Everyone is going to be linking to this: Keith Olbermann eviscerates the Bush administration as a gang of arrogant, incompetent wanna-be fascists. Exactly!
Ending it on an Edward R. Murrow quote wasn’t presumptuous at all, and was entirely appropriate. It’s good to see a few journalists still see civic responsibility as part of their job.
The Edward R. Murrow quote was a very thought provoking ending to the commentary. I hope the Bush administration reads it.
Ouch!
I need to see stuff like this to remind there is still a measure of sanity in the US, even in these dark times. Thanks for posting it.
Now there’s something you’ll never hear from fox news. Thanks for the post.
This is great to hear. However I don’t think you can compare Bush to Neville Chamberlain. Neville Chamberlain stands head and shoulders above Bush. Although history doesn’t remember him kindly he did take steps to prepare Britain against the coming storm. Failing to realize the full evil that some men are capable of is far less a sin than actually going out and doing that evil.
Thank you for the post!
Keith Olbermann deserves a standing ovation for his words and patriotism, he is a true American.
As for the Bush administration; hopefully at some point they will have to face consequences of their profoundly immoral acts.
When Keith becomes angry he’s at his best.
His evisceration of O’Reilly’s accusation of American soldiers massacring Germans at Normandy was one for the archives.
.
The fight against theocratic fascism begins at home. :-)
Nice to see someone not afraid to speak the truth. However it is really too bad, that it is only now when it is almost fashionable to Bush Bash, that these sort of comments can be made. It seemed when we really needed these sorts of journalists, they were never to be found.
You think that barrage of historically ignorant tripe was admirable?
[snigger.wav]
Stick to biology, PZ. On that topic, you’re fun to read. On politics and history, you’re clueless.
Yeah, because everybody knows that there’s absolutely no politics or history inherent in the science of biology.
[rollseyes.gif]
You do not need to be a historian or political scientist to see that the Bush administration is a corrupt failure. You only need to be a notch above idiocy to be able to recognize it.
I’d also have to be an idiot to fall for the concern trolls. “Oh, you’re so good at X, please, please don’t do Y!” There’s been a lot of that going on lately. Did some blithering conservative wanker somewhere put out a message that this strategy actually works? You should know by now that Republican strategies just lead to more confusion, chaos, and destruction.
Unfortunately, our current social climate is a bit confused. Bush and company isn’t helping. Now, even doctors seem to be getting in on the act. This article scares me in some ways. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14576677/
While I don’t mind people practicing their own religious beliefs (as long as the rest of us are left alone), I worry when doctors form groups that base their treatment options on religious belief. I would much rather have a doctor who offers all options, and who would respect someone’s right not to choose the treatment, rather than a doctor who would inform you (or not) of a treatment and then refuse to perform it.
I would be much more likely to go to a atheist doctor rather than one who thinks it’s primarily god’s will and and not really up to him.
How uncomfortable is it going to be when people are going to have to start asking what religion their doctors are and how it affects their practice of medicine?
Re: concern trolls
They’ve been around a few years now, and consist not just of random doiks on the InterSeriesOfTubes, but also pundits in the media. “Helpful Republicans” were all over the place during the ’04 Dem primaries, offering friendly advice such as “Oh, you don’t want Dean, the man is clearly bonkers! Why don’t you get behind Kerry, he’s much more electable!”
I’ve even crossed paths again (on the Series of Tubes) with some of the selfsame Helpful Republicans after the ’04 elections, and some of them have had the gall to say we “should have nominated Dean, I would totally have crossed the aisle for him.” Riiiight.
And don’t get me started on the Helpful Pseudo-Democrats like Richard Cohen. “Come on, fellow liberals, let’s not antagonize the Bush administration too much! Be nicer and maybe they’ll let us sit at the table!”
Primum non nocere
Unfortunately, Keith was far too erudite and eloquent – it will go over the heads of the majority of people who need to understand the message.
What was “historically ignorant” about that KO piece? Neville Chamberlain didn’t try to appease Hitler? Britain didn’t get firebombed? Nixon and McCarthy weren’t self-serving, vindictive people?
This blog is not a place where unsubstantiated statements go unchallenged, while simultaneously being taken as self-evident fact.
Regarding KO’s eloquence, it’s about time someone felt the need to be so. It still wasn’t a terribly eloquent piece, but comparing it to the “hard words” the Democrats have for the Bushies lately, KO’s segment might as well be an “I have a dream” speech.
The thing about bush that did it for me was right after 9/11. I was thinking, here we have the biggest opportunity in 50 years to band together as a country. I thought the communal feeling in the air could be applied to our most intractable problems–social security, campaign reform, tax reform, healthcare, environmental issues. Bush could have done anything.
I was dismayed when it became apparent that to Bush, 9/11 was a political Christmas present. While making bipartisan noises in public he moved immediately to 1) entrench his political party and 2) legislate his social conservatism. That’s all.
He had no vision.
What was “historically ignorant” about that KO piece? Neville Chamberlain didn’t try to appease Hitler? Britain didn’t get firebombed? Nixon and McCarthy weren’t self-serving, vindictive people?
This blog is not a place where unsubstantiated statements go unchallenged, while simultaneously being taken as self-evident fact.
Regarding KO’s eloquence, it’s about time someone felt the need to be so. It still wasn’t a terribly eloquent piece, but comparing it to the “hard words” the Democrats have for the Bushies lately, KO’s segment might as well be an “I have a dream” speech.
I *am* a historian, Mr. Wolfwalker, and while I’m not sure about the accuracy of Keith O’s take on British appeasement, I can tell you that any decent student in one of my survey classes could have predicted the Iraq clusterfuck with breathtaking accuracy.
You want some good historically-ignorant tripe, consult the Heritage Foundation website, or head on over to PNAC, or any other think-tank with a neocon axe to grind. Or read just about anything that came out of Don Rumsfeld’s mouth. “Delusional” doesn’t even begin to describe it.
The thing about bush that did it for me was right after 9/11. I was thinking, here we have the biggest opportunity in 50 years to band together as a country. I thought the communal feeling in the air could be applied to our most intractable problems–social security, campaign reform, tax reform, healthcare, environmental issues. Bush could have done anything.
I was dismayed when it became apparent that to Bush, 9/11 was a political Christmas present. While making bipartisan noises in public he moved immediately to 1) entrench his political party and 2) legislate his social conservatism. That’s all.
He had no greater vision.
Damn internets…
gak You couldn’t delete one of those for me, could you PZ?
Possibly one of the reasons the British and French failed to correctly assess the situation in 1938 is because their countries were filled with pundits screaming, ‘It’s 1914! It’s 1914!”
Your resident Christian here. Just so you all understand, not every person who believes in that big guy in the sky goosesteps behind Bush lite.
I am from Texas, lived here all my life. What Bush was able to do in Texas as governor was get Repubs and Dems to agree on things and get things done. What is amazing is that he kept the “I am a uniter, not a divider” theme, and did the total opposite once he became the transient resident of the White House.
I have to confess I long-ago cashed out on the 24-hour news networks, full as they are of sensationalism, false dichotomies (science/political expert vs. dingbat with a website/Ann Coulter), etc. MSNBC viewers, how common is this type of thing? Is this the rare three minutes of skepticism, or has the network been improving? (Or have I been wrong all along?)
It’s been a good idea to ask about your doctor’s religion for a long time. Our family doctor 35 years ago was a fundamentalist (which we didn’t know); he sutured a nasty collection of lacerations on my 13 year-old sister’s back, doing a very basic job, and later expressed satisfaction that she obviously would not be wearing a bikini when she got older. (My sister healed very well, though the scars are still noticeable; my parents regret not having gone to a plastic surgeon.) A couple of years later it emerged that he wouldn’t prescribe birth control pills to unmarried women. Given the increasing radicalization of religious conservatives, I suspect that today he would refuse to prescribe them at all. Another doctor involved in my grandfather’s treatment as he was dying of lung cancer accused my uncle of ‘playing God’ because my uncle refused (in accord with my grandfather’s express wishes) to allow tube feeding. My family is very vigilant now about making sure we have a doctor who either agrees with our views or at least who will respect them.
I was practically cheering yesterday when he was doing it.
Not only is Olbermann classy; not only is he devastatingly articulate — he’s also a damn sight better-looking than Limbaugh or O’Reilly. (And, come to think of it, Coulter.)
Olbermann is consistently skeptical and harsh when it comes to calling bullshit when he sees it. He favorite thing to do is to gleefully point out when the right wing pundits lie or say crazy shit on cable news… usually Fuax News. He drives O’lielly nuts.
He’s daily “worse person in the world!” segment is always fun.
‘Concern troll’ — useful term!
Another species of ‘concern troll’ I’ve been noticing for several years is the Republican who wanders into a left-leaning blog and offers earnest, helpful advice on what all you liberals have to do to start winning elections like us Republicans. Usually contains tossed off bon mots like how liberals need to quit ‘hating America’, ‘hating god’, etc. How nice that wingnuts want to help us.
Then, of course, when you point out how full of shit they are, out comes the inevitable That’s why you moonbats never win any elections, real Americans can’t stand how shrill you are. Swell. Thanks. You done now?
You can’t eviscerate something that’s already gutless.
You do not need to be a historian or political scientist to see that the Bush administration is a corrupt failure. You only need to be a notch above idiocy to be able to recognize it.
Even the idiots are starting to see the light:
http://www.udargo.com/mub/2006/05/bush_losing_core_supporters.html
I sent the link of the vid to a friend of mine with whom I typically agree on most subjects. He rabidly attacked K.O. for using the Nazi videos while making his statement. Said it was sensastionalism and that it added nothing to the discussion. One quote of his was this.
I of course think he’s missing the point. The point is not to drum up a frenzy of fear by showing the footage, its to illustrate exactly how depraved, false and dishonest an analogy Rummy is trying to make and how low this adminsitration is willing to stoop to drum up fear and supoort their failed policies.
Does anyone else think K.O. would have been better served by not using the footage?
Oh, I don’t know about that–he’s got 60% of the country united across party lines on his job performance, for example
Does anyone else think K.O. would have been better served by not using the footage?
I’m sorry, but aren’t THEY the ones who are dragging up WWII, Neville Chamberlain and fascism? They’re the ones trying to exploit the horrors of that era. Olbermann was responding by attacking their analogies.
He infact turned the analogy back on to Rumsfeld. They are behaving like the Chamberlain in the historical sense… ) we know better than you, we’re the adults, you are shrill and out of your depth.)
That’s a really good point. It was a great speech to warm the hearts of those of us who already see Bush’s failures. It was brilliant — which is part of the problem.
In 2004 Kerry already had the vote of every single person who was smart enough to know all the words in Olbermann’s piece. Yet Bush still won. What the Republicans have unfortunately recognized is that if they proactively shun intellect they will become heroes of the idiot majority.
True! But few people here would use “gutless” or “spineless” as pejoratives.
That was the point I repeatidly made to him. His next response was that K.O. was not elevating the discussion and was only practicing attack journalism, to which I said..
It was frustrating trying to explain the significance of Rummy’s comments in light of the administrations’ policies dealing with silencing dissent and limiting personal freedoms to someone who actually agrees with me on those points but see’s the Nazi appeasment analogy as just another rhetorical jab that is meaningless and K.O.’s response as sensationalism(whew that was long). Granted each “Talking head” has a responsibility to his employer to bring in the ratings, but I did not see this commentary as anything but directly on the mark.
You’re friend is almost the equivalent of a concern troll.
Part of the reason democrats have suffered is that they have been willing to take the hits below the belt and not point it out to the referee.
K.O. is just hitting back with an punch above the belt. The ref knows the difference.
…
…
I’m another who thought Olbermann’s language was a bit too high-toned.
Still … damn! I’m glad he said it. This and the “Is Bush an Idiot?” piece are politically resonant.
I kept wishing for a “Have you at last no sense of shame, sir” moment all during the Bush administration, but I guess the Bushies are going out like the tide instead.
Slowly … but surely.
…
…
And ppl (rd: lbrls) wndr why Olbrmnn’s rtngs r n th crppr.
I just discovered Olberman on YouTube. (don’t have cable) Frankly, as a Canadian I was beginning to think that the Republicans had completely taken over. I have been searching through his O’Reilly rants and that clip was the best thing I’ve seen so far. Thank you.
It’s a bit of a comfort to know that, while Keith’s ratings for the last year are up 55%, Faux News’ combined viewership is down 28%. Granted, the cable news networks don’t have huge numbers of viewers but the trend is certainly worth a toast. To Keith Olbermann and not mincing words!
Jinxy’s back, time for the Vowel-o-Matic 2000â¢!
Nice try Jason. You should quit listening to O’Reilly. His numbers have been slipping since last year. Olbermann’s number have been going up.
This is SO good.
Heeeere kitty kitty kitty.
It’s nice seeing someone in the MSM taking on Rummy …
But I thought that this critique of his analogy was more on target:
the-rights-banal-and-inept-use-of-the-appeasement-mis-analogy
Another Bill O smackdown over ratings.
Victory is mine!
Now there’s something you’ll never hear from fox news
So you watch Fox news, brodie? If you don’t, why should you care what they have say? It’s not like you can’t watch ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS or read Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, anything from the AP or Reuters news services if you wanted. Sheez. Why should you even care what’s on one little network when you have all the others spewing more compatable kinds of opinions to wallowing in?
So you watch Fox news, brodie? If you don’t, why should you care what they have say?
So if you don’t watch a certain news program, you’re not supposed to have ANY OPINION about them? Odd reasoning.
All, please be sure to send kudos to Keith at MSNBC.
Thanks
Wow – I never watch tv news, so I didn’t even know about Keith Olbermann. Not that I feel myself to be a snob or anything, but I can’t handle the 30 seconds of news between 30 minutes of fluff on the usual channels and don’t have time to deal with tv often anyway, especially not during primetime. I just checked him out a bit on youtube and I now [heart] Keith almost as much as Colbert. (Stephen wins because he’s cuter.)
I think everyone should watch a little bit of Fox News occasionally, as much as can safely be done without killing too many brain cells, so as to be aware of how much lying bullshit is brazenly peddled to, and swallowed by, conservatards in the guise of “news”. You’ll gain a new level of understanding of just how ignorant a large segment of the population is- they’re not merely uninformed, they’ve been systematically misinformed and indeed, inoculated against reality.
I’ve seen little bits of Fox news in waiting rooms at the mechanic, at the doctor’s office, etc. It scares me.
What really scares me? I know a fox-lover who assigned his home-schooled 13 year old daughter to do a report on Bill O’Reilly.
What also scares me – my own father-in-law finally caved in and got cable tv this year, only because he wanted to see Fox news.
I love when someone comes in charging ahead with the Liberal MSM attack. The bias that may or may not be exibited on all those outlets you mentioned doesn’t come close to the complete and utter bias and mis-information spread by Fox.
Jason,
According to your leader, since I am a Christian, I cannot be a “librul.” And I love KO. As many have pointed out to you in that oh-so-friendly pharyngula way, KO’s ratings are not in the crapper, but actually increasing. So, your vowel-challenged post has no basis in reality.
Next time you want to throw around an epithet (really, you can look it up in the dictionary), you should really get your facts straight first.
Bryson Brown:
In what bizarre alternate universe does refusing an invasive, long-term medical procedure specifically designed to artificially prolong a clearly failing life qualify as “playing God”?
This is yet another example of the “it’s not fascism when we do it” rhetoric the Right can’t seem to avoid. Not that they’re trying to.
Steve Labonne, it’s funny how you use the term “inoculated against reality” when it is Keith Olbermann who seems to be disconnected. I don’t know if you’ve actually read the transcript of what Rumsfeld said in his speech but here it is Keith seems to have Rumsfeld’s point backwards. Keith is equating appeasement with action. How distorted is that? I know Keith is doing it for dramatic effect in criticizing the administration attitude that the democrats find so repulsive. They would rather rail behind someone who said “I voted for it before I voted against it.” So a clear direction on what to do against islamo-facsism, the “new type of fascism” that Rumsfeld mentioned is confusing. Keith’s comments are blistered with half-truths and distortions but it’s the kind of stuff liberals feed on. Is it even possible for a liberal to talk about the administration without throwing in ..Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have – inadvertently or intentionally – profited and benefited, both personally, and politically. Yes we all know the war was started to help Halliburton.
So a clear direction on what to do against islamo-facsism,
Whenever one sees that word, everything else is relentlessly predictable…
Nature,
You must not be familiar with the Neocons’ PNAC or Karl Rove’s “attack with the total opposite of reality” tactics. These guys don’t understand MidEast history, and the whole idea that we can “force democracy” is ludicrous. Go talk to someone who isn’t limited by reality.
Thank you, NatureSelectedMe. If we ever need an incoherent, oblivious troll, we know who to call on.
Olberman is not equating appeasement with action.
He’s equating this administration with hubris and arrogance.
The same way Chamberlain was hubristic and arrogant.
Rumsfeld accuses over half the population of this country as being the equivalent of appeasers because they have the gall to criticize him and the administration. And for
wanting us to find a way out of Iraq… because what’s obvious to most americans is that
their plan is clearly not working.
No, he’s equating stupidly ignoring public outcry and a “your government knows best” attitude with… well… stupidly ignoring public outcry and a “your government knows best” attitude. The point of the comparison was not the actual actions taken (or not taken) but the manner in which decisions were made and the fact that action and inaction can both be ruinous if the decisions aren’t thought through. These comparisons can be tough, but I think you’re deliberately trying to misread this one.
..If we ever need an incoherent, oblivious troll..
We can call on you, right?
If you disagree what I’ve written, please comment on it. Say something specific. You know how long it took me to find the actual speech by Rumsfeld? Go ahead, look for it with Google. The first few pages are criticisms of it. Please say something substantial, it’ll make this thread so much more interesting then the constant “You’re a troll”. How tiresome.
These comparisons can be tough, but I think you’re deliberately trying to misread this one.
I know what Keith was trying to say but It was a bad analogy, IMO, in response to Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was saying we can’t appease the bad guys. It won’t get you anywhere to try. Rumsfeld was talking about the whole War on Terror as I read it.
An excellent reason for making out a Power of Attorney for Care, including Advanced Medical Directives (or whatever the equivalent may be in one’s particular jurisdiction, assuming it’s enlightened enough to have such a thing). I think that pretty much gives your designated decision-maker power to tell the doctor exactly what treatments are allowed under what circumstances (and docs don’t necessarily have to be religious to believe they’re God’s annointed).
(For the record: I have a vague idea my GP is Catholic. About all I know is, when he came to see my wife in labour, he had just come from Christmas Eve church service. It’s never been an issue. But religion seldom is, in my liberal neck of the woods).
Strike 3! Take a hike, jerkwad.
PZ, might I suggest a new rule for trolls? Anyone who misuses “then” for “than” gets sent to the penalty box. I’ll give them one warning.
Sorry, it is one of my pet peeves.
The analogy is that Chamberlain, McCarthy, Nixon, et al, believed they were infallible and knew everything and nothing would change their minds, and they were completely and utterly wrong. In this way they are exactly like the Bush Administration.
This is a bald-faced lie. Anybody reading through the comments above can see that you did NOT understand it until it was explained to you. Now you’re backtracking and trying to cover up your embarrassing stupidity. Typical conservatard behavior, and very Fox-like.
Leaving Iraq is not appeasing anyone. It’s the smart thing to do.
We’ve completely screwed that country up. They are not competent
enough to make the situation better, riding it out is not a solution.
They can’t even manage this country well.
This is a bald-faced lie. Anybody reading through the comments above can see that you did NOT understand it until it was explained to you. Now you’re backtracking and trying to cover up your embarrassing stupidity. Typical conservatard behavior, and very Fox-like.
If anyone is curious. There’s a timeline up at Mother Jones about the run up to
the war in Iraq.
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
“We can call on you, right?”
Nice schoolyard comeback, there.
“Please say something substantial”
I think I’ve responded to your first comment with as much substance as it deserved. I really wouldn’t know where to start if I wanted to spend the energy in untangling it, in any case. Every proposition is an exercice in “incoherence* and obliviousness”, to paraphrase myself.
Your third comment is a less muddied:
“Rumsfeld was saying we can’t appease the bad guys.”
I think everyone gathered that. Olbermann doesn’t give any indication that he didn’t gather that. Either you’re overestimating the credibility and strenght of the disturbingly common cries of appeasement, an overestimation that forces you to believe that anyone who disagrees with it didn’t receive the notion correctly; or that you’re misreading it on purpose, as someone wrote earlier.
If it’s the former, let me assure you that, almost certainly, everyone here as heard or read that analogy before.
*Incoherent in its ideas. I really wouldn’t risk irony by calling someone else on their disjointed english syntax.
There’s no point in trying to start a debate with someone who commonly starts out with insults and paralogia, and then descends through the sewer grate.
Just an observation, not talking about anybody in particular.
I am hoping that the blogging community will encourage its readers to contact MSNBC and tell them that Keith’s sponsors will get first consideration when they decide to spend money. In this day and age this seems to me to be the most effective way to encourage and thank this valuable resource for the American People.
Betsy Hutchins–Good point.
I stopped getting my news from TV years ago (the best thing about the Left end of the Internet is the news coverage is ‘way more accurate, and sometimes years ahead of the off-line media; for example, other than the trolls, who here was surprised to learn that there weren’t any WMDs in Iraq?), but I watch Olbermann most evenings I’m home. He’s often hysterically funny, and, it’s nice to see an anchor who isn’t clueless.
Keith is equating appeasement with action. How distorted is that?
The problem Keith is pointing out is that you can’t reduce foreign policy choices to a simple dichotomy of “action” versus “inaction”. The latter is not always “appeasement” in the sense of Munich; in fact it rarely is. The Cold War strategies of containment, for example, do not fit cleanly into either category, were (sometimes) well tailored to meet the strategic situation, and ultimately worked.
Rumsfeld and others using this “appeasement” frame to describe counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation only show their ignorance of the field of international relations. Islamic terrorists lack even a scintilla of the military capacity of Nazi Germany, and haven’t been “appeased” in the sense of Munich in any case I can think of.
Neo-conservatives like Rumsfeld are the cranks of international relations, just as creationists are the cranks of evolutionary biology. They keep revising an outdated and oversimplified world view, but they’ll never find any empirical validation. There is a mainstream debate of fairly wide range—from realists like Henry Kissinger to liberal internationlists like Joseph Nye. I’d take people from the right or left of that reality-based debate any day over the grandiose daydreamers like Rummy.
Nice schoolyard comeback, there.
I thought that was all you deserved. :0
Either you’re overestimating the credibility and strenght of the disturbingly common cries of appeasement, an overestimation that forces you to believe that anyone who disagrees with it didn’t receive the notion correctly; or that you’re misreading it on purpose, as someone wrote earlier.
Now what are you trying to say? This is kind of muddled. The cries for appeasement are insignificant? Rumsfeld was blowing them out of proportion? Tell that to the French or the U.N.. Now that would have been something Keith could have talked about. But he didn’t. His analogy was stupid. The rest of the piece was the same tiresome talking points that liberals use whenever they talk about the administration.
I’m surprised he didn’t throw in how Gore really won in 2000
Nature, Jason, etc.,
Are you really, truly incapable of seeing the abject contempt people like Rumsfeld display for you when they expect you to believe that the only alternative to their disasterous policies was and is to do nothing? When they make bad analogies between Iraq and WWII? Are you really that stupid? Because, my friends, I am not so cynical that I believe you are really that stupid. I have more faith in your intelligence than does Secretary Rumsfeld.
So is it all just sport to you? Like throwing Ann Coulter’s arguments into a serious discussion, not because you believe any of her arguments, but simply because you like to watch “liberals” get angry? Is that all you have to offer to public discourse at this crucial moment?
who commonly starts out with insults and paralogia
Good thing you’re not talking about me, I don’t even know what paralogia means so it would be a wasted insult. :)
Neo-conservatives like Rumsfeld are the cranks of international relations, just as creationists are the cranks of evolutionary biology. They keep revising an outdated and oversimplified world view, but they’ll never find any empirical validation. There is a mainstream debate of fairly wide range—from realists like Henry Kissinger to liberal internationlists like Joseph Nye. I’d take people from the right or left of that reality-based debate any day over the grandiose daydreamers like Rummy.
No comment, just thought it would look better in bold.
“Now what are you trying to say? This is kind of muddled. The cries for appeasement are insignificant?”
I don’t think it was muddled enough to account for your aberrant reading of it. “Cries OF appeasement”, not “cries FOR appeasement”. As in someone crying “appeasers!” at dissenters. As in what Rumsfeld is doing.
You seem unable or unwilling to reason beyong the framework of the analogy.
“Now that would have been something Keith could have talked about.”
And what is that?
Max,
I see Rumsfeld as doing his job. Bush decided to finish the war his father started and Rumsfeld is performing his job. Disagree with his performance if you will, but that’s his job. When he talks to the press, I’m sure any war analogy will do. The left likes to use Vietnam.
So is it all just sport to you? Like throwing Ann Coulter’s arguments into a serious discussion,
What serious discussion? Anyone who disagrees is a troll right? A circle jerk is not a serious discussion.
watch “liberals” get angry
I’m sorry, it is fun to watch. It’s like teasing my cat. I don’t know why. Hey, the bold was a nice touch.
Nature, you aren’t succeeding in making me angry, but you are providing a limited form of amusement. If you wish to make me incredulous, you will need to take some lessons from Jason.
Numad,
So what’s the difference? Cries of appeasement are for appeasement, aren’t they?
If Keith made your point then (than…? don’t want trouble with mreap) I would have found it more interesting.
The UN was willing to approve military action in Afghanistan.
The “french” as well as many others in the U.N. didn’t believe our case for
invading Iraq. And guess what… they were right. Who were they trying to
appease?
Saddam had no nulcear progam. He did not try to puchase Uranium from Niger.
He had no mobile labs. He had no relationship with Al-Queda. He had nothing to
do with 9/11.
Almost all of the terrorists from 9/11 were Saudi. Seems we did some appeasing.
We’re no longer in Saudi Arabia. We’re in Kuwait and Qatar now.
The democrat have talking points because they choose to recognize reality.
Maybe you could say Rummy is doing his job, if his job were to spread disinformation for a corrupt regime. (oh, wait…)
On another note, I don’t watch local, network or cable news any more, either, although I have recently begun seeking out Olberman. He’s a good man, him, and worth more than Limbaugh’s weight in journalism.
Christian,
I can’t – he’s be disemvoweled.
“Cries of appeasement are for appeasement, aren’t they?”
No, they’re not. Sorry, but it’s true that the first time I wrote it it was unclear. But when you asked what I meant, I did everything possible but draw you a diagram. There’s nothing more I can do to explain.
“If Keith made your point then (than…? don’t want trouble with mreap) I would have found it more interesting.”
I really don’t think you got “my point”. Olbermann and I both object to Rumsfeld calling dissenters appeasers, although that wasn’t the main point of Olbermann’s commentary. Why can’t you understand that?
I’m sorry, it is fun to watch. It’s like teasing my cat. I don’t know why. Hey, the bold was a nice touch.
Well, it’s fun to make conservatives mad too, but you have to have some sense of your patriotic duty as a citizen. You have a responsibility to contribute in a constructive way to public debate when the country is struggling with difficult and momentous decisions. Charging into a public forum and spouting stupidity because it’s fun to watch people get angry at how stupid you’re acting isn’t very patriotic. It’s even, I would suggest, childish and unseemly.
You need to have a little more respect for your country and a take a more responsible approach to being a citizen of this great nation.
Numad,
Olbermann and I both object to Rumsfeld calling dissenters appeasers,
I don’t think Rumsfeld was calling dissenters appeasers, he was calling appeasers appeasers, IMO. I think you’re reading it wrong.
Max
I was disagreeing with some of the commentary on this thread. I was contributing in a constructive way. Did I call anyone a troll? I’m disappointed with some of the liberal positions regarding this administration. What’s all this about patriotic duty? Wouldn’t that include backing your country during war? There are ways to back your countrymen without backing the war and liberals are failing dismally.
“I don’t think Rumsfeld was calling dissenters appeasers, he was calling appeasers appeasers, IMO. I think you’re reading it wrong.”
If there are in fact appeasers, in a time when a government doesn’t support appeasement, then the appeasers are dissenters as well. Being an appeaser and being a dissenter aren’t mutually exclusive.
Keeping that in mind, let me repeat: I disagree that the dissenters that Rumsfeld called appeasers are appeasers. I disagree that the notion of appeasement can be arbitrarily applied to any situation at the leisure of a government.
mss:
“The problem Keith is pointing out is that you can’t reduce foreign policy choices to a simple dichotomy of “action” versus “inaction”. The latter is not always “appeasement” in the sense of Munich; in fact it rarely is. The Cold War strategies of containment, for example, do not fit cleanly into either category, were (sometimes) well tailored to meet the strategic situation, and ultimately worked.
Rumsfeld and others using this “appeasement” frame to describe counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation only show their ignorance of the field of international relations. Islamic terrorists lack even a scintilla of the military capacity of Nazi Germany, and haven’t been “appeased” in the sense of Munich in any case I can think of.
Neo-conservatives like Rumsfeld are the cranks of international relations, just as creationists are the cranks of evolutionary biology. They keep revising an outdated and oversimplified world view, but they’ll never find any empirical validation. There is a mainstream debate of fairly wide range—from realists like Henry Kissinger to liberal internationlists like Joseph Nye. I’d take people from the right or left of that reality-based debate any day over the grandiose daydreamers like Rummy.”
You make very valid points. Equating any political action other than all-out military invasions and bombing missions with “appeasement” is not just irresponsible foreign policy, I woulod say it is quite literally a retarded and unsustainable position to take. Bush seems to be plenty happy with appeasing dictatorships like Kazakhstan, go so far as describing them as friends in the war on terror.
How can the move to spread democracy be confined only to terrorist-supporting nations, and not nations that oppress their people? OK, so we dethroned Saddam, converted Ghaddafi, and (temporarily) removed the Taliban. That’s 3 out of how many bad nations again?
Terrorist groups are not anything close to the very organized machine that Nazi Germany was. Do they spread the same kind of false martyrdom that the Japanese impressed upon their Kamakaze fighters in WW2? Sure. But they are quite unorganized to the point that they are international masked militias conducting very specific operations. In a word, they’re just like the neo-nazi government-hating racist militias hiding in forest compounds in our own nation. Historical fact conquers all neo-con wishful thinking: terrorism wil ONLY be defeated by effective and vigilant international police efforts guided by very good intelligence. Fighting rag-tag groups of malcontents with military might is at best an absurd strategy, because you are immediately bound to cause damage to the wrong people.
Terrorists do not have a combined military might that equals ours by the longest shot, they do not have hundreds of thousands, or even millions of troops to throw at a conflict, and they do not occupy one definable area that can be bombed or otherwise nuked to ensure the problem is eradicated. Oh wait, but some “lovers of democracy” would just as soon nuke Iran as want to profess democracy to it.
And isn’t that really the problem? The neoconservatives don’t give a rat’s ass about democracy or its influence, because they’re the same ones advocating the removal of freedoms worldwide to support the anger they hold toward a very specific minority of violent extremists. Neocons have day in and day out advocated using nuclear weapons on the same countries they wish had democracies. You never hear about the neocon fervor for others to have freedom, without inevitably sensing that they’d rather just nuke the place because it was faster.
McCain was most assuredly wrong when, at the repbulican convention in 04, he said that might equaled right. To that I say No: If America has taught the world anything, it is that right equals might. If might alone determines ethics and morality, humanity’s search for happiness will never be realized.
Wouldn’t that include backing your country during war? There are ways to back your countrymen without backing the war and liberals are failing dismally.
All us “liberals” here are backing the country during war. We do it by looking honestly and critically at those who have misled us and proven their incompetence. That’s what the country needs, not people who will follow leaders blindly no matter what damage they do to the country.
You’re a recent immigrant? What country do you come from? You’ll find here in America “blindly support the rulers and don’t criticize their decisions” is not a part of our concept of patriotism. If that was how Americans defined patriotism, we never would have become an independent country in the first place.
In my lifetime, there has been no greater threat to the American way of life than that presented by the Bush administration. I think every patriotic American should be howling in rage against the contempt these people show for our traditional values and institutions, and our sacred Constitution. No crazy foreigner with a bomb threatens us as these people do. But I’m willing to discuss such things with anybody who has a sincere sense of the importance of such matters, but not somebody who simply enjoys making people angry by saying things he knows are stupid.
I think supporting the troops and trying to get them home rather than letting them
get shot up in the middle of a civil war is partiotic and is supporting out countrymen.
Rumsfeld and Bush do not equal country.
The country is the population. 60% of which want out and want out within a year.
Bush has said he won’t pull out while in charge. That’s up to his replacement.
The american public disagees with him.
I disagree that the notion of appeasement can be arbitrarily applied to any situation at the leisure of a government.
That’s how things work. To enhance your argument, belittle your opponents. Appeasement in this situation means you cave in to the terrorist’s demands.
Running away would be one thing you can’t do with terrorists. That would be appeasing them. Look how well that worked in Beirut and Mogadishu? They hardly bothered us since then, right?
We know what they want. Constant jihad about sums it up. How do you fight that without war? I don’t know.
I tried, at least.
We ran into Iraq got rid of a secularist despot and then quickly became a target.
It was has become a terrorist training camp since we got there. We’re not
preventing any terrorism by being there. We don’t even control the borders.
You are delusional if you think anything going on in Iraq improves security in the
U.S.
You can’t fight terrorism with large scale military missions. It doesn’t work.
The terrorists looking to hurt America will not come from Iraq.
Blue,
If America has taught the world anything, it is that right equals might. If might alone determines ethics and morality, humanity’s search for happiness will never be realized.
Might makes right. It always has and always will. Happiness can be achieved by walking softly and carrying a big stick. Really.
Uh, Beirut and Mogadishu have NOT bothered us “since then.” Unless by “Beirut and Mogadishu” you somehow mean Al Quaida.
Which is a pretty far reach, even for one that Nature somehow let slide…
“Might makes right. It always has and always will. Happiness can be achieved by walking softly and carrying a big stick. Really.”
So China should rule the world according to that theory. They have a much larger standing army and a much larger population. Also thanks to Bush we owe them a whole lot of debt.
Brilliant.
Uh, Beirut and Mogadishu have NOT bothered us “since then.” Unless by “Beirut and Mogadishu” you somehow mean Al Quaida.
I think NSM lumps all ‘Arabs’ together as one and the same thing. One big brown boogie man with many tentacles.
If you take that point of view, invading Iraq as retaliation for 9/11 suddenly makes ‘sense’.
We know what they want. Constant jihad about sums it up. How do you fight that without war? I don’t know.
So just ANY war. Against ANYONE. Just as long as we’re fighting a war somewhere for some reason, we’ve got the terrorists on the ropes.
Let me suggest one thing you don’t do if you want to fight terrorism. You don’t give them big, expensive Christmas presents. Giving terrorists big, expensive Christmas presents is not an effective way to challenge them. Would you agree with that? Let’s agree that, whatever we do, we shouldn’t give the terrorists big, expensive Christmas presents.
The Iraq War is a big, fat, solid gold Christmas present to every jihadist everywhere. Iraq is a rallying cry, recruitment center and training ground for the aspiring jihadist. Al Qaeda and every fly-by-night terrorist network that aspires to be the next al Qaeda have been mailing out brochures inviting jihadists everywhere to come join the fun in Iraq. We have created in Iraq what the Soviets created in Afghanistan in the 1980s: a breeding ground for the next generation of terrorists.
And your idea of patriotism is that we should continue to support the fools who made this criminal mistake no matter what the cost to the country?
And your idea of patriotism is that we should continue to support the fools who made this criminal mistake no matter what the cost to the country?
Right. Because otherwise, ‘the terrorists have won’.
Steve,
We ran into Iraq got rid of a secularist despot and then quickly became a target.
Uh, when you invade another country, yes, you can be a target.
It was has become a terrorist training camp since we got there. We’re not
preventing any terrorism by being there
No training camps there. We’d see them. The idea was to fight terrorists. Offshore.
The terrorists looking to hurt America will not come from Iraq
I can agree with this. But only if you say probably won’t come from Iraq. Terrorists came at us from Saudi Arabia and we’re not even at war with them. We have to get rid of the jihadist. Sometimes it’s war, sometimes it’s police work. Look, imagine if we didn’t invade Afghanistan. How would using police have worked? Pretty please extradite the terrorists? Please get rid of the training camps? Sure, we didn’t get OBL when we did go in but hopefully they set up a government to go after the jihadist. Yes, it’s hope but where would any hope be if we didn’t go in at all? The terrorist we are fighting practice an extreme form of Islam that doesn’t negotiate very well.
when you invade another country, yes, you can be a target.
‘Invade’? I thought we ‘liberated’ them!
NatureSelectedPoorly:
Please provide a specific enumeration (with references) of these terrorist demands that all those traitorous libruls are saying we should “cave in to”.
I should note from the get-go that I personally don’t think that “please stop invading our country for no reason whatsoever” is a particularly unreasonable request.
Does this attitude apply to everything in life? For example, can we deduce from this that you’re the kind of person who would face down that charging rhinoceros you just kicked in the nuts? After all, the rhino is for all intents and purposes “demanding” that you not kick it in the nuts. Wouldn’t it then be “appeasement” for you to “cave into its demands” by running away from it, even though everyone knows that it will result in your very gruesome death?
You know, I can’t help but wonder when exactly willful stupidity and reckless disregard for human life became character virtues.
The more important question is why do they want this constant jihad in the first place, and what can we do to make them not want it so much? It seems rather obvious that killing them indiscriminately isn’t working very well, so perhaps it’s time to look for a new solution. That’s all anyone is saying from what I’ve seen, at least around here.
In short, the “shoot first, ask questions later” approach only works in Clint Eastwood movies. Out here in the real world? Not so much. Of course, the war profiteers and robber barons currently in charge of our government have a vested interest in convincing you otherwise.
Ironically, they’ve managed to solve that little problem rather effectively.
So China should rule the world according to that theory.
I’m sorry, but the US is the most powerful country now. I know you might find that hard to believe. We’re a Superpower. China has a much smaller economy. Can’t afford the kind a wars we can wage right now. Soon, maybe. And Bush has nothing to do with it. Talk about seeing bogey men.
Please don’t think I’m ignoring you but I have to run. You’ve left me with a lot to ponder. Interesting points.
How big do you think their economy is? #3? #4?
Bush has everything to do with the debt we owe Chinese banks.
http://beatthepress.blogspot.com/2006/04/how-big-is-china.html
More to ponder.
Chamberlain admitted he was wrong about Hitler, and Churchill brought him into his War Cabinet. But that was 1940. Keith’s analagy is about 1938.
China doesn’t need to be able to afford the kind of wars that the US wages these days, because wars that aren’t pointless, aimless, eternal and wasteful are much more cost-effective than those that are. Two and a half million soldiers can roll up a country pretty quickly, if they want to.
And the US isn’t really the most powerful country in the world, we’re just the one that spends the most time telling everyone how great we are and waving our collective national dick around the geopolitical arena.
The fact is that we haven’t actually won a war in more than 60 years (stalemates aren’t wins), unless you count the invasion of Panama back in ’89. I don’t.
And Rumsfeld’s DoD spokesman today denies Rumsfeld meant to call anyone an “appeaser.”
Is he lying, NatureSelectedMe? Or are you and everyone mistaken about Rumsfeld’s plain language?
Hard-core Bush enablers like Nature Forgot to Cull Me are just like creationists- when you try to confront them with reality, they just stick their fingers in their ears and sing “la la la” as loudly as they can. And in both cases, the “arguments” they come up with reveal only a cesspool where a brain should be.
Fortunately, the polls show there are fewer and fewer such dangerous lunatics all the time- sanity is beginning to take firmer hold of the majority of Americans. The majority, that is, who are aware that Bush is doing a crap job of “protecting” us- quite the opposite, indeed- and that we need to extricate ourselves from the mess he has created in Iraq ASAP.
Bringing a “might makes right” argument to an internet discussion is pretty pointless by default.
Dan:
The more important question is why do they want this constant jihad in the first place, and what can we do to make them not want it so much?
Now that is a good question. You won’t believe the answer because it’ll make them look bad. They want this constant jihad because it’s part of their belief. They’re fundamentalists that take the Koran literally. You have to catch them and detain them and use Moderate Muslim clerics to convince them they’re wrong. You have to get rid of the founders of this movement. It won’t go away by itself.
Steve:
Bush has everything to do with the debt we owe Chinese banks.
Does not.
Foggg:
Do you have a link? Please? Am I just supposed to believe you?
Numad:
Might does make right. That’s reality. You can whine all you want about fairness but that’s how life works. The strongest have an advantage. If you think you’re right, you have to use your strength to be convincing. Otherwise you’ll just get steamrolled. All you have to do is look at Carter’s administration. He was weak. The Iranians knew it. Soviets in Afghanistan? Let’s boycott the Olympics.
Steve, thanks for the link to China’s growth page. I disagree with most of the stories (Well, at least the head lines) from the Center for Economic and Policy research, that the author is co-director of.
NSM disagrees with the CEP? why doesn’t it surprise me?
he disagrees with everybody else who actually has knowledgeable input on any topic.
Can we call shenanigans on NSM yet?
my broom is ready.
what a friggin’ moron.
can we stil use “demented fuckwit”?
how bout:
“AHHHH the Stupid! It burns!”
NSM,
“Might does make right. That’s reality. You can whine all you want about fairness but that’s how life works. ”
I don’t think you understand my specific objection. “Might makes right” isn’t, for all intents and purpose, an argument. It’s self defeating. Anyone who brings it up as an argument in a discussion (which is where arguments are made) raises the question of their participation in the discussion itself.
If might indeed makes right, the position “might makes right” is evoked to justify needs no further justification than might. The very existence of the discussion should be moot to the one making the argument, which is obviously not the case.
Secondly; “If you think you’re right, you have to use your strength to be convincing.” is pretty much indication that you don’t believe that “might makes right”. At least, in the strictest sense.
I don’t think that “might makes right” was coined in the spirit that “might” backs up a distinct “right”, but I might be wrong on that.
Numad,
My point is that in order to do what you think is the right thing, you have to be strong. Especially in a war situation. My “Might makes right” comment was directed at “right equals might” which sounds so.. Liberal. “Right” definitely doesn’t equal “Might”.
Ichthyic, Who’s CEP? Oh, and thanks for the intelligent input.
“My ‘Might makes right’ comment was directed at ‘right equals might’ which sounds so.. Liberal.”
That’s a pretty flimsy way of picking a position.
“My point is that in order to do what you think is the right thing, you have to be strong.”
I don’t think that this is “might makes right”. It even sounds reasonable (almost a truism), if one forgets your stated positions on a more specific level. Of course, I think you’re also misrepresenting “right makes might”.
Since PZ brought up as a gang of arrogant, incompetent wanna-be fascists. What’s a fascists? Does anyone have a good definition? It seems to mean “opponent” the way it’s been bandied about.
I apparently gave plenty of food for thought by mentioning the “might makes right” thing. The question about “might makes right” is not about the statement as a whole, but which of the two nouns is the control. IMO, right must make the might, because it has a positive control (assuming “right” is defined as a position that is both moral and based on real evidence), whereas might making right produces a more uncertain and thus more likely negative control.
Yes yes yes, “right” could also be twisted to be a negative depending on the situation, but its basic definition and connotation is to the positive, whereas “might” can be any force greater than its opposition, be it a dictatorship or a democracy.
As for our debt: conservatives claiming as one of their virtues thei fiscal responsibility should not throw stones in the glass house of their party’s sweeping fiscal irresponsibility. Bush would spend us all into the grave to make an easy lobbyist buck…oh wait…
“It seems to mean “opponent” the way it’s been bandied about.”
That’s exactly how I feel about the word islamofascist.
Myself,
“It even sounds reasonable (almost a truism)”
Unless “doing the right thing” means “not doing something wrong”, in which case might isn’t relevant.
I think “Might makes right” is just a snarky phrase like in the movie “Matilda” when Danny Devito says “I’m smart; you’re dumb. I’m big; you’re small. I’m right, you’re wrong” or something like that.
It’s also in a Tom Lehrer song, “Send the Marines.”
For might makes right,
And till they’ve seen the light,
They’ve got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected.
Nope, sorry. I stopped reading after this sentence. You don’t get to tell me what I believe.
You know, if you want people to take you even a little bit seriously, maybe you should try treating them like they’re actual people, instead of just a bunch cardboard characters in your little self-validating mental drama. If you don’t want to do that, you might as well be arguing with a mirror.
I don’t know if this is for cheering up, but here is the television interview of Bush talking about his ek-a-lectic reading.
http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2006/8/31/2281041.html
You don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
As a complement, here is Rush Limbaugh talking about how the government and the UN are causing obesity. He also says the government is killing the poor in the U.S. by feeding them.
There is also his statement, “Limbaugh blamed the left for obesity crisis, lamented that in America, we “[d]idn’t teach them how to … slaughter a cow to get the butter; we gave them the butter”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608290013
“Why should you even care what’s on one little network when you have all the others spewing more compatable kinds of opinions to wallowing in?”
Hitler was just one little, noisy man when he was writing “Mein Kampf” in prison.
What’s a fascists?
Fascism comes from the word fasces which was a tight bundle of sticks carried by lictors in Roman times. The imagery is such that a bundle of sticks is much stronger that one stick alone, thus a country in which everyone thinks the same and is forced to act the same will be “stronger” than one in which people are allowed to think for themselves.
Bush wants everyone in America to think like he does, and when they don’t, he gives them the “Other” status by saying they are with the terrorists. That’s a totalitarian viewpoint with extremely fascist undertones.
That’s exactly how I feel about the word islamofascist.
‘Islamofascist’ is simply the word wingnuts use for ‘Muslim’.
In much the same way as ‘politically correct’ is simply Wingnut for ‘not rightwing’.
NSM said: “Please say something substantial, it’ll make this thread so much more interesting then the constant “You’re a troll”. How tiresome.”
Actually, NSM, if you: (1) make your arguments from a factual basis; (2) be polite; (3) use correct spelling; and (4) not engage in ad hominem attacks, these guys accept you and will discuss things with you. Where else could a self-proclaimed Christian from Texas have an interesting conversation with a self-professed atheist from Minnessota? It’s about your attitude. If you think the thread is tiresome, STOP READING AND POSTING. You can always change the channel. If this is really tiresome, stop complaining and do something about it. You appear to be falling into the same conservative mentality I have seen before, where you imply that you have no power to change the horrible circumstances in which you find yourself (this thread is tiresome) instead of taking the power you DO have and doing something about it.
And for the record, having to respond to your unfounded arguments may make this thread more interesting, but definitely not less tiresome.
Uh, . . I meant to write “Minnesota.”
I’m really confused about all the talk about what “might makes right” means.
It has always been my understanding that “might makes right” means that if I am bigger and stronger or have bigger, stronger military, I am right (in the sense of correct) because I can beat you up or wage an incredibly destructive was on you and win. The idea is that the stronger party can force the weaker party to accept what the former says because of “might.” The phrase does not refer to moral “might” or courage of conviction, but to physical strength. Those positions might be better summed up as “You must stand for something or you will fall for anything.” That if you are right (in the sense of imparting truth) you must stand up to the mighty and hold to your truth. In this case might does not make right. However, if the party you are standing up against is much stronger than you, you may accept their position because they threaten you. Then, “might makes right.”
Islamofascist’ is simply the word wingnuts use for ‘Muslim’.
That is a complete lie. ‘Islamofacsist’ is OBL and the Taliban’s form of Islam. Get your facts strait.
Actually, NSM, if you: (1) make your arguments from a factual basis; (2) be polite; (3) use correct spelling; and (4) not engage in ad hominem attacks,
Most of the comments here are opinion. The ‘facts’ are mostly hearsay from other blogs. Use correct spelling? Are you serious? You want me to be polite? I think I’ve been very polite. Maybe snarky. Look at what’s been thrown my way:
oblivious troll;
your embarrassing stupidity. Typical conservatard behavior;
Are you really that stupid?
Charging into a public forum and spouting stupidity;
I think NSM lumps all ‘Arabs’ together as one and the same thing. One big brown boogie man with many tentacles.;
NatureSelectedPoorly;
Nature Forgot to Cull Me are just like creationists;
what a friggin’ moron.can we stil use “demented fuckwit”?
Not that I’m taking anything to heart. These are like emoticons to me.
Islamofascist’ is simply the word wingnuts use for ‘Muslim’.
That is a complete lie. ‘Islamofacsist’ is OBL and the Taliban’s form of Islam. Get your facts strait.
‘Strait’?
No, go onto Little Green Footballs. It’s a term used by wingnuts and Palestinian haters to generalize all Muslims into one big demonized mass. The use of the term is a surefire sign of someone who has no knowledge of Islam beyond a handful of regurgitated sound bytes taken from church pastors and rightwing websites.
I shouldn’t complain, once it’s used, it’s a reliable indicator of whether someone’s arguments need to be taken seriously any further.
PS: At least learn to spell it, already. It’s ‘fascist’, not ‘facsist’.
Since christian extremeists, islamic extremists and rightwing theocrats are much that same in a functional view, I propose the term ‘chrislamo-fascists’ as an umbrella term. It has the major advantage of annoying so many more assorted dimwits, nutcases, wingnuts, fascists and godists in a single easy to remember phrase.
The term ‘Christofascist’ has already come into use in response to it. It gets 23,400 hits on Google as opposed to 592,000 hits for ‘Islamofascist’.
Yes, spell correctly. Otherwise, you are not taken seriously. When I see misspellings, I immediately think “Idiot.” If you don’t care enough to even spell things correctly, why should anyone take you seriously?
If you honestly believe everything said here is opinion, why does it hurt your poor little feelings that a bunch of (supposed) godless libruls have a poor opinion of you? Your protestations belie your true feelings.
Finally, when you say idiotic things that are not backed up by facts, you WILL be called “friggin’ moron” or worse. You will also be compared to the transient resident of the White House, who clearly and unmistakably got us into a war that was NOT based upon any facts. Read some other posts around here. You will see a theme (if you care to use a little inductive reasoning): scientists and science geeks want verifiable evidence for your position, not just hot air.
Finally, if that is too hard for you, then you should just admit you’re not up to the task and stop reading and posting here. You know, if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Alternatively, you could (although I have yet to see a conservative do this) actually support your position with verifiable facts, logical deductions and inductions, and rational arguments. Good luck on that one.
You really think someone would make up such an easy thing to confirm out of whole cloth? O, right. You read wingnutswho do it all the time.
15 seconds with google-> Voice of America News
So is Ruff falsely dening it because it’s so obviously an embarrassing intimidation (to everyone but you), or are you and everyone one else deluded about what Rumsfeld obviously implied?
Googlesyourfriend. The 7 g’ments classified fascist had these 14 characters in common:
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of national identity.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
7. A controlled mass media.
8. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
9. Obsession with national security.
10. Obsession with crime and punishment.
11. Power of corporations protected.
12. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
it’s ‘fascist’, not ‘facsist’.
For those in the know, that’s called a typo. That usually occurs when you mean to type ‘the’ and it comes out ‘teh’, see? Sometimes proof reading doesn’t catch it because its so close to the correct spelling.
I know it doesn’t happen to you. But to bring up a typo as a misspelled word is childish. Is that how low you’ve gotten?
DP:
I said, “Not that I’m taking anything to heart”. See, this means it doesn’t bother me. If you would read the whole thing before you commented, we can get somewhere. I only brought that up because someone said I do it, and it’s just not true.
actually support your position with verifiable facts, logical deductions and inductions, and rational arguments.
You wouldn’t know what any of those look like. A rational argument doesn’t contain the word ‘moron’.
Foggg,
Read what you’ve excerpted. It says “the reporting” meaning it was the reporter’s mischaracterizations of the speech. Rumsfeld wasn’t calling dissenters appeasers, which is what I said.
“Rumsfeld wasn’t calling dissenters appeasers, which is what I said.”
Huh. Again, who was he calling appeasers then, if they aren’t critics of the Bush administration (dissenters)?
This is exactly what I’m talking about. I’ve never called you a moron, but you go straight to “You wouldn’t know what any of those (rational arguments) look like.”
Moreover, you casually assert that I didn’t read the “whole thing” before I commented. I did, and I commented on it. Your ad hominem attack is silly. Please stop it.
You don’t know me from Adam, yet you have already judged me. This is the fascist neocon argument style that the people here have been decrying. You are not making any rational argument, you are merely throwing mud to try to get a reaction–the very definion of a “troll.” If you have something to add, add it. Don’t engage in playground trash-talking.
I was just trying to help you get along with my atheist/scientist friends here. If you don’t want to take my advice, so be it. But don’t ever accuse me of being unable to recognize logic, because that is just a stupid childish thing to say.
Moreover, if you’re just trying to get a rise out of people, take it somewhere else. If you are not, please add intelligent discussion to the thread, not more ad hominem attacks.
I know it doesn’t happen to you. But to bring up a typo as a misspelled word is childish. Is that how low you’ve gotten?
Except that you misspelled it that way in two completely separate messages, which indicates it’s a lot more likely that you simply don’t know how to spell it.
DP,
Moreover, you casually assert that I didn’t read the “whole thing” before I commented. I did, and I commented on it. Your ad hominem attack is silly. Please stop it.
What are you talking about? Get your logical fallacies correct.
An “ad hominem” attack is to say the argument is wrong because the person is bad or has these faults. So if I said, “you didn’t read my whole comment.” that doesn’t say anything about you personally. Do you see my point?
Well George you got me there. Too bad you couldn’t tell at all what I meant because of the spelling. That is an elitist attitude, don’t you know? Go to Slashdot.org for some choice misspellings.
Your insinuation was that I was somehow sloppy in not reading your whole post and comprehending the whole thing. Ad hominem.
I’m tired of feeding you, troll. Go talk to the freepers.
Your insinuation was that I was somehow sloppy in not reading your whole post and comprehending the whole thing.
You’re wrong here. That is not an ad hominem fallacy. You have to get your logical fallacies right if you’re going to use them. I don’t want you to look foolish in front of George. Believe me; I have your best interests in mind. :)
Numad,
Huh. Again, who was he calling appeasers then, if they aren’t critics of the Bush administration (dissenters)?
I didn’t take Rumsfeld’s comments to be about Bush critics. I felt he was talking about the people who want to give in to the terrorist’s demands or just stop all the fighting. IMO, He was talking about more than just Iraq.
I remember reading about people who were definitely afraid 10/7/2001 when we started the war in Afghanistan that the terrorist will now get us for sure.
Just stop. Tired of feeding the troll.
from Wikipedia:
In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.
Examples:
“You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well.”
“You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree, because you are uneducated and poor.”
Not all ad hominem fallacies are insulting:
Example:
“Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this is false, because Paula is too important to pay attention to the game.”
This is an ad hominem fallacy, even though it is saying something positive about the person, because it is addressing the person and not the topic in dispute.
You addressed me (implying that I had neither read nor understood your complete post) instead of addressing the topic in dispute. And, you attacked me by claiming that I wouldn’t understand a logical argument.
How about YOU get YOUR logical fallacies outta here?
DP,
The definitions from Wiki are good. That is what an ad hominem fallacy is. When I say “you didn’t read something” I’m restating and clarifying a point I made that I didn’t think you got. See? You’re being thin skinned to take it any other way. Remember too, that I never call you a troll.
That is an elitist attitude, don’t you know?
‘Elitist’; meaning someone with better than a junior high school education? Guilty as charged.
I merely said that you meet the definition of a troll: someone who doesn’t add substance to the thread, just wants to get a rise out of people. You admit that is what you’re doing, therefore you’re a troll.
Logic.
People who would want to “stop all the fighting” would be dissenters relative to the Bush administration, since the Bush administration is explicitely against “stopping all the fighting”. Someone who expresses the opinion that the United States should take a course of action different from the one the government is taking is automatically a critic of that administration.
You’re using yoga logic.
Words to live by. Unfortunately, at least three quarters of the comments on this piece fail to meet that standard.
I pondered taking the time to excerpt all the examples of someone using childishly dismissive namecalling against another poster, or denouncing a hundred million Americans with a different opinion as idiots, facists, etc., but then I decided that it would do little good, since people who use such tactics and indulge in such simplistic and self-congratulatory “people who agree with me are wise and all the folks who disagree with me are retards” rationalizations are generally so shameless that they’d fail to get a clue from such a distillation of their spitefulness, in the same way that I’ve never managed to shame a creationist by highlighting any of their more egregious failures to behave like an actual adult.
I now await the vast barrage of personal abuse and “you’re a stupid troll” comments that will surely result from my attempt to remind some folks that they might not be behaving quite as rationally and maturely as they clearly think they do…
Or in the immortal words of a creationist who was taken to task for his childish behavior by a friend of mine, “I’m always polite, you moron!”
Let me know when someone finds a forum where most of the participants are interested in an adult political discussion for a change.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled “Faux News sucks, you idiot troll!” foodfight…
Sigh.
I see we’re still having trouble spelling “fascists.”
Except that you misspelled it that way in two completely separate messages, which indicates it’s a lot more likely that you simply don’t know how to spell it.
I have no dog in this fight, but I’ll throw in that I do tend to misspell the same words the same way quite frequently, due not to the fact that I can’t spell them but to some strange wiring in my fingers – I can spell them, I can write them, but I can’t type them.
Remember too, that I never call you a troll
Good thing too. Trolls never have evidence to backup their bullshit. Last I checked, you haven’t said anything of substance besides opinion, and that opinion is meant to be inflammatory at a blog which doesn’t hold your ideology. Have you looked up the excellent Wiki definition of internet trolling?
“Might makes right” isn’t, for all intents and purpose, an argument. It’s self defeating.
It’s a tautology, really.
Ichneumon: When the most obscene ideas are presented in unoffensive language, this is “civility”. Advocating torture, stripping away civil rights, breaking the Geneva Conventions, stealing billions of dollars of public money, etc, etc, all of this is “civil”, so long as we use nice, front parlour words.
I’m sorry, but my definition of “civility” does not include such obscenities.
Maybe this will help:
“Obscenity has several connotations. Obscenity and its parent adjective obscene take their derivation from the Greek terms ob skene, which literally means “offstage”. This is because violent acts in Greek theatre were committed off stage. It then descends into the Latin word obscenus, meaning “foul, repulsive, detestable”, (possibly derived from ob caenum), literally “from filth”. …”
When some ‘winger extols the virtues of torture, then we have already descended into obscenity before I have uttered the first “Fµck you”.
LOL. I remember reading about someone who thought Bush is a Chinese mole. Maybe Rumsfeld will give a speech denouncing that.
Document the most important figures in the US “who want to give in to the terrorist’s demands” (and what these demands are), leave Afghanistan, or stop hunting binLaden, Zawahiri etc. – figures that are worthy of an extended SecDef speech.
Good thing too. Trolls never have evidence to backup their bullshit. Last I checked, you haven’t said anything of substance besides opinion
Oh come off it Jack, look at the comments against me, what facts are they citing? It’s all opinion. I did provide a link to Rumsfeld’s speech and that wonderful lyric by Tom Lehrer. Sure, thye udders prolly no how 2 speld corektly.
And I’d like to post a Lehrer lyric of my own:
No more ashes, no more sackcloth,
And an arm band made of black cloth
Will some day nevermore adorn a sleeve.
For if the bomb that drops on you
Gets your friends and neighbors too,
There’ll be nobody left behind to grieve.
And we will all go together when we go.
What a comforting fact that is to know.
Universal bereavement,
An inspiring achievement,
Yes, we will all go together when we go.
Those “Islamofascists” aren’t the majority in the deathtoll we’re racking up.