Let me give you a touch of what she said, courtesy of the New York Times:
“There has never been an administration, I don’t believe in our history, more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda,” Mrs. Clinton told the gathering.
“I know it’s frustrating for many of you, it’s frustrating for me. Why can’t the Democrats do more to stop them?” she continued to growing applause. “I can tell you this: It’s very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they’re doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don’t care. .”
This is more than just political snark. It’s red meat to people who don’t just believe that the President or the Republican Party is hungry for political power but that they are trying to destroy our democratic system of government.
Think about that for a moment. One of our Senators - someone who is running for President - openly accused the President of violating his oath of office. Moreso, she’s accused him, his party, and over half the voters of this country who support them, of treason.
While I'm not going with the Treason call, I don't think she in this speech was a whole football field away from that accusation. I think she knows if she goes full blown moonbat it wouldn't work well for the "Hillary is moderating" meme going round the media
But it won’t because that’s the level that the Democratic Party has reached. Major figures in the party can openly call their opponents “a liar”, have compared them directly to the Nazi party from the Senate floor, and can call their supporters “brownshirts” without a single serious criticism from within the party.
It’s time to pull back. It’s time to inject some reality into the situation.
Let’s look at that “dictatorship” comment. You know how ridiculous it is. I know how ridiculous it is. But will most people know that? Maybe and maybe not. Maybe they’ll listen to the speeches and the news reports and the op-ed pieces in the major newspapers that say exactly that and they’ll wonder. They won’t hear from any of those places one simple fact that destroys the “dictatorship” argument now and forever.
Dictatorships do not come with expiration dates.
No matter how terrible you think the Bush Presidency is, you know that it will end. It is limited to two terms and that can not change unless 2/3 of the voters of this country agree that it should. That’s not going to happen in any of our lifetimes, if ever. You may hate the Republicans in the House or the Senate but you also know that every single one of them face regular popular elections where they people may, if they wish, replace them.
Counter that with Fidel Castro. He took over the nation of Cuba in 1959 and has ruled there, without serious opposition, ever since. His elections are shams where voters are intimitated by Castro’s own governmental goons and where those who speak out against them are thrown into prison indefinitely.
By contrast, there is only one Senator who was a Senator when Castro took over Cuba: Robert Byrd. We have had ten Presidents and 11 Vice Presidents since 1959. The majority party in the House of Representatives has changed at least four times.
None of that happens in a dicatatorship. None. The suggestion that it does is not only a foolish claim but spits in the face of everyone who has ever given their lives - or risked everything - to create this country and keep it safe from real dictators. It’s an accusation that no one in this country should ever make or ever tolerate.
This is really where my passions got heated up in reading this.
Compairing Bush to hitler is ludicrous, it is more then that. its an obscene spit in the face of every man woman and child who ever suffered during that period. Its an afront to the people who lived through the black death of the Nazi party.
and it is without a basis in rational thought.
I was reading a review about sin city, which also summed up a thought in both "the incredibles" and Maddox's review of Episode III. Without some good, without the suburban life that existed in the noir genre the sin was meaningless. without that life of normalicy their was no sin just the blackness of the city. when the special effects are in every scene they cease to be special. And when everyone is super no one is. If we can trivialize the things we hate about George Bush, and make them akin to Adolph Hitler then we lose the ability to see the new Hitler and evil returns because we forgot our history, and our perspective.
That is why in the early days of the Internet Godwin's Law was born
Godwin's law (also Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[1]
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over[2], and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's law thus projects an upper bound on thread length in those groups[3]. Many people understand Godwin's law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.
Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. See "Quirk's exception" below.
and it did go deep to this whole Bush= Hitler Meme
Some would argue, however, that Godwin's law applies even to the situation mentioned above, as it portrays an inevitable appeal to emotions as well as holding an implied ad hominem attack on the subject being compared to, which are classic logical fallacies. Hitler, on a semiotic level, has far too many negative connotations associated with him to be used as a good comparison to anything except for other despotic dictators[6]. Thus, Godwin's law holds even in making comparisons to normal leaders that, on the surface, would seem to be a reasonable comparison.
Godwin's standard answer to this objection is to note that Godwin's law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate semantic impact. Occasionally, this has been admitted by violators, who have retracted their comparisons.[7]
is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate semantic impact
So we are all clear here.
Michael Savage often says on his Radio Program that the new Hitler will have multicolored hair and a nose ring, talk about free health care for all and saving the enviroment. And that is the reality, as hitler appealed to the base nature of the masses in post WWI Germany, as Lenin preached to the masses in the weary russia, so to will our new Hitler preach to the masses, and give them what they want. Not something like tax cuts, because people are fickle with that. the New Hitler will give them womb to the tomb health care and a free education. People work hellish jobs for such benifits that they pay for out of their own wages. That is the brass ring the new hitler will use to mold the masses.
Julius Caeser had his bread and circuses to which the masses were made passive and accepting of the loss of their freedom.
We need the perspective of history to call a tyrant what he is, we need to draw a line for people like Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, and the other men of such unspeakable evil in this world. So when their like comes again we can get our guns, pitchforks, and torches and storm the gates to stop them before they kill again
No comments:
Post a Comment