Journal pudge's Journal: Thoughts On Rhetoric (Mostly in Favor of Democrats) 12
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), my former congressman, was in a town hall meeting shouting down as irrational some LaRouchers who showed up and compared the health care legislation to Nazism.
The video I saw showed mostly Frank, and not all of what he was responding to, but what I did see from the citizen in attendance warranted his response: such a comparison is irrational. If you're going to make such a comparison, it is only for the purpose of undermining rational argument by raising the spectre of the Holocaust and other atrocities. You could compare it to Sweden or Britain or Canada, and get some use out of the comparison, but bringing up the Nazis only serves to undermine legitimate argument.
Maybe he should have responded using different words and tone -- he serves the people, and he was treating them like pundits or politicians instead of concerned citizens -- but the gist of his comments in response to the Nazi comparison was just fine.
Then there's this woman, who calls herself a conservative Republican who follows biblical values. She apparently considers yelling "Heil Hitler" to an Israeli Jew who supports the Democrats' reform, in order to highlight her opinion that Obama is as bad as Hitler, to be a "biblical value." (Psssst: it's not.)
Finally we have Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), who said, "I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district, if I actually think what I'm doing is going to help them.
I am told this is arrogant; that he is saying he knows what is best. But I always thought it was liberals that wanted their congressman to rule by opinion poll, and that it was conservatives who respected the words of their British godfather, Edmund Burke: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." It seems to me that Massa was just expressing, with less eloquence, what Burke said 250 years ago.
However, with all this criticism of Republicans and conservatives and defense of Democrats, I should balance things out by mentioning the latest from Brian Baird, who recently apologized for calling health insurance reform protestors Nazi "brownshirts" and comparing their rhetoric to that which drove Timothy McVeigh to become a terrorist. He has done it again.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Godwin (Score:2)
Then there's this woman, who calls herself a conservative Republican who follows biblical values. She apparently considers yelling "Heil Hitler" to an Israeli Jew who supports the Democrats' reform, in order to highlight her opinion that Obama is as bad as Hitler, to be a "biblical value."
She doesn't sound very conservatove OR very Christian. Nobody who followed the teachings of Christ would yell "Heil Hitler" to an Israeli Jew, and I don't personally know any Republicans who would, either. Of course, folks
the first woman (Score:1)
but bringing up the Nazis only serves to undermine legitimate argument.
Maybe, maybe not. I would've challenged her to defend that accusation, and asked in exactly what way(s) is the plan like Nazi Germany. Who knows, maybe she wasn't just a mindless crank, and could've made some insightful comparisons. Similarities not in magnitude, of course, but along other axes.
You see, you and Bawney Fwank are being as dismissive as she was. That is, to simply call it a "Nazi plan" is about as avoiding of discussion or
Re: (Score:2)
maybe she wasn't just a mindless crank, and could've made some insightful comparisons.
No, she couldn't have. Because whatever comparisons she might have would be more accurately made against other countries. The only reason to bring up Nazi Germany is to dredge up the emotional impact of the atrocities of the Third Reich.
Is Obama rounding people up into Gulags by virtue of their ethnicity or religion? Arresting people for expressing different opinions? Doing any mass killings? Anything like those atrocities? No? Then there are better comparisons than Nazi Germany, and the only reason
Re: (Score:2)
you called his dismissive response "fine"
No, in fact, I did not say any such thing. I said the GIST of it was fine -- the meaning he was conveying -- and I clearly stated that "Maybe he should have responded using different words and tone," so it was not dismissive of her.
Why, cuz it uses an inflammatory word?
Not at all. I already explained this. It's the INTENT she has, not the specific words being used. Her INTENT is to undermine legitimate conversation by making an inflammatory and irrational comparison.
Funny how when I said the same thing when liberals compared Bush to Hitler,
Re: (Score:1)
Funny how when I said the same thing when liberals compared Bush to Hitler, conservatives agreed with me. But now ... not so much.
(Well, I hope you enjoyed the cheap pleasuring of yourself in writing that, over that little fantasy.)
It's not legitimate debate
It's not only when you can know it's not.
Re: (Score:1)
(Well, I hope you enjoyed the cheap pleasuring of yourself in writing that, over that little fantasy.)
Please speak coherently next time. Thanks in advance.
It's not legitimate debate
It's not only when you can know it's not.
Um. Are you drunk?
Re: (Score:2)
Oops! That was not a test!
Re: (Score:1)
It was a test of which of your personalities was in control at the moment! ;)
For the record, I do not drink, but yes I do slur my writing.
(See my bio for a doozy of incoherency.)
Can we get back to talking about how hot she is?
Re: (Score:2)
Can we get back to talking about how hot she is?
Heh, I won't bother, but feel free. :)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh good, then I'll clarify/belabor the point just a bit longer then. The video you saw excluded the context of her statement, just the (unproductively combative) remark she ended on. (The edit selected of course to convey the effect that CNN was naturally shooting for, that people opposing Obamacare are brainless hacks that it's really impossible to respond to. And to incur sympathizing with Barney.)
In another [youtube.com] (this time with some middle portion edited out), miss hottie says (paraphrasing) the economy is in
Re: (Score:2)
Where she fails it is in saying that "this is" the Nazi Germany T4 policy. Technically it's not the same ...
I don't care if it is EXACTLY the same. Pretty much all comparisons to Nazis are intended to try to tie the thing being compared to Third Reich atrocities; so unless you can show that such an atrocity is in the bill being planned, I don't want to hear it and won't respond to it.
But the effect is the same.
It's really not.
I.e. as she said, it's the notion of (govt. deciding that) "certain lives are not worth living".
Perhaps, and that's awful -- one of the reasons I am against govt health care is because govt should not be put in this position of power over the people -- but refusing treatment (which all insurance companies do) i