Who does this remind you of

[No Limit]

First off I am not the one to promote this type of thing as this is a card the conservatives would usually pull; but this article was too interesting to pass up. I won't give away who this is referring to but once you read it you will know what I am talking about when I say I don't like to pull this card:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0222-22.htm

The article clearly downplays similarities they didn't have in common but it still makes a good point about constitutional rights in time of crisis.

 

[^Ben]

Get that flame suit on.

Very intresting read none the less.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Ah yes, commondreams.org; where Liberal blogs come to life!

Puts flame suit on.

 

[No Limit]

Ah yes, commondreams.org; where Liberal blogs come to life!

Puts flame suit on.

Everything in this world that you don't agree with is liberal no matter how good the article is written or the good points it makes. Address it or get the f- out. :dozey:

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I did address it. I stated it was were Liberal blogs come to life.

What did you want me to say? Oh yes, its absolutely the most reviting news source in the word? I think not, I'll keep my CNN (liberal), my Daily Show (Comedy Central) and my Bill Mahr (HBO) over anything commondreams.org spouts.

I recall a very special episode where Bill Mahr got after commondreams.org

He developed his, "Oh, I kid the President line" for that a-specific episode.

 

[No Limit]

I did address it. I stated it was were Liberal blogs come to life.

What did you want me to say? Oh yes, its absolutely the most reviting news source in the word? I think not, I'll keep my CNN (liberal), my Daily Show (Comedy Central) and my Bill Mahr (HBO) over anything commondreams.org spouts.

I recall a very special episode where Bill Mahr got after commondreams.org

He developed his, "Oh, I kid the President line" for that a-specific episode.

When I posted this I wasn't asking for an opinion of commondreams.org, I am not stupid, I am fully aware of their bias and some of the articles they publish that are frankly out of touch. All I want from you is an opinon on the article; not its bias.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

On an opinion on the article?

Sure.

(It'll take an edit, I'll brb.)

I thought the article was more of a story; made-up to compare Bush to both a rising Hitler and a certain religious figure who was boomingly popular during Regan and Nixon.

Its basically another one of these compliants about Bush not seperating Church from State, and I agree -- Church should be seperated from state.

But the article did not wisely argue this, and therefore, I threw down my slander. (As I've gotten used to its bias).

So, I apologize -- perhaps I should've owned up to the fact ... but there again, I dont expect much from commondreams.org

 

[No Limit]

On an opinion on the article?

Sure.

(It'll take an edit, I'll brb.)

I thought the article was more of a story; made-up to compare Bush to both a rising Hitler and a certain religious figure who was boomingly popular during Regan and Nixon.

Its basically another one of these compliants about Bush not seperating Church from State, and I agree -- Church should be seperated from state.

But the article did not wisely argue this, and therefore, I threw down my slander. (As I've gotten used to its bias).

So, I apologize -- perhaps I should've owned up to the fact ... but there again, I dont expect much from commondreams.org

I think you misread the article, I think it had little to do with church and state and everything to do with questioning our government and the danger of labeling anyone against the government's policies as unpatriotic. This is a pratice that is done by Bush supporters all the time it needs to stop. I don't recall any liberal questioning how patriotic a conservative is.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

So, if your unpatriotic, who does it harm?

Did you want to be patriotic? Or are Patriotic in a way they wont understand?

 

[KoreBolteR]

the media are so anti- iraq war these day.

post everything bad (which is a minority compared to what the terrorists and insurgents do).

 

[Absinthe]

the media are so anti- iraq war these day.

post everything bad (which is a minority compared to what the terrorists and insurgents do).

You know what? I just did a search on that page for the word "Iraq" and I didn't get one hit.

 

[No Limit]

So, if your unpatriotic, who does it harm?

Did you want to be patriotic? Or are Patriotic in a way they wont understand?

I'm not sure what you are talking about. What I'm talking about (and what the article is talking about) is the extreme importance of regularly questioning a leader; no matter how hard times are. This job of questioning those in power should not be in the hands of the opposing party but it should be the job of every American person out there. The article did a great job of showing that what is happening today is exactly what happened in the rise of Hitler. This includes labeling the opposition as liberal and unpatriotic, limiting certain freedoms (patriot act and what is happening at guantanamo bay), and spreading propgenda through news sources (look up Amstrong Williams and Gannon). This is what I want to talk about in this topic; not the liberal bias of the source. So when our leader talks about a mandate and "you are with us or against us" it is your job to question that.

 

[kirovman]

My biggest issue with the American political system is that the leader rarely gets a hard time about his choices, it's just accepted usually.

If you watch BBC everyday, you see the UK Prime Minister always gets a real grilling from the opposition on a great deal of his policies. It is a regular event. They have Prime Minister's question time.

Usually a good intelligent debate with many different euphanisms for "Hey Prime Minister, you're a bastard!"

Now I do see debates of George Bush vs. John Kerry, but that was the election campaign, designed to woo the voter, rather than actually challenge the policies.
Most of the time people who want to argue with the president are gagged and told they are unpatriotic or disrepectful.

But the Prime Minister has to pass signs everyday on the way to work saying "Tony Blair - Baby murderer!"
Now that's real democracy.

That's the same as China. You always hear that people who are against the CCP "they are against China!"

I want to see the president answer more questions, and not pre-prepared questions either.

 

[Bodacious]

My biggest issue with the American political system is that the leader rarely gets a hard time about his choices, it's just accepted usually.

If you watch BBC everyday, you see the UK Prime Minister always gets a real grilling from the opposition on a great deal of his policies. It is a regular event. They have Prime Minister's question time.

Usually a good intelligent debate with many different euphanisms for "Hey Prime Minister, you're a bastard!"

Now I do see debates of George Bush vs. John Kerry, but that was the election campaign, designed to woo the voter, rather than actually challenge the policies.
Most of the time people who want to argue with the president are gagged and told they are unpatriotic or disrepectful.

Bush's policies are questioned all the time. Harry Reid, Boxer, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, and some others constantly and publicly denounce Bush as being incompetent and constantly question anything Bush says.

The problem is these people align themselves with the crazy left like Michaeal Moore and doing what Moore does is disrespectful.

If you ask me, congress is the end all be all and the president is more of a figurehead who influences policies and signs stuff into law. Everything the president has done has been authorized by the majority of congress. If the individual wants to be heard he needs to run for office himself or write a letter.

 

[No Limit]

My biggest issue with the American political system is that the leader rarely gets a hard time about his choices, it's just accepted usually.

If you watch BBC everyday, you see the UK Prime Minister always gets a real grilling from the opposition on a great deal of his policies. It is a regular event. They have Prime Minister's question time.

Usually a good intelligent debate with many different euphanisms for "Hey Prime Minister, you're a bastard!"

Now I do see debates of George Bush vs. John Kerry, but that was the election campaign, designed to woo the voter, rather than actually challenge the policies.
Most of the time people who want to argue with the president are gagged and told they are unpatriotic or disrepectful.

But the Prime Minister has to pass signs everyday on the way to work saying "Tony Blair - Baby murderer!"
Now that's real democracy.

That's the same as China. You always hear that people who are against the CCP "they are against China!"

I want to see the president answer more questions, and not pre-prepared questions either.

I had the highest respect for your political system when I saw Blair debating directly with his opposition. You will never, and I do mean never, see this in our political system. I hate to get partisan again but this is especially the case with Bush. This is what I am trying to get at; the leader has to be question day in and day out on his actions.

 

[kirovman]

Bush's policies are questioned all the time. Harry Reid, Boxer, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, and some others constantly and publicly denounce Bush as being incompetent and constantly question anything Bush says.

The problem is these people align themselves with the crazy left like Michaeal Moore and doing what Moore does is disrespectful.

If you ask me, congress is the end all be all and the president is more of a figurehead who influences policies and signs stuff into law. Everything the president has done has been authorized by the majority of congress. If the individual wants to be heard he needs to run for office himself or write a letter.

His policies are questioned, but he isn't required to get into regular heated debate, right?

I agree about the figurehead remark. Should be called Chairman Bush.
We don't see enough about the inner workings of congress, who's making the decisions, who is arguing.
They should allow the media more inside coverage.
Can anyone link me to something that details a typical session of a bill passing in congress? I'd like to read some more on it.

 

[No Limit]

Bush's policies are questioned all the time. Harry Reid, Boxer, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, and some others constantly and publicly denounce Bush as being incompetent and constantly question anything Bush says.

The problem is these people align themselves with the crazy left like Michaeal Moore and doing what Moore does is disrespectful.

If you ask me, congress is the end all be all and the president is more of a figurehead who influences policies and signs stuff into law. Everything the president has done has been authorized by the majority of congress. If the individual wants to be heard he needs to run for office himself or write a letter.

See, you just proved my point by saying these people align themselves with whacky liberals. Doing what Moore does is disrespectful? Let me guess, what Rush, Coulter, and what countless others do isn't?

Do you honestly believe writting a letter will do anything? Come on now, lets get real. It is the duty of the Bush voter to question him; not only his opposition. Otherwise Bush gets this false feeling that he suddenly has a mandate. Don't you think it would be good for Bush to actually stand up to his critics and not hide behind press confrences or townhall meetings where only his supporters are invited?

 

[Bodacious]

His policies are questioned, but he isn't required to get into regular heated debate, right?

Correct, but that is what congress is for.

I agree about the figurehead remark. Should be called Chairman Bush.
We don't see enough about the inner workings of congress, who's making the decisions, who is arguing.
They should allow the media more inside coverage.
Can anyone link me to something that details a typical session of a bill passing in congress? I'd like to read some more on it.

I don't know if you can get it over there but there is a whole channel dedicated to it called C-Span.

This is the US Senate's Legislation and Records page. You can see on there day to day what goes on in the senate. On the house.gove page you can see the same thing.

 

[GhostFox]

It is the duty of the Bush voter to question him; not only his opposition.

Why do you think he isn't questioned? I can't think of a president in recent history that was more questioned on every action then Bush. And it's not just by the Dem's. Bush has a majority in both the Senate and House, yet he has many articles of legislation that he cannot get passed. It seems like many of his biggest supporters are questioning him there and chooseing to disagree with him.

 

[Bodacious]

See, you just proved my point by saying these people align themselves with whacky liberals. Doing what Moore does is disrespectful? Let me guess, what Rush, Coulter, and what countless others do isn't?

I don't see Rush or Coulter making movies solely to character assassinate Bush, and then that movie having most of the content exposed as misrepresented facts, and then the makers being placed in the presidential box at the DNC convention. I don't see Rush or Coulter making rude jokes about kerry and then Bush endorsing them saying they are the "heart and soul" of the democratic party.

Do you honestly believe writting a letter will do anything?

It is probably better than complaining on a message board and posting articles supportive of comparing Bush to Hitler.

Come on now, lets get real. It is the duty of the Bush voter to question him; not only his opposition. Otherwise Bush gets this false feeling that he suddenly has a mandate. Don't you think it would be good for Bush to actually stand up to his critics and not hide behind press confrences or townhall meetings where only his supporters are invited?

Politics has been like that for over 100 years. I think I should elect a congressman who accurately represents how I feel and make sure that he or she protects my interests. The president can wake up and call the sky red for all I care, but unless congress comes out supporting him it doesn't really matter what he says.

 

[staticprimer]

I don't see Rush or Coulter making movies solely to character assassinate Bush, and then that movie having most of the content exposed as misrepresented facts, and then the makers being placed in the presidential box at the DNC convention. I don't see Rush or Coulter making rude jokes about kerry and then Bush endorsing them saying they are the "heart and soul" of the democratic party.

Ever watched Fox News? They have their own 'news' channel whose sole purpose is to character assassinate any liberal who gets too loud. Much of the information on that channel is misrepresented, and I assure you they have made rude jokes about Kerry, and they practically worship Bush as a god.

 

[No Limit]

I don't see Rush or Coulter making movies solely to character assassinate Bush, and then that movie having most of the content exposed as misrepresented facts, and then the makers being placed in the presidential box at the DNC convention. I don't see Rush or Coulter making rude jokes about kerry and then Bush endorsing them saying they are the "heart and soul" of the democratic party.

So you are trying to say Rush and Coulter don't lie and don't do character assasination? I already pointed out directly to you how this is wrong. Do I have to do it again or will you admit they lie and stretch facts as Moore does? Also, since I proved to you on numerous occasions how Rush is a hypocrite and a liar I would expect you to remove that quote from your sig; for some reason you haven't done this yet (maybe you just forgot).

It is probably better than complaining on a message board and posting articles supportive of comparing Bush to Hitler.

I am not trying to compare him to Hitler as I said in the original post. I am trying to show that what he is doing is what put Hitler in power. You continually attack me yet you failed to address a single point that article made.

Politics has been like that for over 100 years. I think I should elect a congressman who accurately represents how I feel and make sure that he or she protects my interests. The president can wake up and call the sky red for all I care, but unless congress comes out supporting him it doesn't really matter what he says.

You seem to think that the President doesn't have any power in this country. You do know this is completely false? He has power to make war and he pretty much makes the agenda for congress; they simply vote on it. He also has power to kill virtually any bill that passes in congress so when laws pass that give him too much power congress won't be able to repeal them as they need 2/3s of the vote to pass something the president vetos.

Sure, the president hasn't been forced to answer any questions in the past; however, Bush has had the least amount of press confrences in his first term. Also, I am not trying to defend anyone before him, be it Clinton, Reagan, whatever; I think every President should be forced to participate in healthy debate as they do in other countries like in the UK (from what I've seen).

 

[No Limit]

I don't see Rush or Coulter making rude jokes about kerry and then Bush endorsing them saying they are the "heart and soul" of the democratic party.

I don't know how I missed this. Can you give me an example of what you are talking about?

Also, I do agree with you on the DNC convention; I think it was idiotic to have Moore there.

 

[No Limit]

Why do you think he isn't questioned? I can't think of a president in recent history that was more questioned on every action then Bush. And it's not just by the Dem's. Bush has a majority in both the Senate and House, yet he has many articles of legislation that he cannot get passed. It seems like many of his biggest supporters are questioning him there and chooseing to disagree with him.

He is questioned; but only by his opposition and never directly. Then many republicans try to spin the questioning in to unpatriotic hate (as our friend Bodacious shows in his signature).

__________________
For No Limit:

Quote:
You can give them every fact in the world and they're going to have a mantra rooted in their emotional hatred for George Bush that they will fire right back at you. You will not permeate. There's a boundary around their brain that doesn't allow anything factual in if it concerns Bush and good news, or the country and good news. They simply won't allow it in. They won't process it. They won't think about it. They will simply react by calling you names: A mind-numbed robot or you're stupid or you're an idiot or you're a partisan or whatever. - Rush Limbaugh

 

[GhostFox]

Ever watched Fox News? They have their own 'news' channel whose sole purpose is to character assassinate any liberal who gets too loud. Much of the information on that channel is misrepresented, and I assure you they have made rude jokes about Kerry, and they practically worship Bush as a god.

Ahh...someone should make this an infomercial:

*Hi, Ron Ronco here with my best product ever. This one product will cover every issue you, a concerned liberal, might face. No facts? No problem! Completely off your rocker? No problem! Like to misrepresent the truth to try to make your point? No problem! Yes folks, this product is the end all be all for every liberal without an argument. Come on live studio audiance, you know what I am talking about. Say it with me now! BLAME FOX NEWS!

Yes! That's right. For 3 easy payments of total ignorance, you can resort to blaming Fox News for everything! That's right. Forget about a factual argument, instead just blame Fox News. Anyone else who thinks exactly like you will agree, and since when did you care what other people think?

So folks, stop reading those articles, get stupid, and remember when in doubt, come on audiance, one more time; BLAME FOX NEWS!

Thanks for watching everyone!*

 

[CptStern]

and how would you know? we dont get fox"news" here parts

 

[GhostFox]

Then many republicans try to spin the questioning in to unpatriotic hate

Some do, and they are ignorant. But many do not, and these blanket generalities help no one.

 

[No Limit]

Ahh...someone should make this an infomercial:

*Hi, Ron Ronco here with my best product ever. This one product will cover every issue you, a concerned liberal, might face. No facts? No problem! Completely off your rocker? No problem! Like to misrepresent the truth to try to make your point? No problem! Yes folks, this product is the end all be all for every liberal without an argument. Come on live studio audiance, you know what I am talking about. Say it with me now! BLAME FOX NEWS!

Yes! That's right. For 3 easy payments of total ignorance, you can resort to blaming Fox News for everything! That's right. Forget about a factual argument, instead just blame Fox News. Anyone else who thinks exactly like you will agree, and since when did you care what other people think?

So folks, stop reading those articles, get stupid, and remember when in doubt, come on audiance, one more time; BLAME FOX NEWS!

Thanks for watching everyone!*

He had a valid point with character assasination and Fox; please don't force me to waste time providing examples. Look up O'Reilly, Hume, and Hannity at mediamatters.org .

 

[GhostFox]

and how would you know? we dont get fox"news" here parts

Do you even live in Canada Stern? It was a huge deal when Fox News became available in Canada. The CRTC was forced to allow it because they were being hammered for censorship. It was all over the news and newspapers for days. It's channel 142 on my Shaw digital cable, I don't know what it would be on yours. Please try getting a clue before making mindless accusations.

 

[No Limit]

Some do, and they are ignorant. But many do not, and these blanket generalities help no one.

I just showed you an example of Rush and someone on this board doing it. Sure, it doesn't apply to everyone but it applies to many. I don't deny there are idiots on the liberal side but what Rush tries to do by saying liberals only do this is a direct slap in the face of truth.

 

[GhostFox]

He had a valid point with character assasination and Fox; please don't force me to waste time providing examples. Look up O'Reilly, Hume, and Hannity at mediamatters.org .

So he may have a point with certain COMMENTATORS providing a COMMENTARY.

Last time I checked that was different then the news, so to blame Fox news for this and claim they worship Bush is silly. Do they have some conservative commentators? Sure they do. But there is nothing wrong with the news itself on Fox.

 

[No Limit]

So he may have a point with certain COMMENTATORS providing a COMMENTARY.

Last time I checked that was different then the news, so to blame Fox news for this and claim they worship Bush is silly. Do they have some conservative commentators? Sure they do. But there is nothing wrong with the news itself on Fox.

First Brit Hume is not a commentator, he is their main 'news' anchor. I have many more examples of 'news' anchors lying on Fox, again go to mediamatters as I won't waste time looking this up.

Sure, O'Reilly and Hannity are commentators; however, where are the liberal commentators to balance things out? Alan Colmes is the only thing close to it and I could get in to another huge topic how he is just a puppet for Hannity.

 

[GhostFox]

I just showed you an example of Rush and someone on this board doing it. Sure, it doesn't apply to everyone but it applies to many. I don't deny there are idiots on the liberal side but what Rush tries to do by saying liberals only do this is a direct slap in the face of truth.

Rush is an idiot. Who cares? So is Michael Moore. I don't judge all liberals by the standered of MM and I don't judge all conservatives by the standered of Rush. If you take the most extreme viewpoint from either side and hold it up as the norm, anyone will look silly. But the fact is they are extremists who represent a few.

 

[GhostFox]

I have many more examples of 'news' anchors lying on Fox, again go to mediamatters as I won't waste time looking this up.

If you actually had true examples of that Fox News would be stripped of it's license by the FCC. So by the fact that they are still on the air, I am guessing that you don't.

 

[No Limit]

Rush is an idiot. Who cares? So is Michael Moore. I don't judge all liberals by the standered of MM and I don't judge all conservatives by the standered of Rush. If you take the most extreme viewpoint from either side and hold it up as the norm, anyone will look silly. But the fact is they are extremists who represent a few.

I don't want to get in to all this as it is trailing off topic; my main point was to show that Bodacious is using a liar in his sig and many more conservatives admire this guy. You are absolutely right that people on the left do this too; however, I haven't seen any liberal on here quoting Moore in their sig to try and get a point across.

 

[No Limit]

If you actually had true examples of that Fox News would be stripped of it's license by the FCC. So by the fact that they are still on the air, I am guessing that you don't.

Just 2 examples off the top of my head:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502280002

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010

So yes, yes I do. When I asked you to look something up I would appreciate it if you did before you try to imply I am a liar. The FCC will never get involved in this, simple as that.

 

[Bodacious]

So you are trying to say Rush and Coulter don't lie and don't do character assasination? I already pointed out directly to you how this is wrong. Do I have to do it again or will you admit they lie and stretch facts as Moore does? Also, since I proved to you on numerous occasions how Rush is a hypocrite and a liar I would expect you to remove that quote from your sig; for some reason you haven't done this yet (maybe you just forgot).

No, I am not saying that at all. My point is that Bush doesn't endorse these people like leading democrats do.

I am not trying to compare him to Hitler as I said in the original post. I am trying to show that what he is doing is what put Hitler in power. You continually attack me yet you failed to address a single point that article made.

Why am I supposed to bring up any point the article made when my first post in this thread was in response to Kirovman's post? Then you butted in to what I said to him.

If you want me to comment on your first post I will say this. There was a lot more freedoms restricted when Hitler first started taking away freedoms than what the patriot act does, most notably the RKBA. Until that day comes we are a long way from being anywhere near Hitler's germany. They are going to have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands.

You seem to think that the President doesn't have any power in this country. You do know this is completely false? He has power to make war and he pretty much makes the agenda for congress; they simply vote on it. He also has power to kill virtually any bill that passes in congress so when laws pass that give him too much power congress won't be able to repeal them as they need 2/3s of the vote to pass something the president vetos.

Congress gave the president the ability to make war after 9/11. Until then he could only send in the marines for up to two weeks. Anythign else has to be approved by congress.

I don't know how I missed this. Can you give me an example of what you are talking about?

Also, I do agree with you on the DNC convention; I think it was idiotic to have Moore there.

When Whoopie goldberg made the crass jokes about Bush and then soon after Kerry comes out and says that "Everyone here tonight is the heart and soul of the democratic party.(it could have been heart and soul of the US)" Kerry apologized for it and said he didn't mean stuff like what whoopie goldberg siad. I guess it just goes to show how bad his judgement is.

 

[Absinthe]

GhostFox, I showed you this link before, but I'm not sure if you even read it.

I'll post it again for you.

http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/networks/foxnews/foxnews.html

 

[GhostFox]

So yes, yes I do. When I asked you to look something up I would appreciate it if you did before you try to imply I am a liar. The FCC will never get involved in this, simple as that.

If you think those constitute outright lies by a news broadcast you are a joke. The first one just echoed an actual report on the cost of social security. You are welcome to argue that the report was flawed, but come on. Should we arrest every anchor who ever displayed a report about global warming? Those have all been pretty much disproven now too.

The second one was a misstatement at best. FDR wanted private funds to supplement, the guy said that FDR wanted private funds period.

If this is your evidence no wonder the FCC won't get involved.

Here is an example of a news anchor lying "In other news today, Iraq invaded the US today and President Bush called for an immedate confrence to discuss a peace treaty".

See the difference?

 

[No Limit]

I won't get in to the first one.

However

The second one was a misstatement at best. FDR wanted private funds to supplement, the guy said that FDR wanted private funds period.

Are you insane (no offense)? Read the actual FDR letter than read what Hume did. He did it in a way that there is abolutely no way this could have been a mistake. He deliberately rearranged those words to make it something it wasn't. Also, if this was just a mistake why hasn't he done a retraction? Please cut the crap; this is a direct lie and these is no way even you conservatives could spin this to make it seem like he mispoke.