Placating Deaniacs

[Marley23]

@BrainGlutton

He’s talking about Barack Obama. His spoken-word version of his book is up for a Grammy, which would make him the third Democrat (after both Clintons) to win that award in recent years.

Unless he means Stevie Wonder.

[RTFirefly]

@MEBuckner

So does this mean it’s OK for us liberals to compare George W. Bush to Hitler?

You saw this too?

[New_Iskander]

@BrainGlutton

I don’t think it’s fair to blame Lenin for stuff that happened after he died. That’s like blaming Jesus for the Crusades.

And your statement is equivalent to assertion that Lincoln has nothing to do with
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[BrainGlutton]

@New Iskander

And your statement is equivalent to assertion that Lincoln has nothing to do with
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Lincoln would have been horrified by the Civil Rights Act!

[GIGObuster]

@New Iskander

And your statement is equivalent to assertion that Lincoln has nothing to do with
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Allowing white supremacy in the South to thrive after reconstruction is what made the Civil Rights Act necessary later:

http://www.rit.edu/~nrcgsh/bx/bx06b.html

Reconstruction and Its Failure
…
The one achievement of Reconstruction had been to guarantee
minimum of political and civil rights to the ex-slave, but white
supremacy advocates were adamant in their intention to destroy
this advance. Where terror and intimidation were not successful,
relentless economic pressure by landowners, merchants, and
industrialists brought most of the ex-slaves into line. Year by
year they exerted less influence at the voting booths.
Although the country was aware of this, Northern liberals were
growing weary of the unending fight to protect the freedman.
Furthermore, masses of Northern whites sympathized with Southern
race prejudice. While they did approve of ending slavery, they
were not willing to extend social and political equality. The
North had begun to put a higher priority on peace than on
justice. Industrialists were expanding their businesses rapidly,
and they wanted the South to be pacified, so that it would be a
safe area for investment and expansion. If this meant returning
power to white conservatives, they were willing to pay the
price. The presidential election of 1876 degenerated into chaos
and confusion. Samuel J. Tilden, the Democratic candidate, and
Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican, disputed its results.
Democrats and Republicans both claimed twenty electoral votes
from Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida. The first
returns had shown that Tilden was the victor, but Republicans,
especially Army veterans, warned that they would not accept such
a result. The Republicans represented themselves as the party of
the Union, and they claimed that the Democrats were the party of
secession. The debate grew so heated that it appeared war could
erupt again. Pessimists warned that it would be the last free
election in American history. After months of bickering, a
compromise was reached. The South was willing to support
Republican Hayes if, when in power, he would remove the troops
and restore home rule. The votes were counted again in the four
states in question, and all twenty were awarded to Hayes allowing
him to win by one electoral vote.

Hayes began on an ambivalent note. On one hand he said that the
country must have honest and equal government, This would appear
to be a concession to the South which complained vehemently
about the supposed corruption of black Reconstruction. On the
other hand, he admitted that the rights of blacks must be
protected by the Federal Government. In practice, however, by
returning the South to home rule, he abandoned the ex-slave. He
said that the ex-slave’s interest would be best protected by
being left in the hands of honest and influential Southern
whites. Hayes had expressed an awareness of the brutality and
intimidation which still continued in the South, but he had
apparently concluded that federal intervention only aggravated
the problem. In his opinion Southern gentlemen were not thieves
and cut-throats; they too were educated, civilized, and
Christians. The fact that they were not aware of the brutality in
their midst and that some of them undoubtedly participated in it,
bewildered him. He was willing to proceed on the assumption that,
if the Southern whites were left alone, they would, as they
asserted, treat the ex-slave honestly and fairly. Hayes seemed
unaware that men could be educated, civilized, and claim to be
Christians while at the same time behaving as bigots and racists.
To satisfy the industrialists in the North and the white
conservatives in the South, Hayes buried the last remains of
Reconstruction. However, he made a one-sided compromise. While he
committed himself to immediate action, the South was only bound
by vague promises to be fulfilled at some indefinite date. At the
end of his term white supremacy in the South was more firmly
rooted than it had been when he took office

Like **BrainGlutton ** said, Lincoln would have been horrified by the act, freeing the slaves was not the same as ensuring they had the same rights after being freed.

[SteveG1]

@RTFirefly

You saw this too?

Wow. Just wow. That website was just weird.

[SteveG1]

I have a simple question.
If Bush and Cheney’s plan is so well defined and so successful (hahahahaha), then why should there be a need for anyone else to come up with a new plan, a better plan, or any plan at all? Stay the course (hahahahaha).

[lee]

I am not a he.

I think that he should not wait that long. He strikes me a more RFK than Gipper.

[HPL]

@John Mace

No, that’s still outlawed by the Godwin amendment. But you can compare him to Stalin. Fair?

No, Il Duce or Franco would be the appropriate one. Extreme right wing is Facism, of which Nazism is a subset. However, since Nazism has inherent racism, then a facist leader would be quite apporiate for a Bush comparison, assuming we wanted to go there.

[RTFirefly]

@SteveG1

Wow. Just wow. That website was just weird.

And she’s one of Pajamas Media’s featured bloggers, so she’s not some total nobody.

But yeah, she’s weeeeiiiiiirrrd.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Ravenman

First, you could get Jesus, Elvis, or Bill Clinton in as party chairman and it wouldn’t change the job. Dean is there to raise money and find candidates to run against Republicans. That’s a full time job, and one’s fame does not change it. In any case, you are right, Dean probably is the most well known chairman in many decades, although Scoop Jackson and Bob Dole had made their entrance on the national stage. But fame alone doesn’t make someone the best person to put forward on issues.

The thing is, he IS putting forth issues of a sort. If he weren’t constantly in the media criticizing Republicans on specific points, then I’d agree with you that it’s not his job to put forward a positive plan. But he’s made it his job to criticize Republicans, and as such, he’s got more of a role in shaping public perception of Democrats than previous party chairmen.

Have him back away from the spotlight, and i’ll back away from my criticism of him. But whoever is front and center for the Democrats needs to be using that spotlight to offer a positive agenda. It so happens that Dean has placed himself front and center, so he needs to use the spotlight.

Daniel

[Ravenman]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

The thing is, he IS putting forth issues of a sort. If he weren’t constantly in the media criticizing Republicans on specific points, then I’d agree with you that it’s not his job to put forward a positive plan. But he’s made it his job to criticize Republicans, and as such, he’s got more of a role in shaping public perception of Democrats than previous party chairmen.

See the part about being a cheerleader. Just because you have no policy role doesn’t mean you are supposed to be mute. If you think that previous party chairmen didn’t go on TV, give interviews, and bash the other party, well, I can’t help you.

Harry Reid was on CNN yesterday and asked just this same question, what is Dean’s role vis a vis Iraq and soforth. Reid’s response :

“REID: And he understands that his job is to do what he can to energize Democrats at a grassroots level around the country, to raise money for the DNC and leave the policy-making to the Democrats in the House and the Senate. He understands that.”

Link.

That’s what I’m saying, that’s what Democrats want him to do, and that’s what he is doing.

[New_Iskander]

@HPL

No, Il Duce or Franco would be the appropriate one. Extreme right wing is Facism, of which Nazism is a subset. However, since Nazism has inherent racism, then a facist leader would be quite apporiate for a Bush comparison, assuming we wanted to go there.

Ignorance rises its ugly head again.

It was established once and for all on this board that Nazis were Left wing Socialists.

Hitler’s party name was NSDAP (National Social Democrat Workers Party). Compare with Lenin’s party name RSDRP(b) (Russian Social Democrat Workers Party (bolsheviks)). Il Duce was fervent Socialist originally. Fascio is Italian word for Unity.

[Fear_Itself]

@New Iskander

It was established once and for all on this board that Nazis were Left wing Socialists.

The Nazi party is not socialist, despite the intentionally deceptive name:

In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word ‘National’ before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had “German blood”. Jews and other “aliens” would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

In February 1920, the NSDAP published its first programme which became known as the “Twenty-Five Points”. In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. “Foreigners” and “aliens” would be denied these rights.

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

On 24th February, 1920, the NSDAP (later nicknamed the Nazi Party) held a mass rally where it announced its new programme. The rally was attended by over 2,000 people, a great improvement on the 25 people who were at Hitler’s first party meeting.

The Nazi party was a right wing reactionary party that rejected the socialism of Lenin.

[New_Iskander]

@Ravenman

Harry Reid was on CNN yesterday and asked just this same question, what is Dean’s role vis a vis Iraq and soforth. Reid’s response :

“REID: And he understands that his job is to do what he can to energize Democrats at a grassroots level around the country, to raise money for the DNC and leave the policy-making to the Democrats in the House and the Senate. He understands that.”

Link.

That’s what I’m saying, that’s what Democrats want him to do, and that’s what he is doing.

Compare Dr. Dean to his predecessor Terry McAuliffe.

Mr. McAuliffe was also making inflammatory statements, to be sure. But Dr. Dean is quite different. Dr. Dean ran for the highest post in US and he developed faithful following among the most radical Left (the kind that view even Clintons as oppressors).

Dr. Dean is saying he abandoned his Presidential ambitions and applied for DNC chairman position because he needed a job. Can we believe him?

[Ravenman]

@New Iskander

Dr. Dean ran for the highest post in US and he developed faithful following among the most radical Left (the kind that view even Clintons as oppressors).

Dr. Dean is saying he abandoned his Presidential ambitions and applied for DNC chairman position because he needed a job. Can we believe him?

uhh… I’m such speechless. I cannot hope to untangle the web of bizarre perceptions in these few short lines.

I don’t know how to respond. I waive the white flag. I surrender.

[New_Iskander]

@Fear Itself

The Nazi party was a right wing reactionary party that rejected the socialism of Lenin.

Most left wing parties reject “the socialism of Lenin”.

From your own cite:

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

Now please show me, which tenets of Right Wing were listed in Nazi’s programs.

Try to draw a single parallel between Nazi’s written down agenda and GOP’s.

Simple heart felt conviction that Hitler and you know who are racists will not do.

[BrainGlutton]

@New Iskander

Dr. Dean is saying he abandoned his Presidential ambitions and applied for DNC chairman position because he needed a job. Can we believe him?

Why not? Do you have an alternative explanation?

[New_Iskander]

@Ravenman

uhh… I’m such speechless. I cannot hope to untangle the web of bizarre perceptions in these few short lines.

I don’t know how to respond. I waive the white flag. I surrender.

What’s so difficult? Just say, do you believe Dr. Dean or not?

Do you think he’s an honest man, doing his best for his country? Yes or No?

[Fear_Itself]

@New Iskander

Try to draw a single parallel between Nazi’s written down agenda and GOP’s.

I don’t think Republicans are Nazis. I know that is hard to believe, coming from someone who believes “Dr. Dean ran for the highest post in US and he developed faithful following among the most radical Left (the kind that view even Clintons as oppressors).”

You pathetic attempt to re-draw the politcal spectrum to your own twisted philosophy has failed. Again. Once and for all, so to speak.