at the above comments that I did much more than call you an idiot. I hav, ever threatened anyone physically here, nor would I, a claim which you can now no longer make.
Technically Jay, you started the name calling here. You called Oliver stupid and then you called frame an idiot. Then you squealed in outrage when Frame called you an idiot.
Jay shows his outrage like a prostitute that’s been asked for a freebie.
And second place ain’t even on the radar scope.
That’s because he was banned.
Unlike Bush, Hitler actually was in combat, and was wounded and decorated.
Whatever it was it definately got Frame’s panties in a twist…usually he just does two posts in a row, here he goes for the trifecta!
Sort of like the little kid who goes home saying “I shoulda’ said…..!”
For the record, this whole conversation goes in the record books as a top-5 most ridiculous argument on this blog.
Quick was clearly not saying that Thomas is the same as Stalin. He was making a remark on her longevity, and because of his distaste for the woman, he chose the most deplorable person he could think of for use in the metaphor. It’s an idiotic analogy, sure, but not
Can we all at least agree that no one should take this asshat seriously though? Reasonable people don’t make statements like that, let’s be honest…
should read, “It’s an idiotic analogy, sure, but not a serious one.” Sorry bout that.
“Whatever it was it definately got Frame’s panties in a twist…”
Hardly. Jay is a very silly person in large part because, much like yourself, he likes to parade around as the voice of reason and civility when reading anyone of his posts in this thread proves exactly the opposite.
Once again, Pedo presents his arguments with the passion of a Paranoid Schizophrenic after huffing paint.
pedromd07 | Feb 21, 2007 7:04:19 PM
“Sort of like the little kid who goes home saying “I shoulda’ said…..!”
From the same man who asks “do you molest children?”
Analogy test time.
Bill Quick : Helen Thomas : Joe Stalin
::
Dick Durbin : American Troops : Hitler
Discuss.
Quick was clearly not saying that Thomas is the same as Stalin. He was making a remark on her longevity, and because of his distaste for the woman, he chose the most deplorable person he could think of for use in the metaphor.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Frarmeone will now call you an idiot.
Hardly. Jay is a very silly person in large part because, much like yourself, he likes to parade around as the voice of reason and civility when reading anyone of his posts in this thread proves exactly the opposite.
Actually Frame, when talking to you I take it down to that level. You can go and examine any number of other entries where I am discussing issues between others and it’s very reasonable and very civil. You’re incapable of that. I’ve tried before in the past, but you always and I mean ALWAYS revert to personal insults and nonsense like “Oh man! Awesome ____. Just awesome.” So the only thing I can do with you is bring it down to that level.
How did it start? “We can always count on Jay to race to the defense of idiocy.” Don’t bitch about it now because you started out with your usual shtick and I merely came down to your gutter sniping level.
And I didn’t threaten you with violence so lighten up Francis. It was tongue in cheek response to somebody saying we should meet in an alley somewhere. So give it a rest or go report me to the police if you truly feel threatened.
Look at that outrage. Look at that passion. Jay’s arguing has surpassed outrage and passion of a paint-huffing paranoid schizophrenic prostitute being asked to pay money for doing the whole fleet.
Jay, the sand in your eyes is hindering your vision. Go home.
Look at that outrage. Look at that passion. Jay’s arguing has surpassed outrage and passion of a paint-huffing paranoid schizophrenic prostitute being asked to pay money for doing the whole fleet.
Midderpidge, what is this obsession you have with hookers? I’m sorry you’re forced to pay for it, but don’t throw it back on me.
Obsession with prostitutes? I am just amazed at the outrage you can muster when someone attacks your idol/mentor Bill Quick. If that is an obsession with hookers, so be it.
What outrage? It was disbelief that people could reach such an absurd conclusion.
Thankfully, mambochicken63 was on the same page I was with what Quick was doing.
We can move along now….
Just to elaborate upon the theory here, if I were to say something to the effect of “Jay is resolute in his belief, much like Adolf Hitler was,” it would be unreasonable to suggest, since I am equating Jay to Hitler in one criterion (resoluteness of belief), that it follows I am trying to draw any further corrolary between the two, when clearly the only reason I brought up Hitler was because I couldnt think of a less controversial figure who is equivalently resolute in their belief (such as a Priest, Pope, Rabbi, etc.) Similarly, Quick might have said something to the effect of “Even Inna Godda Da Vida ended eventually,” but didnt because he couldnt think of anything that lasted for any notable duration besided the reign of a murderous dictator, and is not trying to draw any other further corrolary between the two. Do I have this right Jay, who is Hitler-ian in resoluteness of belief?
You forgot passionate in his arguments like a paint-huffing paranoid schizophrenic, vocal in his outrage like a prostitute asked for a freebie, and happy to finish things up quickly and move on to the next like a hooker with rent due.
Quaker
Gladly.
A minor blogger made an inappropriate analogy using a murderous dictator concerning a partisan journalist.
versus
A powerful US Senator makes an inappropriate analogy using an extremly murderous ideology aganst a volunteer group of low paid US servicemen risking their lives for their country.
“Actually Frame, when talking to you I take it down to that level.”
Hilarious. What a loser.
Dugger still thinks that torture is more appropriately associated with US troops than with Nazis.
Dugger casts one vote for “It’s OK if one person says it, but not another.”
Dugger, for god’s sake, have some ice cream.
US service men should not be committing the same actions as the worst examples of humanity. If they do, punishment is required. Yet, when someone of whom you approve uses eliminationist rhetoric, you are rushing to his or her defense. Really, you need to see a metaphysician to help you correct your lack of ethical and moral values.
Rex, I think that you’re right, that Quick is implying a further similarity between Thomas and Stalin besides their longevity. Personally, I think that the implied similarity was his mutual distaste for both people, but not anything more than that.
Is it ridiculous to compare a respected journalist with a murderous dictator? Absolutely. It’s an idiotic and inappropriate analogy, and indicative that Quick just has no desire to be taken seriously. But he’s not trying to literally say that Thomas = Stalin, as Oliver’s post suggests.
Mike, Pay attention. You’re dealing with the big boys now. I haven’t defended Quick per se – merely juxtaposed his ‘bad’ against a more serious ‘bad’ (IMO) that of Senator Durbin using a Nazi analogy concerning US servicemenn.
I haven’t defended Quick per se – merely juxtaposed his ‘bad’ against a more serious ‘bad’ (IMO) that of Senator Durbin using a Nazi analogy concerning US servicemenn.
OK, so there’s a difference of magnitude.
My view is that neither Quick nor Durbin made a direct comparision. They both made the error of mentioning disparate people in the same paragraph, inviting some observers to assume and equivalence.
Sheesh, my typing is bad today.
That’s “an” equivalence, and I’m not sure that’s spelled correctly.
Bad typing. Invalidates all your points. Detest it, myself.
What is that? Arrrgh! Lightening bolt!
Dugger would still rather have torture associated with US soldiers rather than with historical bad guys the Nazis.
Captain. Sir Joseph, I cannot express to you my delight at the happy result of your eloquence. Your argument was unanswerable.
Sir Joseph.
Captain Corcoran, it is one of the happiest characteristics of this glorious country that official utterances are invariably regarded as unanswerable.
And still Dugger would rather have torture associated with US troops rather than with the Nazis.
As Dugger fails to note, Durbin was very specific, almost graphic, as to why he was comparing specific behavior our troops were engaged in to behavior historically associated with Nazis. Bill Quick was comparing Helen Thomas to Stalin using vague attributes not normally associated with Stalin, hoping more overall non-specific negatives would be carried as well.
midder,
Bu the armed forces of many nations have used harsher measures than that. Israelis, Brits etc.
Why did Durbin then pick instead of them, a group known primarily for racist mass murder? To describe our voulnteer troops.
Dugger:
I imagine that his invocation of the Nazis in this case was not intended to slander the troops; rather, it was intended to underscore the point he was trying to make–that this is not the way American* soldiers are supposed to behave. Such an example, as distasteful as it may seem, tends to focus the mind.
*I, and I imagine international law, would argue that no soldier should torture people, but I believe that Durbin was addressing the behavior of American soldiers** in particular.
**And yes, I realize that it is very likely a handful of soldiers who are doing this, but quite frankly, whether it’s only one soldier or military policy at large, it’s still just as bad.
JR
One vs many. Just as bad? I don’t think so. One or a few is an aberration. Many is a functional systemic problem. And I nor you know what Durbin intended. I can buy that as long as we don’t know what Bush intends or his motives.
Dugger:
True, I don’t know what Durbin intended; I was merely hazarding a guess.
As for my “one is as bad as all” remark, I will admit that this was overly simplistic. There is a certain distinction (though the difference is subject to debate), but whether (for example) the events at Abu Ghraib were official policy or just some guys letting off steam, the end result is the same–the people imprisoned there are no less tortured, the actions in question are no less wrong, and our image in the world is no less tarnished.
That’s just my opinion. Any resemblance to anyone else’s is purely coincidental.
JR
Since a number of the Abu troops were prosecuted, wouldn’t seem like official policy to me. You wouldn’t prosecute for following orders. Or it would be very easy to defend the defendants and they would get off (IMO) if it could be shown they were even close to enacting mere official policy.