MoveOn, Hitler and Bush: Hooo, boy!

[manhattan]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**More seriously, though . . . There’s a big difference between Soros and Scaife, in that Scaife doesn’t bother to tell anyone what the hell he is or what he believes. He doesn’t give interviews, he doesn’t write books . . . he just writes checks that support conservative candidates and causes. If the guy ran his mouth as much as Soros, maybe we’d have good reason to conclude that he’s not a Republican. But going on Soros’ own statements, I’m quite certain that he’s a poor fit for the Democratic party, though obviously a better fit than he would be in the GOP. **

I’m going to maintain my opinion of your sanity, intelligence and honesty by reading this to mean that while you can’t conclude that Scaife is not not a Republican you also can’t conclude that he is a Republican. If I’m in error, you should probably correct me, though in candor it would pain me to learn it.

So given that, I’ll take one more crack at convincing you that Soros is a Democrat as much as anything else and let it drop, since he is, beyond all question, a movoner, putting the lie to the OP.

First, an admission (or re-admission, since I said it before): Yeah, Soros holds some views that are well to the left of the Democratic party, others that don’t fit in with either (or any dominant) party and some which are just plain loony (or genius- who knows!). But that doesn’t make him not a Democrat any more than authorship of Earth in the Balance makes Al Gore “not a Democrat” or welfare reform made Clinton “not a Democrat” or even me being pro-choice makes me “not a Republican.” Broadly speaking, a pro-choice, pro-regulation-of-business, pro-campaign-finance-reform (heh) person, all else being equal, is more likely to be a Democrat. There are exceptions. Some are on the right and are Republicans. That’s not Soros, I think you’d agree. He might be something on the other side of the Democrats.

So let’s look at what he’s doing. He’s currently funding a big anti-Bush campaign. That also might reasonably be from something on the other side of Democrats. But look who he’s doing it with. Panetta, Brasile, Mrs. Clinton, Ellen Malcolm (from Emily’s list), etc. etc. etc. Democrats. Look what candidates get his cash directly – Scylla referred to it, but let’s agree that the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee isn’t the best place to find out who’s a Democrat. Instead, spend some time with OpenSecrets.org. Type in his name, check a few years, and see the Democrats pour forth.

To be sure, the Democrats might not be universally happy about this – you might not be happy with this. But he’s a Democrat and in this election cycle he’s the Head Money Financier in Charge.

If anything, I’d say that he’s something of a parallel to Scaife – Scaife is certainly out there on the fringe. But if you look at the stuff he pays for, any reasonble person would have to identify him as an on-the-fringe Republican, not something else.

[Scylla]

First cite is a flaky personal belief outside of politics.

Second says he doesn’t like dogma.

Third says he doesn’t like laissez faire capitalism (and I can’t beleive you’d present this as a schism with Democratic thought.)

Fourth says he thinks monetary value has replaced true qualitative value in some minds.
Where is the conflict with Democratic thought? Why are these things incompatible?

[Weird_With_Words]

I’m sure my dad can take care of his own squabbles, but I just noticed something that he neglected to mention… or perhaps he feared that such a thing was below his dignity. I have no such fear.

Now, I’m not sure if this would be considered some sleight-of-hand, good old weaseling, or just plain Scylla. You decide.

From page 3:

*Originally posted by Scylla
There’s been a lot of noises from the Dems coming pretty close to the line, comparing the current administration to Hitler’s Germany.

From page 4:

When you asked me for my cite was it because you believed Democrats had not compared Bush to Hitler?

I said I yanked it off off of google with a cursory scan. I think it does a fine job of establishing that some Democrats have likened Hitler and Bush, which was what was required.

And now, on page 5:

Not at all. Within the context of this thread, where Soros is not a Democrat, Moveon doesn’t sponsor ads which they post on their own website claiming they sponsored them, Moveon is nonpartisan, and no Democrat has compared Hitler to Bush, well your little statement fits right in.

(All bolding mine)

I’m not sure whether or not this was deliberate. But it certainly appears that, when faced with the fact that he can’t prove his argument, Scylla is trying to change the argument retroactively with an army of strawmen. I’d elaborate, but I think these quotes, when placed back to back, do the job quite nicely.

That’s pretty much all I had to say. Nothing to see here, MoveOn.

[Scylla]

Weird with words:
Point conceded. I did not say the exact same words consistently throughout the entire thread, and added in the “no Democrat” thing on my last post when the issue actually is “Democrats” in general.

Nonetheless in the face of your father’s complete and utter inability to answer a question with a simple yes or no, I don’t see it as a problem. Let me explain:

That question again is: When you asked me for the cite Elucidator, was it because you believed that Democrats had not compared Bush to Hitler?

Your father’s inability to answer a simple question combined with his repeated statements that my cites show nothing (meaning I interpret that they contain no evidence of such comparisons,) I am forced to conclude that your father is stonewalling and denying such comparisons have ever happened.

Seeing as your father is totally denying and all such incidents and refusing to answer whether he believes such has occured, I believe it is a fair summation of his actions to state that the argument is being made by implication that no Democrat has made such statements.

You’re father could clear this up were he willing to answer simple questions instead of cowering in cowardly fashion and stating that any question I ask is a trap.

In fact though, it is a trap. If he defines his arguments he knows where they lead and that he’s going to get his ass-kicked.

For example, if he says “No. I don’t beleive Democrats have made such statements,” then of course I can just pound him with repeated examples.

If he tells the truth and says “Of course Democrats have made such comparisons.” Then my follow up will be “Then why did you ask for a cite for something you knew was true?”

Then he will have to make something up other than the truth “Just to be a prick.”

It’s your father’s basic debating tactic for his encounters with me.

He just picks at and editorializes at my points, and attempts to draw me out by taking issue with anything I say no matter how obvious. At the same time he hides from taking any serious position himself or making any positive statements.

Any attempts to making him actually define whatever the hell his position is are “traps.”

There was one funny time in the old Harkens thread where he was asserting that Bush was a crook because of his Harkens holdings. For several pages I repeatedly asked him what law he thought was broken and what scenario he imagined where it was actually possible that a law had been broken.

This was a trick question or another “trap” according to your Dad.

And, from his perspective, I suppose it was. I’m sure experience has shown him that defining his arguments is usually a bad idea.

[carrot]

Jesus Fucking Christ Scylla, have you read this thread? 'Cause I noticed this on the first time through:

Originally posted by elucidator
I asked the question, just as I said, because I listen to Democrats with considerable frequency, I keep up on the news. I don’t recall oodles of Democrats making Hitleresque allusions to the Bushiviks.

Now, could you shut up about how he’s not answering your question and make with the

Originally posted by Scylla
pound[ing] him with repeated examples.

?

[elucidator]

Actually, the boy just warms up dissecting Scylla’s flights of fantasy, so as to get in gear for working on his critique of the phenomenology of Wittgenstein.

"Did you ask for the cite because you are this stupid, or did you ask for it just to fuck with me?"

That isn’t a question, that is an insult. An entirely obvious insult. Taken lightheartedly here because, well, after all, it’s Scylla isn’t it? In truth, I gave the question far more respect than it deserves, and I told you exactly what I think happened. Its all right here, in print.

(Actually, I fully expected you to fall back to a last-ditch semantic defense: you said “democrats”, so all you are obliged to do is find two, and thus justify the plural. You can have that, if you like, its at least as good as the horsepucky you’ve been trying to sell.)

Tell you what, Sparky. You can call me stupid the day you actually outsmart me. And that’ll be the day. Lord knows, I got lots of faults. Its a long list but “dumb” ain’t on it.

And, folks, when your Cognitive Dissonance volunteer comes calling, remember all the entertainment Scylla has provided, at great expense to his personal dignity, and give generously!

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by manhattan *
I’m going to maintain my opinion of your sanity, intelligence and honesty by reading this to mean that while you can’t conclude that Scaife is not not a Republican you also can’t conclude that he is a Republican.

Sure I can. In the case of Scaife, all the available evidence indicates that he’s a Pubbie. With Soros, who regularly pontificates in public on all sorts of off-kilter topics, there is additional evidence that indicates he is not a good fit for the Democratic Party.

First, an admission (or re-admission, since I said it before): Yeah, Soros holds some views that are well to the left of the Democratic party, others that don’t fit in with either (or any dominant) party and some which are just plain loony (or genius- who knows!). But that doesn’t make him not a Democrat any more than authorship of Earth in the Balance makes Al Gore “not a Democrat” or welfare reform made Clinton “not a Democrat” or even me being pro-choice makes me “not a Republican.”

Except that the stuff Soros apparently considers most important–all that wacky internationalist anti-capitalist open government shit that I can’t even fathom what the hell he’s babbling about–is exactly what makes him not a Democrat. Sure, he’s a fellow traveler on a lot of things, but when his core beliefs don’t fit, it’s damn hard to take the remainder and conclude that oh, he’s a Democrat. Particularly for purposes of weasel boy’s claim about how the Dems are so constantly Godwinizing Dear Leader.

He’s currently funding a big anti-Bush campaign. That also might reasonably be from something on the other side of Democrats. But look who he’s doing it with. Panetta, Brasile, Mrs. Clinton, Ellen Malcolm (from Emily’s list), etc. etc. etc. Democrats.

Duh. If your goal is to kick Bush out of office, who else are you going to do it with? The Natural Law Party? We function in a two-party system, so pick your poison.

[Weird_With_Words]

Well, I’ll just ignore the original question, and move onto the one that could be interpreted as an honest question asked in good faith:

When you asked me for my cite was it because you believed Democrats had not compared Bush to Hitler?

Simple question. Yes or no.

Well, I thought he pretty much did answer this question, just not in the “yes or no” format you hoped for. And it’s that “yes or no” format that makes it a trap. Not because the question can’t be answered with a “yes or no”, but because that was never the real question.

However, if I were to rephrase your question in such a way as to make it pertinent to your statement that The Democrats (which implies, quite clearly, either the entire party or a significant majority) are comparing this current administration to Hitler’s Germany, it would read:

"When you asked me for my cite was it because you believed that the Democrats are not currently comparing Bush to Hitler?

Simple question. Yes or no."
To this, the simple, honest, and obvious answer would be: yes.

Your father’s inability to answer a simple question combined with his repeated statements that my cites show nothing (meaning I interpret that they contain no evidence of such comparisons,)

Well, they show something, just not enough to support your original assertion, which was, you’ll recall, quite blanketing.

I guess what I’m saying is that this whole ridiculous hijack could’ve been avoided if you had just phrased your original statement differently; just replace “the democrats” with “some democrats”, and voila, you have a statement that’s not only easy to prove (even with that sodden “splat” of cites you provided) but probably would never have been disputed in the first place.

P.S. Please don’t confuse Greens and Anarchists with Democrats.

[elucidator]

Its not always like this. Sometimes I have a bad heir day.

(Shame? Come to think of it, no, I haven’t. Why do you ask?)

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by minty green *
[BExcept that the stuff Soros apparently considers most important–all that wacky internationalist anti-capitalist open government shit that I can’t even fathom what the hell he’s babbling about–is exactly what makes him not a Democrat.

First off, if you can’t fathom it, how can you tell whether or not it’s compatible with Democratic thought.

Secondly, it ain’t exactly brain surgery counselor. As for being Internationalist, isn’t one of the main Democratic criticisms of the Bush administration that he is going against the will of the International community in his pursuit of Iraq, that he should have worked with the community of Nations and the UN?

I don’t see how his brand of Internationalism conflicts.

Next up, how does his brand of anti-capitalism conflict? It seems a pretty close match. Soros’ complaint is against “Laissez-Faire” capitalism. He beleives further governmental controls and restraint are necessary to avoid the inequities inherent in Social Darwinism. Again, where’s the conflict? Controls on big business ain’t exactly taboo to the Democratic stance, are they?

As for open transparent government, isn’t that both Dems and Pubs aspire to?

What is the problem? Where is the conflict?

Sure, he’s a fellow traveler on a lot of things, but when his core beliefs don’t fit, it’s damn hard to take the remainder and conclude that oh, he’s a Democrat.

None of the core beliefs that you’ve shown conflict at all with anything mainstream Democrats have espoused. Open Government? Government controls over Business? International cooperation? Give me a break.

How does this detract one iota from his long history of support and activism on behalf of democrats and democratic causes, and most especially democratic candidates?

[/quote]
**Duh. If your goal is to kick Bush out of office, who else are you going to do it with? The Natural Law Party? We function in a two-party system, so pick your poison. **
[/QUOTE]

This simply doesn’t hold water. As has been shown to you repeatedly Soros’ commitment to Democrats predates the Bush presidency. He supported the Clintons’ respective campaigns, Al Gore and the campaigns of various other Democrats going back to 1991.

[Weird_With_Words]

I might this Soros argument interesting, if I could fathom any useful outcome.

[pantom]

I’m not even going to attempt to get in the middle of all this. Just need to repeat this little story, since elucidator just reminded me of it:

One day, after playing basketball on a hot day with her son, my aunt asks if I’d like a lemonade. I say, “You have lemonade?” and she replies, “Lo unico que no hay aqui es verguenza.”, which translates as, “The only thing we don’t have around here is shame.”

I now return you to your regularly scheduled lovefest…

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Weird With Words *
I might this Soros argument interesting, if I could fathom any useful outcome.

Well yes, except that principle would also foreclose any sort of discussion Scylla. And then how would we know what Rush Limbaugh was lying about every week?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

I’m still waiting for Scylla to respond to elucidator’s not so implicit challenge regarding some of his other unlinked to quotes. To wit:

Let me pull your coat over here. Here’s how this works. You offer a cite, then you offer the link. That way, if you offer two quotes from the same cite as though they were two different cites, you’ll be busted. And deservedly so.

Got two bucks says that at least two of the quotes “cited” above are from the same source and date.

It seems to me that Scylla got particularly pissy about the “give me a straight answer” shit just after caught in this additional weasel move. Unless I missed something. So, did Scylla get caught in one bullshit link fest only to segue right into a second? Did he start screaming about getting some answer to a bullshit question to draw attention from this? Why has Scylla chosen this topic as his re-coming-out-pissy-bitch-party after his Thanksgiving Day Massacre? And why has weird with words chosen now to make his triumphant and much anticipated return?

All these questions and more will be answered on this episode of Soap!

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Weird With Words *
**However, if I were to rephrase your question in such a way as to make it pertinent to your statement that The Democrats (which implies, quite clearly, either the entire party or a significant majority) are comparing this current administration to Hitler’s Germany, it would read:

**

We can just stop right there, because if you were to do that you change the meaning and context of my words. Perhaps “The Democrats” implies what you say. What I actually said was:

“It’s also a sound political move. There’s been a lot of noises from the Dems coming pretty close to the line, comparing the current administration to Hitler’s Germany.”

The best interpretation for “The Dems” in this generalized statement is words to the effect of “coming from the Democratic corner.”

Saying that this statement is suggesting “all Democrats” or an official postion of the Democratic party is not a fair or accurate interpretation.

I guess what I’m saying is that this whole ridiculous hijack could’ve been avoided if you had just phrased your original statement differently; just replace “the democrats” with “some democrats”, and voila, you have a statement that’s not only easy to prove (even with that sodden “splat” of cites you provided) but probably would never have been disputed in the first place.

The original phrasing and context of “the Dems” in my statement “There’s been a lot of noises from the Dems coming pretty close to the line, comparing the current administration to Hitler’s Germany,” is synonymous with “from the Democratic quarter”

While were talking about semantics we might as well examine the construction of this phrasing for precedent in common usage.

try “We’ve had a lot of trouble with the neighbors throwing stuff over the fence.”

Does this say “all or a significant majority” of neighbors are tossing things over the fence? Of course not.

How about with a subject more synonymous with “the Dems?”

“There’s been difficulties with the police not responding to calls in a timely fashion.”

Clearly this is not referring to “all police” or a “significant majority.” It is referring to a subset of policemen, those who do not respond to calls.

It’s a nice try at semantics, but your attempt to deconstruct my usage of “the Dems” in order to construe “all Democrats” simply doesn’t hold water.

Seeing as it doesn’t, you don’t have a point.

[Scylla]

Hentor:

[quote]
I’m still waiting for Scylla to respond to elucidator’s not so implicit challenge regarding some of his other unlinked to quotes.
[/quotes]

Um, ok, sure. Of course all those quotes came from the original links. That was kind of the point seeing as Elucidator said the original cites didn’t show squat.

If I had pulled those quotes from somewhere else, that would have validated his argument about the cites not showing anything. The whole point is that the quotes come from the cites.

[Weird_With_Words]

Originally posted by Weird With Words
I might this Soros argument interesting, if I could fathom any useful outcome.

Well yes, except that principle would also foreclose any sort of discussion Scylla. And then how would we know what Rush Limbaugh was lying about every week?

Maybe it’s just me, but we seem to be losing a lot of words to some sort of inter-dimensional vortex. Sort of like a cosmic drying-machine.

[elucidator]

…It seems to me that Scylla got particularly pissy about the “give me a straight answer” shit just after caught in this additional weasel move.

Point of fact, three (or is it four?) of the untagged quotes offered after the Cite Splat are, in fact, from the same article by Jonah Goldberg in National Revue Online. Suffice to say that I regard his opinion as to what Democrats are saying and doing with a grain of suspicion.

As well, we are kept apprised of the opinions of the Dusseldorf Democratic Caucus, whose spokeskraut, Herter Daulber-Gmelin, is in such poor repute at the WH. As well as something called the “Free Press” has been most unflattering. The privilege of the “Free Press” to function as an media outlet for the Dems is left to our imagination.

Whether any of this drivel can be said to prove anything I leave to the discernment of the Gentle Reader.

[ElvisL1ves]

I’m impressed by anyone’s ability to use “a lot” as a synonym for “any”. Only on the SDMB. And only from a few select posters, at that.

manny, surely you can see that it’s possible to conclude that Bush has to go based simply on the merits of the case, not necessarily on knee-jerk partisanship. Or maybe you can’t see that. Whatever.

[minty_green]

Sorry, WWW. No need to resort to speculation about interstellar appliances. I just missed a “with” near the end of that first sentence.