Inconvenient links of the week: Obama and the LaRouche poster
John McCormack: CNN Fails to Report Woman Comparing Obama to Hitler is a Lyndon LaRouche Democrat.
Here’s the CNN video:
Seton Motley: NBC, CNN and MSNBC All Assign Communist LaRouche’s Obama-Hitler Poster to Conservatives, Limbaugh
Hot Air Pundit has video/screenshot of the LaRouche PAC poster/table outside the Barney Frank town hall.
Posted in: Health care
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Health Care: Let The War Begin « NEOAVATARA
- Barney Frank’s Wacky Town Hall Circus: Says He’ll Vote the Way HE Think Is Best on ObamaCare, Will Likely Ignore Majority of Voters (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Barney Frank gets destroyed at his own townhall in Dartmouth, MA | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Sandra Rose
- NY Dem Rep. Eric Massa: Townhalls Killing Democrat Party with Millions Withdrawing ObamaCare Support, So He Refuses to Hold Townhall Meeting « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Mark Levin: More of “Us” Than There Are of “Them” - Gallup Proves Him Right, Conservatives the Majority in All 50 States « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Am I Still In America?
- GayPatriot » If Barney Frank finds its wrong to compare Obama to Hitler, then surely he took issue with his ideological allies who comparied his predecessor to the Nazi
- Walking Barefoot in a Pasture: Stepping in the Cow Patties of Government-Run Health Care Horror Stories (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- This Joker Is A Lost Cause: Keeping President Obama Honest on Health Care–Let’s But A Smile On That Face–Staying Alive « Pronk Palisades
- More Cow Patties, More Government-Run Health Care Horror Stories: US Military’s VA Health System (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Frank stands up to anti-Obama loon at health care town hall - Page 11 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum
- We have to face the fact that the President is not an honest guy « Jim Blazsik
- Socialists: My Way or the Highway; Will Go it Alone to Force ObamaCare; Can You Spell Obama Waterloo? « VotingFemale Speaks!
- Journalistic Malpractice; CNN and MSNBC push fake stories with amateur editing « Northern Thoughts And Reflections
- Leaning Straight Up » Debating the debate about the debates or something…a quick round up of insanity
- It’s Health Care, Stupid! | The Great Illuminator
- GayPatriot » Unhinged Larouche Democrats Not Representative of Obamacare Opponents
- Canadian Doctor Interview: ObamaCare Will Skyrocket Health Care Costs, Rationing (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Sarah Palin Calls Out Obama; Where’s the Tort Reform, Socialist? « VotingFemale Speaks!
- Barney Frank shame on him - PUMA Party Forums
- So much for stereotypes « Right Minded Online
- Obama’s Tanking Mess: Negative 14 Approval Brought on by Loaning Brazil Billions for Offshore Oil Drilling, Secret Big Pharma Deals, ObamaCare’s Mandates, Townhall Thuggery, Spamming « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- ObamaCare = ObamaSnoop; Socialist Backdoor to everything you hold PRIVATE! « VotingFemale Speaks!
- OBAMA IS LYING…CHECK THE OBAMACARE AMENDMENTS « FactReal
- Some Of The Ways The MSM Sucked The Past Several Weeks « Tai-Chi Policy
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Health care
JustOneMinute
» The Topless Ann Althouse
Ed Driscoll
» The Bears Are Who We Thought They WereStop The ACLU
» Glenn Beck: The Man With The PlanPundit & Pundette
» Reports of Broder's retirement greatly exaggeratedAmSpecBlog
» The Road Ahead in the Health Care BattleThe Other McCain
» Is ObamaCare a done deal?NewsBusters.org
» Harry Reid Rips WaPo's David Broder On Senate Floor
No. What we’re saying is that it’s not nearly as widespread or mainstream on the Right as it has been on the Left. It’s not even close.
On the Right we marginalize and disavow our nutjobs. On the Left you come within a few votes of nominating them for President.
I’d also like to point out that even the worst rhetoric on the right, coming from the most isolated crazies, can’t compete with the hateful loonies that the President of the United States has sought advice from his entire adult life. Actual, unapologetic racists and violent terrorists.
So we’re not saying the Right is 100% pure when it comes to irresponsible rhetoric. What we are saying is that the Left lives in the flimsiest of glass houses on this issue and really ought to stop throwing stones.
Really? I will admit the left has a rabid and prolific base in Kos and DU. However, like the Platte River, crap like that is a mile wide and a foot deep. Not too many people really care that a bunch of yahoos, on either side, sit around their computer and spew out silly stuff like this.
But when was the last time you heard many of the most powerful members of the of the Democratic Party refer to Bush as Hitler or a Nazi, as Limbaugh and Coulter have done? What is really more damaging? 10 million posts from 10 thousand nobodies on a website no one reads or one comment from the most powerful conservatives out there, that not only reaches directly millions of listeners, but millions more when it is replayed by the media?
I’m guessing we probably have differing definitions of “nutjob”. But in any case, I certainly haven’t seen the right disavowing itself of Rush.
And if this were only about hypocrisy, that argument would fly. But its not. Many here are justifying their rhetoric by claiming it is what the left did to Bush.
It’s funny how quick people are to call lgm out when they think he’s arguing tu quoque but ignore it from other posters here.
There is a significant difference between describing a country heading down a road that is against it’s core founding document and potentially parallels one of history’s worst regimes and simply hurling the name “Hitler” as an insult.
So exactly when is it acceptable to compare an administrations tactics and policies to Nazi Germany? How will we ever avoid a repeat if making the comparison is a crime in itself?
It wasn’t all that long ago that Pelosi (yes, I know you don’t like her) painted a picture of Obamacare protesters as being swastika carriers.
On this I’ll agree. However, I don’t know if it’s justification or pointing out the irony of leaders from the left (or the MSM in this case) acting as if this is a one-way street.
That’s why we have you here.
However, isn’t this statement a bit of a tu quoque complaining about tu quoques?
Pelosi comes to mind, but are you comparing the power and authority of commentators like Bush and Coulter to “the most powerful members of the of the Democratic Party”?
That is a bit of a stretch.
Agreed. Flinching from any comparison to history is a great way to ensure it’s repeated. Assuming there’s substance behind why the comparison is made.
Here is her quote:
She is not calling them Nazis. She is accusing them of going to town halls aiming Nazi rhetoric at Obama. Which is accurate, and entirely different.
Next please.
When they are applicable and not used for shock value. There are dozens of countries that have health care systems in place that are actually analogous to what is being proposed.
But all I am hearing from the right is: “You know who else was interested in “health care”? HITLER!” Same with “You know who else liked gun control? HITLER!” (N.B.: Gun rights for non-Jewish German citizens were actually greatly expanded during the Nazi regime). How is that even remotely apt or helpful? It is pure and simple a smear tactic without substance.
If it were not justification, there would be more condemning from more than a handful of people here. Instead we have the opposite. Idiots like atheling actually adding fuel to the fire.
Link please. Or did you mean that non-example cited above?
Non-example? I believe I treat your comments with a bit more respect, Chap.
Pelosi’s comment made sense to you because you included the dose of reality (although outside of one incident her office much later referenced, the swastika pictures weren’t as prolific as she suggested). Pelosi’s comment, to someone that isn’t paying attention, could have been interpreted as though they were acting like Nazis. It was a careless comment.
They still haven’t proven the Astroturf claim, either, despite all the Astroturfing efforts being made on their own behalf. If anything, Big Insurers and Big Pharma have been in support of Obamacare for the increase of business expected from the mandates. It’s not in the insurance company’s interest to fund astroturfing operations.
Couple things, I apologize for the “non-example” I was not trying to be rude to you. I was just trying to indicate that I did NOT think the example that I think he was citing was applicable.
And I agree that it was at best an overbroad comment. And I also agree that the whole “astroturf” claim is unproven (and actually not really relevant in my mind. Who cares if they are being organized at a higher level? It doesn’t make any point more or less salient.)
But none of that changes the fact she was clearly, in the context of what she was asked and what had been occurring to at least some extent in these meetings, NOT comparing these people to Nazis. She was criticizing protesters that go to these meetings and accuse Obama of being a Nazi.
Appreciated.
My point, I suppose, was that politicians have not been above engaging in the Nazi/Hitler rhetoric. It’s just become part of the landscape, so it’s curious when those same politicians suddenly become thin-skinned. In Pelosi’s case, she made the overbroad comment and tried to paint all protesters in the same brush. From her view, anyone that disagrees was someone that was either astroturfed or carried Nazi signs. That’s not even close to describing the majority of protesters and I believe she knows it. It was intellectually dishonest.
Another example, although I concede that Baird is not necessarily a leader:
It seems to me that Durbin made a Nazi comment back not too long ago.
Also, You mention Limbaugh and Coulter. A more fair comparison would be Randi Rhodes and Franken when he was on the air. Liberal talk radio has had a great many inflammatory things to say, as have other non-radio personalities (comparable to Coulter).
That’s the plan. Get potential protesters to stay home, afraid they’ll be associated with Nazis if they show up.
I actually had looked for some comparable quotes from either of them wrt Bush. Didn’t find any right off the bat. But in all honesty, comparing Rhodes to Limbaugh is apples to oranges. Limbaugh is one of the few people that you could seriously say represents the face of the Republican party (or conservative movement).
The Baird example is good. And by good I mean bad for Baird. He should apologize for that.
A key point for me is that when Conservatives use the comparison wrt Obama, the similarities don’t involve either Hitler’s genocidal attack on European Jewry or his aggressive war on Europe.
Leaving out those two things, which is what every Conservative that I’ve heard use it does, what is so objectionable about the comparison? Rational arguments can be made to support the comparison so why the immediate and vehement outrage?
When the Left uses the comparison, it was often to suggest that Bush was a bloodletter, a murderer and so on.
It seems as if it’s just an attempt to discredit or invalidate a person as “serious” by making the Hitler comparison off-limits. Any mention of “Hitler” and {insert name here} is ironclad proof of your unseriousness.
Of course, Al Gore can make a reference to “brownshirts” no problem.
Trust me, those are two separate entities and they seem to be getting farther apart by the day.
You need to find someone in an official party position to make a fair comparison. Like Michael Steele vs. Howard Dean.
And as well, you need to look at the substance of the comparison. Saying that NO comparison whatsoever can be made between someone and Hitler is arbitrary.
Make the comparison and judge the results, but to ban the comparison out-of-hand doesn’t make sense. From everything I understand, Stalin was every bit the scourge Hitler was and yet Levin routinely calls the Left Stalinists and there is no outrage (and I happen to agree with Levin).
Hitler has just become a symbol, shorthand for “most evil political leader ever” and so ANY comparison between him and anyone else is immediately deemed over-the-top, nevermind the fact that real and substantive comparisons can be made between the political philosophy, policies, tactics, rhetoric, and style of Hitler and contemporary political leaders.
Once the comparison is made, it can stand and fall on its merits, but to dismiss it out-of-hand doesn’t follow.
Yes I can dismiss it out of hand. Because they are not arguing merits. I have yet to see one actual point by point comparison of German Nazi health care to the current US proposal. (And, to be fair, neither have I seen a point by point comparison of how rude people at Town Halls are anything like the actual brownshirts). People are simply invoking Hitler exactly to invoke those irrelevant things you spoke of before. If that wasn’t their purpose, you could point to a hell of a lot of other places and governments that have a health care system closer to what is being proposed. But their concern is not a fair comparison. Their concern is pure sensationalism.
I don’t see why official vs non-official is at all relevant. I am talking about the difference between the powerful with real influence and hopefully a real sense of responsibility about that power (whether “official” or not) as opposed to a bunch of mouth breathers on a message board.
Who is the most powerful figure on the left that made a claim about Bush as Limbaugh made about Obama?
That’s not what I’ve heard Rush doing, for example, and I’ve heard him say it on occasion. And he is one of the examples you mentioned, particularly as he is somehow supposedly the face of the Republican party. It’s not what Mark Levin or Jonah Goldberg have done, either. Not everyone who makes the Hitler comparison is part of the “they” you mention above. It’s not fair to the facts to conflate all comparisons as the same and then dismiss the entirety out-of-hand based on the actions of one of the parties that you conflated.
As far as pointing to a lot of other places for comparison, that’s ALL I’VE HEARD since Day 1 from most every prominent Conservative: “Look at Canada! Look at the UK! Their systems suck!” In fact, it seems to me that that has been the BULK of comparisons being made with respect to the healthcare issue.
Why is the explicit mention of the name “Hitler” the litmus test? What about other equally odious or over-the-top comments?
Cynthia McKinney said Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen anyways, suggesting he was willing to see Americans dead in order to start up the war. Ted Kennedy said the war was cooked up in Crawford, TX, also implying that the President was willing to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers for his own ends. Prior to those two, Al Gore suggested Bush had “digital brownshirts” working for him to support what he deemed a reckless war and said that the administration supported torture of detainees. And that’s just off the top of my head.
Point being, a lot of really, really hateful things said about Bush and about Republicans in general that in my opinion, rise to the same level as trying to insinuate that a person is as terrible as Hitler was to the Jews. Why no outrage about that? Why is the actual use of the Hitler comparison somehow sooo much worse than all those things?
If we’re going to be outraged, then by all means, lets be outraged and contemptuous of ALL over-the-top rhetoric.
Let me clarify that what I mean is that they attempt to substantiate the comparison. I have not heard any of those gentlemen discuss the healthcare issue by way of comparison with Nazi Germany’s healthcare system.
So when Limbaugh said that Obama’s health care reform symbol was “right out of Adolf Hitler’s playbook” he was making a substantive argument on the merits? Please. He was being purposely provocative and sensationalist. And slimy. Again, if you can point me to an actual detailed study of health care in Nazi Germany as compared with the proposed plan and explain to me why it is an apt comparison, I will be happy to listen.
That is not ALL you’ve heard, obviously. Because you have also heard the comparisons to Nazi Germany. I have no problem with comparisons and studies to Canada or England or whatever, even though those are not entirely on the mark either.
And, point of order. The fact that something was instituted by an evil regime does not make the policy in and of itself evil.
Assume you live in a world before Heller. You live in State X that had incredible restrictions on gun ownership. You had to be twenty years old to own a gun. All ammunition and guns had to be registered. Certain classes were exempt from registration laws, but not many. You had to apply for a new gun permit every year.
Now, say your governor proposed a law which:
Dropped the minimum age to 18;
Increased the life of a valid permit to 3 years;
Deregulated ammunition, rifles and shotguns;
Greatly expanded the number of classes of people exempt from handgun registration.
My bet is that you would not run around comparing that policy to the Nazi’s 1938 Weapons law. You may not think it is enough, but my guess you would not spit on it and start claiming we are on the same road as Nazi Germany.
I don’t think it was slimy at all. Did Hitler not have a technique or an approach to how he attempted to influence the masses? Why is it out-of-bounds to say that Obama looks as if he is copying those techniques? “Slimy” is your reaction to it but I didn’t see a single “slimy” thing in it at all. Whether the comparison is apt is another question. Rush has also made comparisons between Obama and FDR on a similar note. So what?
I’m not following why the focus is on Hitler and the healthcare issue? Is that somehow the only legitimate comparison? Last I checked, Obama was the president, a leader of a country, and Obama has a philosophy, tactics, and so on. So was Hitler. Some folks are saying they see similarities. Why are those not fair comparisons?
Of course it’s not all I’ve heard and I never said it was. I am saying it is the vast MAJORITY of what I heard with respect to the healthcare issue. When I talk with other Conservatives about the proposed healthcare reform legislation, when I visit Conservative web sites where that issue is being discussed, when I listen to Talk Radio on the topic, 95% of the comparisons used to show the wrongheaded nature of Obama’s proposed healthcare reform use Canada and the UK as examples, not the Nazi’s healthcare system.
The comparisons to Hitler that I’ve heard have been about Obama’s technique at “crowd control” (his use of oratory and large crowds) and so forth. They have not been comparisons relating to healthcare.
And of course I get the too-obvious-to-mention point that just because (evil) Guy “A” did “X” and Guy “B” does “X” does not absolutely mean that Guy B is on the road to all that (evil) Guy A became. It’s possible they are doing similar things but headed toward totally different outcomes. No brainer there.
In fact, I’m not making the Hitler comparison at all!!
I’m just saying that to outright say, “It’s ‘disgusting’ to make a comparison between Hitler and Obama” isn’t intellectually fair.
My position is to go ahead and make the comparison and judge the effort. If it is facile and weak, well then the attempt to show similarities fails and the attempt is exposed for the fraud that it is. And there are folks who feel that they can show a number of similarities between Obama and Hitler such that they think they have a real cause to be concerned Obama might partake of some of Hitler’s approach as his term unfolds. Fair enough. But it’s to the point now where someone says, “Obama” and “Hitler” and there is an immediate chorus of “You can’t do that!!” And, given the reaction, as a debate tactic, it’s probably wise to concede and let the comparison go if there is that much heat around it.
Personally, I don’t make that comparison. I see Obama as much, much closer to FDR, whose policies I think were debilitating (ultimately) to the “American experiment.” In my mind, that’s a much more telling similarity because Obama seems to borrowing a great deal out of FDR’s “playbook.”
I agree. So what. But you know that is not even in the same league as saying someone is like Hitler. That is a carefully chosen comparison meant to cause a visceral reaction. And it is absolutely slimy when he makes up some contrived comparison of a stupid symbol Obama uses on a freaking web page to a Nazi Insignia, and does it for one reason only: So he can have any sort of justification to throw out the word “Hitler!” and watch his rabid little base get all frothy.
Yeah. Atheling pointed out these “comparisons” which she surely cut and pasted from some chain email she got, a page ago. You can read my comments to them there or just skip below to find my comments in general.
And you think giving a good speech and drawing a large crowd are legitimate bases of comparison?
The only thing this is about is simply glomming on to any irrelevant, superficial and/or pitifully thin comparison between the two men to provide some justification for invoking Hitler’s name, and thus associating Obama with the horrible atrocities of that regime. It is NOT about any serious sort of debate on the merits.
Well then, can I change my party affiliation and speak for the Democrat party? No. Just as Limbaugh and Coulter don’t speak for Republicans or even conservatives. They’re pundits. That’s all, not spokespersons.
Just look at the DNC distance itself from LaRouche. Does he speak for the DNC?
It does make a difference.
It is to do so and then not provide any sort of actual justification for it. Or to invoke purposely superficial comparisons just so you can try to equate the two men in any way.
One more run at the mouth and I’ll stop going on so much about it but I think I have a better way to put it. To me, it’s analoguous to the argument about “support the troops but not the war.”
I’m one of the troops (a reservist, though) and I have to say I can totally see how someone can hold that position. On that score, I have no end of grief from my Conservative friends. But their argument makes NO SENSE to me.
Of COURSE you can support someone but not a specific action they take! I supported George Bush, but hated his spending and his softness (as I see it) on illegal immigration. I supported him in that I voted for him twice, thought well of him, wished the best for him and his family, and generally spoke well of him to others, but I totally disagreed with those things mentioned.
So, contrary to a lot of Conservatives, I absolutely can see how you can support the troops (send cookies, wish them safety, wish them happiness and be proud of their service in general) but also feel they should be disengaged from Iraq.
I know it seems tenuous, but I see a similarity with the Obama/Hitler discussion. You want to make a comparison between the two with a goal of showing, ultimately, their similarities? Go for it! Whether your argument is successful remains to be seen. But, JUST TO MAKE THE ATTEMPT IS NOT IN ITSELF WRONG. That, in a nutshell, is all I’m saying.
However they, and especially Limbaugh, knows he is one of the most powerful and influential voices on the right. Name someone more powerful. There is not even anything close to a Rush Limbaugh on the left in terms of power and influence until you start getting into elected officials in the Democratic Party (except maybe Bill Clinton, but when he calls someone a Nazi or Hitler, you can get back to me). So in that sense, Limbaugh does deserve to be compared with elected officials. And I would argue he is more powerful than 90% of them.
My basic point is that it is not accurate to compare the potential damage of a bunch of geeks on DU or Kos posting on a message board to Limbaugh saying the same thing. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a right to say it. But his right doesn’t make his actions any less damaging or contemptible.
I’d say over 20 million listeners is a lot more than “a little base”. Sounds like you have issues with Limbaugh beyond this topic. Love him or hate him, he is the greatest radio phenomenon to date.
But anyways, it’s NOT just the “speaking”, it’s the whole theatre of Obama that was compared. The greek columns (insert a huge “what the??” here) and the symbols (which, some are saying are very similar. I haven’t looked at comparisons of those side-by-side so I don’t know) and so on.
I have seen lists like that in this thread where someone notes things that Hitler’s regime did and what Obama proposes, and frankly, I find some of them spot on. Big whoop. I don’t think Obama is purposefully mimicking Hitler at all. I think he is doing a number of things that the “Left” in general has done in the past and some of those are what Hitler’s regime did as well.
And I have also seen for over 8 years, people evoke all KINDS of associations about George Bush and Republicans in general to evoke reactions in people and those associations have been EVERY FREAKIN’ BIT AS HATEFUL as what you suggest here about Obama and I haven’t heard a DAMN official Democrat or pundit decry those. So, even if we find someone purposefully sliming Obama with the comparison, why exactly are we supposed to be uniquely upset about that?
And finally, lest it be forgotten in all the yakking, Conservatives weren’t the first to bring up the Hitler comparisons. Al Gore was quick to bring it up years ago and the Left continued it relentlessly for the 8 years of Bush’s administration. I certainly don’t remember any “Clinton is like Hitler” arguments…
My basic counterpoint would be that they can be JUST AS powerful in the aggregate as Rush is by himself. Just because you can’t point to a single person as popular and influential on the Left (not even poor Jon Stewart) doesn’t mean that as a whole, the collective voice of HuffPo, Kos, DU, endless comedians, movies, movie stars, television show hosts and academia don’t wield an influence at LEAST as powerful (if not more so) than Limbaugh.
I’m trying to recall a major Bush initiative that was at best being significantly distracted from and at worst in danger of being totally derailed, by KosKidz calling Bush Hitler.
It’s been fun. I have to run. I left something on in my car and now the battery is dead. Sigh.
Again, it doesn’t HAVE TO BE HITLER. Why are you limiting the vilification to just Hitler? How about the Iraq war as a major initiative that was ’significantly distracted’ by the Moveon, Kos, DU, HuffPo, et al ranting about “atrocities” and “war crimes” that never happened?
You have utterly lost me on the requirement that the word Hitler has to be involved somehow in order for it to warrant condemnation. I would think charging that the President was a murderer and torturer were pretty hateful in themselves would be enough.
I am focusing on Hitler/Nazi etc…because that is what the thread is about. And I think it is particularly offensive.
Wait…how again was the Iraq War thwarted? Aren’t we STILL there? Was any appropriation bill for military spending ever not passed with exactly how much the White House asked for?
There’s two likely reasons for continued Jewish support of the Democratic Party: 1) party loyalty runs deep in families 2) some Jews are leftists; as anti-Israel as some leftists are anti-American. But hey, I guess you know everything.
And yet, gun registration remained the law of the land, with manufacturers & dealers having to keep records on who bought the guns and the serial numbers of the guns. Sounds really like a pro-gun stance to me.
And if they weren’t perfect Aryans, policies of abortion and eugenics were readily employed on everybody else. Your comparisons of pro-lifers to Nazis is flimsy, for pro-lifers (like me) don’t support abortion or eugenics. Human life is something we value greatly.
Nazis have more in common with leftists; in fact, they are leftists.
So you are saying that they aren’t smart enough to put heir own self interests ahead of some nebulous concept of “party loyalty”? You don’t think much of Jewish people, do you? Or at least not their capacity for rational thought.
Well, they were clearly more anti-gun control than the previous regime, weren’t they? Just like Bush was more anti gun control than Clinton. That means…BUSH IS LIKE HITLER!!!
Exactly. You think the state should control it… JUST LIKE HITLER!!!! Never mind that your basis for doing so are entirely different. I will glom onto a superficial comparison and use that to demonize you.
See what I did there?
See how easy, and ultimately shallow, all these stupid Hitler references are?
I simply stated a likely reason for so many Jews to still support the Democrat Party. Party loyalty is something that’s been around for a long time and transcends ethnicities and races.
Well, they were clearly more anti-gun control than the previous regime, weren’t they? Just like Bush was more anti gun control than Clinton. That means…BUSH IS LIKE HITLER!!!
See what I did there?
See how easy, and ultimately shallow, all these stupid Hitler references are?
So what are the traditional party loyalties for white people?
It’s almost like you are thiiiiiiiis close to getting my point. It is just within your reach like a feather floating in the sky, and then -BAM!!!- you trip and fall on your face and the feather floats away on the breeze.
Depends on the families; can be Democrat or Republican.
I got your point the second you brought it up, but I wonder if you got my point on the irrelevancy of it, and on the fact that Nazis and leftists are one and the same.
No no. Don’t back off now. You say that Jews have traditional political loyalties. And, I’ll bet you would say the same of blacks or Latinos. Why not whites as a race? Are whites just better able to think for themselves?
This:
clearly indicates you didn’t.
How many Jews have supported the Democrats over the Republicans? How many blacks and Hispanics have supported the Democrats over the Republicans? The answer is a clear majority on all counts. The Democrats have done a good job in the past of projecting the image of themselves as the party of minorities.
As for party loyalty, it has in the past depended on families, regardless of race or ethnicity, and it still does with particular families.
Wrong. You do not get it.
Wow. I will never catch up with this thread, but I will just throw in my two cents and leave.
Barney Frank is right. I didn’t like the Bush is Hitler nonsense and I don’t like this either.
I don’t care what party the lady hailed from. She was wrong and Frank was right.
OK see you guys.
In addition. Anyone that reports this and tries to give the impression this woman is representive of Republicans as a whole is wrong also.
There. That should cover all my bases.
And I guess the poor dumb minorities are too thick to see through the obvious ruse?
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I probably get the point I myself was trying to make.
Goodnight. Don’t let the brownshirts bite.
I don’t blame them for falling into the trap, but I blame them for not seeing the truth about the party they have supported over the years, and that goes for the white people that have supported the Democrats blindly as well.
That’s a given, but I also got your point, too; it’s irrelevant to me.
You, too. And don’t let the purpleshirts bite.
I know people who actually think of public assistance as “free stuff from the government.” They will never work to better themselves, so they will never repay that assistance through taxes. They believe that the rich should pay more, mostly so they can get more without having to work for it. They would vote for Osama bin Laden if he promised to double their benefits. Needless to say, they voted for Obama.
And they’re not minorities.