I can uderstand how it might be meant this way, but surely you understand how it doesn’t seem to imply a few solitary loonies, but rather a problem with the party.
For instance, “There’s been difficulties with the police not responding to calls in a timely fashion.”, obviously means this is a problem the department is having, with a least a significant number of officers, not just a couple of officers.
Your gushing compliment warms my heart. Truly.
That wasn’t my intention. My intention is to show that “the dems” does not mean “a couple democrats” or “some democrats”. It means, at the very least, “a lot of democrats”. And that, Scylla, is a statement that requires a cite, or cites, showing an actual trend in the party. Not just a couple incidents.
Seeing as how my post was an attempt to rephrase your argument in such a way as to reconcile it with common sense (and, hopefully, reconcile it with your true intention), if I don’t have a point, than neither do you.
What this all breaks down to is a very simple “a” or “b” question, to take a page from your book. Either you meant “the dems” as “a significant number of democrats”, in which case you are compelled to show a significant number of self-proclaimed democrats who have compared this administration to Hitler’s Germany. Or, you meant “the dems” as a reference to a few democrats who have made such a comparison, in which case the entire argument is moot, since that point was conceded quite readily by minty and poppa 'luci back on page three. Like I said, none of us would feign to argue that we don’t have any crazies in our party.
So, is it a) or b)?
a) you meant a lot of democrats, in which case you still have a point that lacks sufficient proof, especially since only one of your examples showed conclusively that the person speaking was, in fact, a democrat.
b) you meant one or two democrats, in which case you don’t have a point at all, since it pertains to nothing and has absolutely no discernable relevance.
Simple question. You don’t have to answer yes or no, you don’t even have to follow the format given with an a) or b). Just give a straight-forward answer.
Well done, Weird With Words. My opportunity to peruse this thread was limited, and so I wound up saving it all on a single page and reading it while off-line. I itched to get to the finish so I could decide whether I had the energy to reconstruct the series of events that comprised this hijack; when, lo and behold, up you step with the very argument I wanted to see.
And a good thing, too, because I probably wouldn’t have done as good a job as you did in constructing it. It’s easy for me to imagine that elucidator is proud to claim you as his offspring.
I’d also like to commend you for declining to join your dad and minty green in flinging the “weasel” epithet at Scylla. I won’t damn you with the faint praise of calling you scrupulously polite (that kind of thing is for the decembers and the Joe Cools of the world), but your behavior brings to my mind an image of a youthful prodigy running rhetorical rings around an old reactionary reptile, while never failing to give his opponent respect and the opportunity to maintain his dignity. All that could improve on that would be for you to address him as Mr. Scylla.
But perhaps that would be gilding the lily.
On another note:
One of Scylla’s early quibbles was his argument that MoveOn was demonstrably insincere in its apology, based on the assertion by Scylla that the apology was accompanied by a conterattack, if you will, against the RNC and Mr. Gillespie, for making political hay of the offending ads, while not denouncing similar behavior on the part of the allies of the Republican Party.
I’d like to see a timeline, if possible, of the events involved in the back and forth of both sides during this incident. This will make it easier for me to judge whether Scylla’s accusatoin of insincerity is supportable.
I guess I’ll go see what I can dig up, and leave my vanity searches in Cafe Society for another day.
While I cannot share unreservedly Scylla’s position that the appearance of both in the same statement neccessarily prove the apology to be insincere, I am dismayed that Mr. Boyd chose to provide ammunition to the Forces of Darkness by releasing his statement in the form he did. An apology must always be followed by a silence long enough for one’s interlocuters to either accept or reject. Anything else violates what I understand to be polite behavior. If, and only if, the Evil Ones refuse to let the matter die, is the time to counterattack.
Your argument is pathetic. It’s like saying that a public library, which pays for shelf space and knows the contents of the book is responsible for the message of Mein Kampf or in any way supposts it because it makes the book available to people interested in history.
I have to disagree here. MoveOn, which originally organized in order to protest the absurdity which was the Monica Lewinsky scandal and is now openly advocating the removal of the sitting President (although by the increasingly unusual and pase process of uncontested election), is quite unabashedly partisan in nature. They have a reputation to protect, if only to better realize their goals. In that sense, allowing the Nazi shit to get in was a major mistake on their part. They should, and did, apologize to me, someone who shares a common goal and who doesn’t want to see them fall down like this (even though I personally have fallen down right here dozens of times).
We have to accept the partisan nature of MoveOn, because if we don’t we fall into the trap of unacknowledged hypocrisy. Their own self-description broadsides the politicians who are “recklessly placing the interests of their big-money donors ahead of the good of our society,” yet most of us know this is par for the course and that most American politicians align themselves on a sliding moral scale that registers merely from “unscrupulous bastard” to “Hitler’s Hitler.” We have to read between the lines and add a silent rejoinder to the end of that statement, like, “except the Skull and Bones Society,” or at least I do, in order to justify it.
Which is pretty close to the meaning that I was trying to convey when I said there enough noise that I thought it was a good idea for the Republicans to use the opportunity to show that it was not kosher to make such comparisons. The amount of rhetoric, in this regard, from the democratic quarter was significant, not total, but significant enough to merit the action taken by the Republicans. That is the proper context of my statement, and I qualified it that way when I originally wrote it, and gave Elucidator plenty of chances to back off his absolutist interpretation but…
Well, I’m sure you know you’re own Dad.
Indeed my cites show Soros saying it at a Moveon function, Byrd saying it, several academics making the comparison, as well as numerous protesters and such.
[/quote]
Your gushing compliment warms my heart. Truly.
That wasn’t my intention. My intention is to show that “the dems” does not mean “a couple democrats” or “some democrats”. It means, at the very least, “a lot of democrats”. And that, Scylla, is a statement that requires a cite, or cites, showing an actual trend in the party. Not just a couple incidents.
[/quote]
Let’s be frank. Elucidator knew what I meant, and you know what I meant. Even if your pop didn’t know right off the bat, he should have gotten a clue when I asked him whether he thought such comparisons had been made.
In light of that, your trying to construct a scenario where bad diction on my part is to blame is disingenuous at best. Somewhere in the several following pages he surely got a clue. This all leads me back to my original conclusion which I believe I suggested at the outset of the exchange. He’s just doing it to be a pain in the ass.
My having a point is not predicated upon your making a valid reconciliation, nor can you claim you don’t have a pony in this race since we’re talking about your Pop. Your aim is clearly to reconcile my statement in a way that defends your father. You’re doing a fine job of trying to build into my statement a context that does not and did not exist.
**
Hmm. Why should I give you a straight answer and get pounced on? It’s not like I owe the Elucidator clan the courtesy. In fact the account seems to be in arrears.
But what the hell. It’s “A” obviously. A significant number. Not a majority, not a totality, but enough to merit the Republican party making an issue of it as an example.
Again, that was the context I phrased it in originally. No mystery here. Why do you need to ask the question again, when you can review the orginal exchange in which I give the context?
The fact that Senator Byrd was willing to make such comparisons. That academics were willing to make such comparisons, that Soros was willing to make such comparisons, that they were by no means scarce on the internet, and at protests, I consider as significant. I consider that as “lots.” I certainly consider it enough that the Republicans were right to try and make an example of it (which for the third time I believe, is the original context.) In this, I appear to be correct. Foxnews is reporting that Soros, who had at one time made the comparison before a Moveon audience itself, is today condemning the ad.
I see that your next objection is that I only have proof that one is a Democrat (don’t tell me you’re also in the Soros is not a Democrat camp, are you?)
I cover a nostril and blow snot at this worthless objection. I have no interest in proving which Scotsmen are true, and which aren’t.
But, I think I can clear this whole thing up for you. As has been cited previously, Soros made the comparison to Hitler in a speech at a moveon rally.
That he recieved cheers from the crowd is enough to prove that sentiment from the Democratic quarter was significant.
Of course, I don’t have the voter registration for each and every participant, so I guess you can claim that I can’t prove that the moveon crowd didn’t consist entirely of Republicans.
If you wish to take solace in this kind of denial, be my guest.
Couple of interesting developments yesterday while the board was on hiatus.
Soros, at a press conference, said that the foreign policies of Dean, Clark and Kerry were all “very close” to his own worldview. So anyone with the intellectual honestly of a bacterium would have to admit, combined with his fundraising and fund donating history, that Dean is a Democrat.
But that’s not the interesting part – everyone already knew that. What’s interesting is that he denounced in no uncertain terms the ad(s) (he referred to one, I assume he meant both, or one never got aired, or whatever – his denouncement was unequivocal in any event and must reasonably be interpreted to refer to any and all ads from moveon or any source which compared the Bush administration to the Nazis.
But that’s still not the interesting part. He also specifically denied that he, personally, had compared the Bush administration to the Nazis. It was unclear from the context whether he denied making the remarks attributed to him or simply denied that the remarks rose to a “comparison” of the administration to the Nazis. (NY Times article here) (a denial here – though I can’t recall if those are the same words he used yesterday). The George Soros I know has always been an honest guy, so that’s the interesting part. Can’t say whether he’s misremembering, re-intrepreting or being misquoted.
My thoughts on the subject:
-Soros is a Democrat, no question about it. Strict adherence with the Democratic platform is not required to be considered a Democrat. He may be weird sometimes, but he’s definitely in the Dem camp.
-Some Democrats compare Bush to Nazis. I’ve heard friends do it, family members do it. I sometimes call them on it, if I feel like getting into an argument. Democratic leaders, however, do it very rarely.
-Some Republicans compared Clinton to Nazis. I heard it happen, and would call them on it if I felt like getting into an argument. Republican leaders, however, did it very rarely.
-Scylla’s cites were unbelievably lame, and his behavior since hasn’t been much better. When you make such lame cites, you ought to give an abashed apology for it and then moveon to your real argument. Not only have you not apologized for letting absurdities slip into the cites you put in your post, you’ve attacked instead of apologizing. You’re in no position to criticize moveon’s apology for their behavior.
-Nobody owes anyone a debt of courtesy; nobody’s family is in arrears. Certainly neither Scylla nor Elucidator has shown the other any courtesy. Is anyone surprised?
It has come to my attention that the updated board shows signatures by default, whereas the prior edition allowed them to be turned off (so might this one; I haven’t figured it out yet). The result is that the two posts above contain my signature, which I thought I had permanently retired with my moderator duties (as signatures are/were dynamic, I haven’t changed the sig except to add the “retired” so as to make clear those posts which were “official” in GQ). This may lead some people to conclude that those posts have an aura of officialdom which they do not.
I apologize unreservedly to the membership and administation of this message board for my error in allowing that sig to appear.
First off, before anything can be accomplished (you may say I’m a dreamer…) there’s one thing we gotta get straight right off the bat…
That shit has got to stop, Scylla. If you’re not gonna take me at my word about what I think, then you may as well take your ball and go home. Cuz what’s the fuckin’ point, then?
I’ll give you a courtesy you seem unlikely to give me, my father, or minty. I’ll take you at your word. You say that’s the way you meant it? Okay. Case closed.
So, I suppose that’s what you meant by this…
No, of course not. How could I misinterpret you like that?
On review of the relevent pages and posts, I can’t find an instance of you clarifying what you meant. Certainly it’s possible that you didn’t think it necessary, it being so obvious and all. Certainly it’s possible that you thought my dad was only trying to trap you. But whatever the case, I can see no attempt to clarify. The only thing I see that comes close to clarifying your position is this line:
Which should have read:
Don’t mean to harp on this, of course, just wondering how that word went wayward. (Ahhh, alliteration. My only friend.)
But all of this is moot, since you’ve now clarified that you really did mean a problem with the democratic party, not just a few democrats. So, let’s move onto more lively material than mere semantics…
I don’t remember ever making that claim, but just for the sake of clarification, yes, I do like my dad. In fact, you could probably even say I love him. I’m not sure how this incriminates me, though. I suppose we’ll have to get back to that later. Anyway…
Is it now? And here I’ve spent my life thinking that calling somebody a prick was something less than courteous. Or perhaps I’ve just misinterpreted you again. Either dull your tongue, or thicken your skin. I’m wondering if I should abandon all civility and start attacking you outright, since you seem to interpret everything that way anyway.
Really? So all academics are democrats? And all protesters too? Look, I’ve met a lot of people who have compared Bush, or republicans in general, to Nazis. None of them were democrats. In fact, most of them would probably view democrats as “part of the problem”. Some of them were Green party, some of them were socialist/communist, and y’know what? Most of them, in fact, most protesters I’ve met in general, are straight-up anarchists (who actually have quite a bit more in common with libertarians.) And as far as the academics go, they’re all over the fucking map. Most academics who specialize in politics and such tend to avoid being identified with any party in particular, though their opinions seem no less strong. Another one you quoted was Berkely, but, c’mon! Are you gonna let me start using Ann Coulter as evidence that there is a whole lot of evil bitches in the republican party? So far as I know, Ann Coulter only provides proof that she is an evil bitch.
Even I, though I have voted democrat every time so far, do not consider myself a democrat. The Democratic Party just happens to be as close as I can get.
A true scotsman is a man born in scotland. A true democrat is someone who is a member of the democratic party. You say that contributing money to a party in order to advance your goals makes you a member? Well then, there’s a few republicans in New Mexico who recently became Green Party members. You say sharing ideals with someone makes you a member of their party? Congratulations, you’re an anarchist. What’s that? I thought you said you liked small government!
Getting the picture? If you mean that a lot of left-leaning people have made these comparisons, you would be correct, and stating the obvious to boot. But, if you’re claiming democrats (which is not a general word, unless used incorrectly) are commonly making this comparison, you’ll need more cites.
To be perfectly honest, I really… don’t… fucking… care. Really. But if you insist on arguing this silly point with me, I will continue saying you’re wrong. Point-counterpoint.
Where does it say they cheered? I checked the Washington Post article, nothing.
P.S. I tried to post this yesterday evening, the hamsters devoured it. But now that I think about it, I feel like a newlywed who was incorrect about the gender of his “wife”, I’m wondering what the fuck I’ve gotten myself into. Especially since, if we do agree that the parameters set are to find a bunch of quotes with democrats (or even just left-leaning fellas) referring to Bush as a Nazi, this argument will eventually turn into a contest to see who can find more godwinizing quotes from righties or lefties. In fact, looking back over this, I’m profoundly stunned by how much text I’ve wasted on this cosmically stupid subject. How ‘bout it Scylla? Truce? Can we agree to disagree? Or just agree that this is too fuckin’ stupid to argue about?
In case anyone is still interested in the original topic of this thread, i thought people might like to know that Alexander Cockburn addressed the whole MoveOn-Hitler-Bush thing in his most recent column in The Nation.
I’d link to the column, but you have to be a paid-up Nation subscriber to see it online. It’s worth quoting a couple of the concluding paragraphs, however:
Even more interestingly, the editors of The Nation made the unusual move of attaching a short commentary to Cockburn’s article, which said:
Some Republican leaders did refer to the BATF under Clinton as “jackbooted thugs”, which was certainly a not-so-veiled allusion to Nazi stormtroopers. Can’t recall how widespread or how high up this was at the time, but it was in the papers, so it wasn’t just Joe Blow.