No, terrible speller. 
Well, use whatever words you like, but if **RTF **can say the Republicans “lumped in” some Dems with al Qaida, then I think it’s fair to say some Dems “equated” Pubs to Hitler. Use “lump in” if you don’t like “equate”. I think my meaning was clear.
I think you have a point about the Dems in that the current crop is pretty reticent about associating themselves with anything that smacks of controversy. Down here in Texas, we call that being mealy mouthed. They’re a group of fence straddlers for the most part although a few appear to me rediscovering their backbones.
But most are still playing Republican Lite in order to court votes.
I think they’re being stupid-the right won’t vote for them but neither will the liberals
However, the right wing talking heads have done a pretty damn good job of mocking Cindy, quoting her out of context and generally distorting her message.
It’s why so many people in this thread are willing to dismiss her as a loon-without ever taking the time to here her speak.
Doesn’t tell me anything without the name of the speaker, and the wording s/he used.
You have of course noticed that this has nothing to do with the argument I’ve been pursuing, but if it makes you happier to say this, then by all means do.
I am less sure what to do about Iraq than I am of what to do about Bush, Cheney, and their crew: impeach, convict, and remove Bush and Cheney from office. I think you’ve noticed that I’m not afraid to speak my mind.
I’m still bothered by the posters who made “noise” that Sheehan should have been beat up or thrown down the stairs. I haven’t heard anything lately about her pending lawsuit. Has she filed one yet?
I’ll tell you what… you tell me which Republicans “lumped in” Democrats with al Qaeda, and then I’ll reciprocate with the Nazi references.
Just further comment on the whole business about Democrats being cowed into silence by the attack dogs of the right. If it doesn’t relate to anything you’ve posted, then so be it.
Then you get Hastert as prez and probably Condi as VP. Would that make you feel better?
A case of “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours”?
The current administration has done an excellent job of getting the message out that if you do not support Bush’s policies on terror, you are aiding and abetting the terrorists.
Don’t believe me?
And
But wait, there’s more…
And even more!
Read enough yet?
(Boldening mine)
I apologize for not being able to supply direct references to the dissenting Dems being lumped in with al Qaeda but I don’t think it requires any stretch to see what’s being implied.
Can’t forget:
You misunderstand, Arty. Clearly, the current state of crisis requires hard headed realism and stern action, qualities that wimpy liberals simply do not possess, but are found in abundance in the Republican Party. Hence, for the security, nay, the very survival of the Republic it is essential that such persons should remain in positions of power and authority for the duration of the crisis. When the present crisis passes, we may again be in a position to lend an ear to the latte-besotted. Unless, of course, some other crisis shall arise, perish the thought.
Emphasis added. With all due respect, though, that is the issue at hand. Surely you’re not going to ask me to dredge up quotes of commentators comparing Republicans to Nazis? I mean, I’ll do it if you really think there aren’t any. Do you?
BTW, Zell Miller is a Democrat.
But let’s look at what the actual issue is. RTF’s claim really came down to the fact that some Republicans make outrageous claims about Democracts, such as lumping them in with al Qaeda, yet they remain within “the mainsteream” of the party. I don’t really dispute that, I just don’t know why it’s particularly interesting since both sides make outrageous claims about the other side, without ejecting the claimants from “the mainstream” of their respective parties. Now, if you want to start a debate about which side makes more outrageous claims, you can count me out. That’s impossible to prove since “outrageous” is so subjective, and it’s just impossible to count all the instances.
In name only. Real Democrats don’t make a speech at the Republican convention to smear the Democratic nominee.
A speech so inflammatory that even some Republicans backed away from it.
Careful there, Bob - he might challenge you to a duel.
But to the RW commentariat, Zell Miller isn’t a “loony”, he’s a keynote speaker.
But it did provide good fodder for SNL.
Ah yes, not “no true Scotsman” fallacy. If the original statment had been: “Republicans and Democrats who speak at Republican Conventions” then you’d have a point. As it is, you don’t.
Don’t forget Joe Lieberman. He’s on The Committee for the Present Danger, and there are some who call him a Democrat.
I may be getting older, but I think I can take on old Zell.
John, I don’t understand the reference to the “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy. How is it a fallacy to state that a real Democrat wouldn’t make a keynote speech at the RNC to smear the Democratic nominee?
The answer to this one should be good. Not only do we get to ride off on another tangent, John gets to avoid admitting that, yes, several Republicans did lump dissenters of the Iraq war in with terrorists. Win/win!
Because he is a Democrat and not a Repulbican. You might think he isn’t a “real Democrat”, but that doesn’t make him a Republican, which is what we were talking about. Otherwise, I’ll say Hillary isn’t a real Democrat because she’s co-sponsering an anti-flag burning law. Or that Arlen Specter isn’t a “real Republcan” because he’s pro-choice. Or that Chaffee isn’t a “real Republican” because he voted against Alito. See how it works?
No, I’m still waiting for the examples. Got any?