So many similarities between Bush admin (and supporters) and repression

[Corn]

In one breath you lament the "fascist" behavior of your political opponents, but proudly embrace the same behavior, either by insult, or by silencing their voices.

You are a hypocrite to the nth degree..........

Sadly, this sentiment still holds true.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Conjur says:

What a load of self-aggrandizing crap.

You feign this holier-than-thou stance but have offered absolutely NOTHING to attempt to dissuade me of my opinion based on my observations. If I'm incorrect in my assumptions, do tell where I am wrong, oh enlightened one.
------------------

Once again you avoid my point. I did not post to argue your contentions, I will not attempt to dissuade you of your opinion, I can care less what you're saying, it's HOW you people are saying it so quit evading my point. From my first post until now my argument is that you people go along with extremist, hateful thinking, not just in this topic but all over the place. It alienates rational people, and exposes your ideas as fraudulent. Call me holier-than-thou, but I know how to make points and present arguments without vicious attacks and exagerrated lies. You're so blind in your hate that you people can't even realize that you do it... it just comes natural.

I'm used to reasonable debate. I understand good people can have differing views. I believe in honest disagreements, where two people can have the best intentions but disagree on how to get there. You people can impune the character and intentions of me, the president, and tens of millions of Americans... you can say we're evil, we're facist, we're this and that and we're the most dangerous people in the world, lie, exagerrate, and show contempt for our society and government. You can wallow in cynicism, paranoia, hate, and fear. You can say nothing when people agree with your points and make incredibly meanspirited statements of ignorance to further it. You can do all those things.

But don't get all mad at me when I voice opposition to your methods and propose intelligent, productive discussion.

You see, cwjerome. You came into this with preconceived notions.

Your statement "it's HOW you people are saying it" belies that.

"you people"? WTF?


I don't understand why you think I'm being abrasive with this thread. Again, I am merely thinking out loud here based on observations I've noticed in similarities between the mindsets of many in the Bush administration and some of its supporters and that of repression of free speech in 1930s Germany, the McCarthy era, and the Vietnam War period.

Will this be another blip on the social radar as was McCarthy? Will this move into something more authoritarian? I know we'll never approach anything like the rise of a Hitler. Our separation of powers and general tilt toward civil liberties will see to that. However, that doesn't mean repression of some civil rights will not cease to exist.

My question is, am I completely off-base here? I don't think so. I'm seriously looking for opinions on this and not attacks.

 

[cwjerome]

I do not think you are off base. Honestly I think your points are valid, and I have a lot of concern over increased government powers. It's something we should all be carefully analyzing. Let's do that fairly, objectively, and skip the fear-mongering hate which I think you tend to lean towards when in suits you politically.

(I'm trying to make this point in this topic, but it could have been against any number of people in a multitude of topics)

 

[conjur]

Well, I apologize if you think I've come off as "fear-mongering". I was intentionally trying to avoid that. I certainly don't think Bush is another Hitler. That's just idiotic to even think that and I'm trying to avoid this thread heading down that path.

Thank you, though, for your opinion on my thoughts.

 

[Moonbeam]

C: "Once again you avoid my point. I did not post to argue your contentions, I will not attempt to dissuade you of your opinion, I can care less what you're saying, it's HOW you people are saying it so quit evading my point. From my first post until now my argument is that you people go along with extremist, hateful thinking, not just in this topic but all over the place. It alienates rational people, and exposes your ideas as fraudulent. Call me holier-than-thou, but I know how to make points and present arguments without vicious attacks and exagerrated lies. You're so blind in your hate that you people can't even realize that you do it... it just comes natural.

I'm used to reasonable debate. I understand good people can have differing views. I believe in honest disagreements, where two people can have the best intentions but disagree on how to get there. You people can impune the character and intentions of me, the president, and tens of millions of Americans... you can say we're evil, we're facist, we're this and that and we're the most dangerous people in the world, lie, exagerrate, and show contempt for our society and government. You can wallow in cynicism, paranoia, hate, and fear. You can say nothing when people agree with your points and make incredibly meanspirited statements of ignorance to further it. You can do all those things.

But don't get all mad at me when I voice opposition to your methods and propose intelligent, productive discussion."

Oh man, you're no fun.

 

[alchemize]

My question is, am I completely off-base here?

Yes, you are.

"What's shocking is that your ideology controls you, not the other way around" your new motto

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize

My question is, am I completely off-base here?

Yes, you are.

And just how, exactly?

"What's shocking is that your ideology controls you, not the other way around" your new motto

 

[AntiEverything]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Conjur says:

What a load of self-aggrandizing crap.

You feign this holier-than-thou stance but have offered absolutely NOTHING to attempt to dissuade me of my opinion based on my observations. If I'm incorrect in my assumptions, do tell where I am wrong, oh enlightened one.
------------------

Once again you avoid my point. I did not post to argue your contentions, I will not attempt to dissuade you of your opinion, I can care less what you're saying, it's HOW you people are saying it so quit evading my point. From my first post until now my argument is that you people go along with extremist, hateful thinking, not just in this topic but all over the place. It alienates rational people, and exposes your ideas as fraudulent. Call me holier-than-thou, but I know how to make points and present arguments without vicious attacks and exagerrated lies. You're so blind in your hate that you people can't even realize that you do it... it just comes natural.

I'm used to reasonable debate. I understand good people can have differing views. I believe in honest disagreements, where two people can have the best intentions but disagree on how to get there. You people can impune the character and intentions of me, the president, and tens of millions of Americans... you can say we're evil, we're facist, we're this and that and we're the most dangerous people in the world, lie, exagerrate, and show contempt for our society and government. You can wallow in cynicism, paranoia, hate, and fear. You can say nothing when people agree with your points and make incredibly meanspirited statements of ignorance to further it. You can do all those things.

But don't get all mad at me when I voice opposition to your methods and propose intelligent, productive discussion.

Next time I'm in Arizona, the beer is on me. :beer:

 

[cwjerome]

Just to let you know I'm a beer-monger who has a collection of over 160 different beer bottles :beer:

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Corn

I didn't like the implication.....

So that's reason enough to justify personally attacking someone? You didn't "like" his implication, therefore he's what?

You openly compared Bush to Hitler, claiming otherwise is simply dishonest and is not worthy of reply.

If I remember right, one of the more vocal right-leaning members justified his calling another member a moron because, in his opinion, the other member's reply was moronic. I can supply you with the link if need be.

Sorry, just felt left out. Would someone please notify me when a good fight is going on.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Corn

I didn't like the implication.....

So that's reason enough to justify personally attacking someone? You didn't "like" his implication, therefore he's what?

You openly compared Bush to Hitler, claiming otherwise is simply dishonest and is not worthy of reply.

If I remember right, one of the more vocal right-leaning members justified his calling another member a moron because, in his opinion, the other member's reply was moronic. I can supply you with the link if need be.

Sorry, just felt left out. Would someone please notify me when a good fight is going on.

What does that change about what conjur did? Oh, that's right...nothing. Keep trying though gaard. If you have a problem with something I posted months ago - please let me know instead of trying to weasel it in to divert from your boy. Corn has nothing to do with what I posted...but then again you already knew that....

Oh, and he was being a moron (Whether it was on purpose or not)

CsG

 

[Kerouactivist]

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power"
Benito Mussolini


"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling power. Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing."
--President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.



"The strategic adversary is FASCISM... the FASCISM in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the FASCISM that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us."
Michel Foucault

 

[Gaard]

No problem...anymore. I was simply trying to point out to Corn that there are others besides Conjur who resort to personal attacks because they don't agree with another members posts. Hell, I'm guilty of it myself. Of course, you can't deny you do the same. And I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Corn is guilty himself. Now, the real question is "Will anyone who's complaining about personal attacks admit that they themselves are guilty of the same infraction, or are they simply barking?"

And don't call Conjur my boy.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech
Don't expect unbiased moderation in this forum.

It's obvious that the lefties are in charge here.

So be it, there are better places to discuss politics where people aren't banned because the mods don't like their politics.

First, welcome back. Second, while I studiously avoid comments about the moderation here -- it's their sandbox and we're all freeloaders, so they can do whatever they please -- you have piqued my curiousity. Can you point to any cases where someone was vacationed solely because of their politics and NOT because of the way they chose to express them? In every case I can think of, the vacation was prompted by particularly nasty personal attacks, incessant blatant trolling, and other similar offenses.

Oh that's right. Getting you to answer questions was always a challenge. Your typical M.O. was to drop some absurd claim and run away. It's a shame that hasn't changed.

Like he wouldn't have been banned if he presented such a case? Are you that naive?:roll:
The mods don't allow public challenges to their actions and they've stated that on many occasions.

Nice try though Bow.

CsG

Good Lord, Cad. Butt out or grow up. I wasn't trying to get anyone banned; that's not my style. I have never PM'd a mod asking for a ban, nor do I believe I've asked for a ban in a thread (IIRC). I am sincerely curious, and I wouldn't think an objective example would be considered a challenge by the mods. Every example I can remember was focused on the way someone expressed his views, not the views themselves. Perhaps I am naive in that view.

My original comment still stands, however. It's their sandbox; the mods can do whatever they want. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. That's just the simple reality, and it's naive to think otherwise.

Anyway, this is off-topic. I'm still waiting for someone to offer an informed, cogent response to the OP.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Gaard
No problem...anymore. I was simply trying to point out to Corn that there are others besides Conjur who resort to personal attacks because they don't agree with another members posts. Hell, I'm guilty of it myself. Of course, you can't deny you do the same. And I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Corn is guilty himself. Now, the real question is "Will anyone who's complaining about personal attacks admit that they themselves are guilty of the same infraction, or are they simply barking?"

And don't call Conjur my boy.

Honestly Gaard, if it were a once in a while thing, I could live with the occasional personal attack. Too bad that's not Conjur's style.

It's one thing to call a spade a spade. I don't call people "sheep" or "morons" simply because I disagree with a point they may be trying to make. Conjur routinely refers to posters here as "sheep", "Bush god fanbois", "yabas", and any other not so creative insult.

Hmmm, moron?

Looks like I called Robert Novak a moron here.

Damn, I called a supposed fellow neocon a moron in this thread.

Called Dari a moron over here too.....what gives?

I just call them as I see them, no matter which side of the political fence they sit.

 

[Zebo]

Here we are, 70 posts later and NO ONE has offered any sort of refutation of my observations.

They won't because they can't.

It's all left to mysterious refutation like "i won't even dignify a response to such claims" or the patented "look at what clinton did" then sprinkle in a little diversion with name calling. It's the oldest trick in the book, Can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullshyt. And makes these forums well.. suck, for any meaningful discourse.


RE topic: It's a sad day for constitution and open-ness of OUR governemnt. But don't you worry, these things go in cycles and this is America which is little more resiliant to such hitleresque manuvuers, but bush won't be on the right side of history once he's gone next year or in four. But he will, no natter what, be gone in 4 unlike Adolf

Cycles? Look how liberal the 60's and 70's were after McCarthy scares in the 50's.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Here we are, 70 posts later and NO ONE has offered any sort of refutation of my observations.

They won't because they can't.

It's all left to mysterious refutation like "i won't even dignify a response to such claims" or the patented "look at what clinton did" then sprinkle in a little diversion with name calling. It's the oldest trick in the book, Can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullshyt. And makes these forums well.. suck, for any meaningful discourse.


RE topic: It's a sad day for constitution and open-ness of OUR governemnt. But don't you worry, these things go in cycles and this is America which is little more resiliant to such hitleresque manuvuers, but bush won't be on the right side of history once he's gone next year or in four. But he will, no natter what, be gone in 4 unlike Adolf

Cycles? Look how liberal the 60's and 70's were after McCarthy scares in the 50's.

Yes, yes, Zebo. We can also compare the lefties to 1930's Germany too with their shredding of the constitution in their attempts at disarming the population. Awww, lots of lefties appear to abhor freedom of speech as well.

Responding to these types of ridiculous comparisons only legitimizes them. Neverminding the fact it was a Democratic President who required government employees to sign a loyalty oath to retain their jobs. Of course it's so easy to compare that to signing a loyalty oath to obtain free tickets to a political rally. But hey, you've got fear to monger......and the slope is all too slippery. :roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Zebo

Here we are, 70 posts later and NO ONE has offered any sort of refutation of my observations.

They won't because they can't.

It's all left to mysterious refutation like "i won't even dignify a response to such claims" or the patented "look at what clinton did" then sprinkle in a little diversion with name calling. It's the oldest trick in the book, Can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullshyt. And makes these forums well.. suck, for any meaningful discourse.


RE topic: It's a sad day for constitution and open-ness of OUR governemnt. But don't you worry, these things go in cycles and this is America which is little more resiliant to such hitleresque manuvuers, but bush won't be on the right side of history once he's gone next year or in four. But he will, no natter what, be gone in 4 unlike Adolf

Cycles? Look how liberal the 60's and 70's were after McCarthy scares in the 50's.

Yes, yes, Zebo. We can also compare the lefties to 1930's Germany too with their shredding of the constitution in their attempts at disarming the population. Awww, lots of lefties appear to abhor freedom of speech as well.

Responding to these types of ridiculous comparisons only legitimizes them. Neverminding the fact it was a Democratic President who required government employees to sign a loyalty oath to retain their jobs. Of course it's so easy to compare that to signing a loyalty oath to obtain free tickets to a political rally. But hey, you've got fear to monger......and the slope is all too slippery. :roll:

I don't have to take this seriously because Republicans do it too. And that's my answer to your answer to having no argument. Having one would just dignify your tripe, no?

 

[Zebo]

Blah I just look at them (threads like these) to get people to think about something they may never thought about...then ask themselves are we going to far? What's the frame of reference? No one seriously believes Bush and his supporters are hitler reincarnate just like no one beleives dems are communists, right

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: chess9
This is why Jews teach about the holocaust and tell their kids to never forget. Evil will triumph if enough good men do nothing.

I watched some DVDs of the Vietnam War with a buddy. It's amazing the similarities between Bush/Rumsfeld and Johnson/McNamera. Chilling, in fact.

-Robert

Did they force Vietnamese-American folks into camps?

Apparently, you have problems with reading comprehension. Perhaps I should add that to the OP...reading comprehension disabilities.

I suggest you look up the difference between the words similarities and exactness.

Wow - such hostility again... tisk tisk tisk... don't mind her209 is on your side

CsG

What's this talk of sides? Last I checked, conjur and CsG were both Americans.

 

[Red Dawn]

Calling the Dub a Fascist only makes the accuser seem trite and petty. Correctly stating that he isn't a good President is damning anough, no need to portray oneself as a lunatic by falsely accusing the Dub of being something he isn't.

 

[AntiEverything]

Good to see that Red Dawn is still the bastion of sensibility he always was.

You're one of the few sane people in this asylum.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Zebo

Here we are, 70 posts later and NO ONE has offered any sort of refutation of my observations.

They won't because they can't.

It's all left to mysterious refutation like "i won't even dignify a response to such claims" or the patented "look at what clinton did" then sprinkle in a little diversion with name calling. It's the oldest trick in the book, Can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullshyt. And makes these forums well.. suck, for any meaningful discourse.


RE topic: It's a sad day for constitution and open-ness of OUR governemnt. But don't you worry, these things go in cycles and this is America which is little more resiliant to such hitleresque manuvuers, but bush won't be on the right side of history once he's gone next year or in four. But he will, no natter what, be gone in 4 unlike Adolf

Cycles? Look how liberal the 60's and 70's were after McCarthy scares in the 50's.

Yes, yes, Zebo. We can also compare the lefties to 1930's Germany too with their shredding of the constitution in their attempts at disarming the population. Awww, lots of lefties appear to abhor freedom of speech as well.

Responding to these types of ridiculous comparisons only legitimizes them. Neverminding the fact it was a Democratic President who required government employees to sign a loyalty oath to retain their jobs. Of course it's so easy to compare that to signing a loyalty oath to obtain free tickets to a political rally. But hey, you've got fear to monger......and the slope is all too slippery. :roll:

I don't have to take this seriously because Republicans do it too. And that's my answer to your answer to having no argument. Having one would just dignify your tripe, no?

Moonie, the point is there is nothing to take seriously. You don't see me starting "discussions" comparing lefties to the 3rd Reich when clearly there are "similarities" to their behavior. I'll let you ponder the reason why. Here's a hint though: The only thing to fear is fear itself.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: chess9
This is why Jews teach about the holocaust and tell their kids to never forget. Evil will triumph if enough good men do nothing.

I watched some DVDs of the Vietnam War with a buddy. It's amazing the similarities between Bush/Rumsfeld and Johnson/McNamera. Chilling, in fact.

-Robert

Did they force Vietnamese-American folks into camps?

Apparently, you have problems with reading comprehension. Perhaps I should add that to the OP...reading comprehension disabilities.

I suggest you look up the difference between the words similarities and exactness.

Wow - such hostility again... tisk tisk tisk... don't mind her209 is on your side

CsG

What's this talk of sides? Last I checked, conjur and CsG were both Americans.

Umm... maybe "political" sides? You know - Bush Supporters vs RBH

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Umm... maybe "political" sides? You know - Bush Supporters vs RBH

CsG

You act as if disliking the Dub is a bad thing. When an employee does a bad job you don't give him a contract extension. A lot of people do not believe that the Dub has done a good job and would rather replace him with Kerry. I can understand why you might not agree with them but that doesn't make them some kind of irrational haters!