Wow...I had no idea...My views are his on the subject...he nailed it.



http://patsajak.com/news.php?view=says

Arguing with Liberals, and Why I've Stopped

Every time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.

Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with on of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler”. Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.

Aside from being rhetorically hysterical—and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis—it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.

The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative—one of the bad guys—complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they—being the good guys—will decide exactly what that is.)

Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American, who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it’s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point).

When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.

In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.

The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.

Yeah that's great advice, I still sucumb from time to time, but really got to learn to let it go :D

Good post, dmp, and right on the money.

(Liberals could, with grounds, say there are fanatics on the right and you can't argue with them. True. Some people believe God gave them the one true way, others believe they have adopted it.)

And just for reference:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Godwin's law (also Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

Hmm, I notice the Michael Moore thread is currently right beneath this one. Maybe I should wander in there and ...


Nah.

All generalizations are false.

(subtle irony)

That's what Hitler would say.

LOL @ Olds and 916 :D

the term liberal is compelling to me. because a loose interpretation would yield that republicans and democrats are both liberal in their current policies. There really is no longer a conservative party, a party that thinks government intervention is bad, and that you lower taxes and cut government fluff. I just find all this liberal name calling from the so called right a little contrived. Heres to true conservatism.

can of worms

Which is why, as soon as Jeopardy is over, I immediately switch channels; Wheel of Fortune is the favorite show of redneck rubes.

I won't even get into how Pat and Vanna are a thinly veiled metaphor for the conservative paradigm of male superiority and female subserviency. :p

Wow...I had no idea...My views are his on the subject...he nailed it.

right on dmp, thanks for sharing

Which is why, as soon as Jeopardy is over, I immediately switch channels; Wheel of Fortune is the favorite show of redneck rubes.

I won't even get into how Pat and Vanna are a thinly veiled metaphor for the conservative paradigm of male superiority and female subserviency. :p

sajak is pretty short though, and the paradigm of male superiority usually involves a tall man. But when he walks around the contestants he is on a raised platform

the term liberal is compelling to me. because a loose interpretation would yield that republicans and democrats are both liberal in their current policies.



You are correct - there are liberals of both political parties...

You are correct - there are liberals of both political parties...
i believe though that the general argument is polar around republican and democrat...which is what gets me involved coz i hate both :)

well if it isnt the kettle calling the pot black

Which is why, as soon as Jeopardy is over, I immediately switch channels; Wheel of Fortune is the favorite show of redneck rubes.

I won't even get into how Pat and Vanna are a thinly veiled metaphor for the conservative paradigm of male superiority and female subserviency. :p


no issues there?! :D

i believe though that the general argument is polar around republican and democrat...which is what gets me involved coz i hate both :)

Why do you have so much 'hate'? I don't hate anyone, much as I can tell. I know good honest people on both sides of issues...or any side of a particular issue.

Why do you have so much 'hate'? I don't hate anyone, much as I can tell. I know good honest people on both sides of issues...or any side of a particular issue.

hate is not the correct term, i also really dont hate any people. but i kinda feel frustrated by both of the 'main' political idealogies today and how some (not all)people adopt the side's viewpoint instead of agreeing with some points and disagreeing with others.

I dont see how one can be "completely" republican or "competely" democrat... a country with complex issues like the US needs a little of both

hate is not the correct term, i also really dont hate any people. but i kinda feel frustrated by both of the 'main' political idealogies today and how some (not all)people adopt the side's viewpoint instead of agreeing with some points and disagreeing with others.


Not every Republican agrees with Everything a republican politician does. It's not about 100% agreement, it's about aligning one's self to a set of philosophical ideas...for me, 'republicans' share my views on around Free-Market, Less Government, and Personal Responsibility

Not every Republican agrees with Everything a republican politician does. It's not about 100% agreement, it's about aligning one's self to a set of philosophical ideas...for me, 'republicans' share my views on around Free-Market, Less Government, and Personal Responsibility

If that's true, then why do you seem to support GWB? (Feel free to correc t me if you don't)

He has overseen the largest increase in (non-defense) spending in history! Far more than his "big government" Democratic predecessor. (I could find the stats for you, if you want).

Bush vetoed exactly ZERO bills during his first term. I haven't been keeping track, but I assume he has the same record so far in his second.

The Republicans have control of both houses of Congress, as well as the White House, so they have absolutely no excuse for their reckless spending.



Face it - the days of "less government" in the Republican party are over. They are now "tax and spend" Republicans who love big government.

i find myself to be a registered republican who has trouble voting for republicans these days because so few actually are conservative anymore so umm sry jsh, yay libertarians :).

Yeah why doesn't everyone just drop the republican and democrat sides of everything and argue the ISSUES instead.

Face it - the days of "less government" in the Republican party are over. They are now "tax and spend" Republicans who love big government.No, you give them far too much credit. They are the party of "borrow and spend." They don't even have the honesty or courage to raise the tax revenue necessary to fund their spending.

You are correct - there are liberals of both political parties...
Well, there used to be. In recent years...not so much. Rudy's about the only one left (no pun intended) and he's running faster to the right than Hillary.

The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.


Yeah, I've found myself having fewer political discussions as well. I kinda come from the other side, though. The conversations always devolve into "Liberals always do this" or that. I'm sure there are hysterical Liberals out there, but one need only turn on the news to see an example of someone doing the same thing from the right. Maybe we're all getting tired of the bickering and we should stop before we make some wierd circular, self-referential generalization about talking politics with game show hosts.

Besides, the weather is getting better - more fun to talk about.

(that reminds me - time to change back to my summer avatar)

Which is why, as soon as Jeopardy is over, I immediately switch channels; Wheel of Fortune is the favorite show of redneck rubes.


Excuse me. We prefer "necks of color."

Seriously, now. Pat Sajak? A game show host? Now I realize that pointing this out will only lead to charges of being condescending toward the right...but really, is a game show host the best representative of a thinking "conservative?"

As to the content of his tirade, read on...

"Every time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say."

Perhaps Pat's upbringing is the source of his authoritarian viewpoint.

"Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with on of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler”. Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.

"Aside from being rhetorically hysterical—and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis—it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony."

Well, let's not ask about Pat's familiarity with Nazism and just assume that his facelifts conceal his age. But the tactic of attributing an absurd statement to an anonymous source and then refuting it in order to smear the attributed viewpoint of the anonymous source is a well known tactic of Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. O'Reilly, and Mr. Hannity, and Peggy Noonan (most recently in the WSJ) among others. It isn't argument; it's theatrics.

Personally, I've never heard anyone compare Justice Scalia to Adolph Hitler, even in the secret meetings of liberals where we plan how the major networks will cover the news. In fact, the only such comparison I've ever heard or read comes from Mr. Sajak.

I promise, however, if I ever hear such a comparison that I will rise up in righteous indignation and point out the absurdity of such a statement.

"The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative—one of the bad guys—complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they—being the good guys—will decide exactly what that is.)"

Again, Mr. Sajak manages, not very well, to treat a wide range of opinion on the left as if there were a single viewpoint. In fact, many liberals, myself included, find themselves strongly opposed to "hate speech" legislation of various sorts.

And if there is a difference between liberals and conservatives on this point, it appears to be that conservatives are far more willing than liberals, not just to condemn speech with which they disagree but to favor legislation that eliminates such speech. (That is not always the case, since some conservatives are content (as many liberals are) to condemn the content of expression without trying to eliminate that expression. However, on balance, it appears that the willingness to tell people to "watch what they say," as the Presidential Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, did after 9/11, is far more common on the right than on the left.

"Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American, who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it’s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point)."

Once again, Mr. Sajak misses an important distinction while again incorrectly characterizing "liberals" as having a single viewpoint. Professor Churchill is a teacher whose writings are protected under the umbrella of academic freedom as long as he is expressing a point of view related to his area of expertise. I personally don't know enough about the Churchill case to judge. However, lifting a comment out of context is not sufficient to fire a tenured professor...at least not since the time of Joe McCarthy.

Dr. Summers is the President of Harvard, an administrator, whose utterances are to be judged according to the benefit they produce for Harvard University. It happens that Dr. Summers is also a professor at Harvard and no one has suggested he should lose his jobas a professor for stating his opinion.

"When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective."

Mr. Sajak now equates "legislation" with "excesses" without citing a single concrete example of either. I'm not sure what "excesses" he has in mind, but if he'd like to compare the "legislative excess" of the right and left, perhaps we should start with the Schiavo case and then move on to efforts to obliterate the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches.

"In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt."

Again with the conversation with an anonymous source. But let's take Mr. Sajak at his word. His friend's comments aren't all that incindiary despite Mr. Sajak's characterization.

Note that his friend did NOT say that those in rural areas who stay at home, watch TV, and have no experience with other cultures shouldn't be allowed to vote. On the other hand, there is massive evidence of official efforts to discourage minorities and the poor from voting by Republicans throughout the country, often justified on the basis that such people aren't capable of understanding the issues.

"The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather."

I don't doubt that Mr. Sajak has "fewer political discussions" these days. I suspect, however, that it may be because his "friends" have concluded that his perspective is so utterly simplistic that having a conversation with him is a worthless exercise.

If a Conservative—one of the bad guys—complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality.

Interesting, as Tipper Gore was the one who started all the talk on this and is responsible for the "parental advisory" stickers you see on CDs.

As far as Ward Churchill, he's a little nuts. The guy has a long memory and is not really a big fan of white folks after what we've done to his people. If you're interested in reading some of stuff that got him in trouble you can see them here:


http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

I'm all for holding him accountable for what he has said. But there is a big difference between the crazy native american professor and the president of a university. It's like the difference between the President of the United States and Jesse Helms. Helms can say some crazy stuff and he gets into a little bit of trouble. But the president has to be diplomatic, he can't get away with the things that Helms can say. The same is true for the president of a univeristy. He has politics related to his post because he's so visible.

As far as comparing things to hitler, the last person I saw doing that was peggy noonan.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

check out the last few paragraphs.


The fact is there are people who won't listen on all sides. There are people who call all republicans stupid hicks. There are people who call all democrats elite snobs. Look at the political discussions we've had on this board. There are reasonable people, and there are unreasonable people.


From my experience the biggest criticism I would have of republicans is that they believe things because they seem to make sense, not because they're true.


For instance, the death penalty reduces crime because people are afraid of dying so they don't commit crimes. Which seems like it makes sense. But in reality the death penalty does nothing to deter crime. If anything it seems to increase crime a small amount.


Or that the death penalty is cheaper then life in prison. It seems like it makes sense, you only have to pay the electricity bill. But in reality the death penalty costs far more then life in prison. Normally a good 1 million dollars more per person executed.

Seriously, now. Pat Sajak? A game show host? Now I realize that pointing this out will only lead to charges of being condescending toward the right...but really, is a game show host the best representative of a thinking "conservative?"
Straw man argument.


Well, let's not ask about Pat's familiarity with Nazism
Psst. You just did.

Personally, I've never heard anyone compare Justice Scalia to Adolph Hitler, even in the secret meetings of liberals where we plan how the major networks will cover the news. In fact, the only such comparison I've ever heard or read comes from Mr. Sajak.
Geez, it's just too easy:

"Hitler had done exactly what Scalia is recommending (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/12/revisionist_his_1.html) - he merged church and state."

(Bonus feature: Clarence Thomas:)
"I wouldn't call Mr. Thomas an Uncle Tom. He's not just accomadating; he's a Nazi dressed for a minstrel show." (http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/mar/article062.html)

I promise, however, if I ever hear such a comparison that I will rise up in righteous indignation and point out the absurdity of such a statement.
Those websites have email.

Let us know what you tell them.

...

As far as comparing things to hitler, the last person I saw doing that was peggy noonan.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

check out the last few paragraphs...


From my experience the biggest criticism I would have of republicans is that they believe things because they seem to make sense, not because they're true....

Thanks for the Noonan citation. It's among the more asinine pieces of drivel, other than the ravings of Tom DeLay that has appeared on the Schiavo case. To assert that those who believe Mr. Schiavo should be accorded the right to carry out his wife's wishes are paving the way to the Holocaust goes far beyond insulting. And unlike Mr. Sajak's anonymous friend, this comes from a former Bush advisor and speech writer.

As to the second point, the term I think is an unquestioning reliance on "conventional wisdom," belief that not only does not rely on empirical evidence but is immune from its impact.

you guys should write to Pat and 'school him'

lol :)

you guys should write to Pat and 'school him'


Sure, post his email and I'll send him something. But the main reason I responded was because you said that you share his views on the subject.


Now I'm interested, am I one of these unreasonable people in your eyes?

...

"That last photo should be the most problematic for Scalia, because Hitler had done exactly what Scalia is recommending (http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/12/revisionist_his_1.html) - he merged church and state." Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but Professor Leiter certainly did not say that "Scalia is worse than Hitler." Nor did he compare Hitler to Scalia except in the limited sense that each apparently showed contempt for the separation of church and state. Nor was the comparison inappropriate since it was Scalia who contended that, ""Did it turn out that by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America?" He then answered himself, saying, "I don't think so.""

Actually, the article you cite is not Professor Leiter's. It's a portion of an article from Thom Hartmann (cited in the Leiter website) that does a fairly thorough job of demolishing Scalia's "argument" since the Jews were not protected by separation of church and state in Germany.

And again, Mr. Hartmann did not contend that Scalia was a Nazi or worse than a Nazi. He did note, quite reasonably, it appears, that the policy of eliminating the separation of church and state was a policy followed by the Nazis and explicitly favored by Justice Scalia. (He might also have noted that it was a policy favored by the Mullahs in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The fact that he didn't was probably because Justice Scalia had raised the issue of the Holocaust in his remarks.)

(Bonus feature: Clarence Thomas:)
"I wouldn't call Mr. Thomas an Uncle Tom. He's not just accomadating; he's a Nazi dressed for a minstrel show." (http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/mar/article062.html)
Not familiar with Mr. Gelbart nor his website "useless-knowledge.com." I'd have to say that the content of his critique of Thomas' judicial reasoning is pretty much right on. His characterization of Thomas as a Nazi, however, is not one I would make, nor do I think it's accurate.

Justice Thomas' opinions are far out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence and, as the website notes, are even more extreme than Scalia's. (There are, however, few instances where they differ since Thomas seldom writes opinions, ask questions, or votes differently from Scalia.)

If and when the SC gets around to ruling definitively on the Bush administration's efforts to eliminate the Bill of Rights for American citizens detained without charge in the "War on Terror," I may reconsider whether to compare Mr. Thomas explicitly to a Nazi. Time will tell.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but Professor Leiter certainly did not say that "Scalia is worse than Hitler." Nor did he compare Hitler to Scalia except in the limited sense ... He did note, quite reasonably, it appears, that the policy of eliminating the separation of church and state was a policy followed by the Nazis and explicitly favored by Justice Scalia. ... Not familiar with Mr. Gelbart ... I'd have to say that the content of his critique of Thomas' judicial reasoning is pretty much right on. His characterization of Thomas as a Nazi, however, is not one I would make, nor do I think it's accurate.


Let's see a show of hands, gang. How many knew in advance that this rising up in righteous indignation would never get off the ground?

Let's see a show of hands, gang. How many knew in advance that this rising up in righteous indignation would never get off the ground?I will readily admit that I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but it certainly is clear that, once again, you are not making any intellectual honest effort to refute the quoted statements.

Let's see a show of hands, gang. How many knew in advance that this rising up in righteous indignation would never get off the ground? The context in which Mr. Gelbart compared Justice Thomas to a Nazi was as follows.

"(Thomas) thought that a death row inmate shouldn't get a hearing on whether a prosecuter's exclusion of ten out of eleven blacks from a jury denied the man a fair trial. Even Scalia voted that the man should get a hearing. The Dallas, Texas prosecutor--when excluding the potential black jurors--was using a 1963 manual that stated, "Do not take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans, or a member of any minority on a jury, no matter how rich, or well- educated." I wouldn't call Mr. Thomas an Uncle Tom. He's not just accomadating (sic); he's a Nazi dressed for a minstrel show."

Tell you what, bud. How about the following as a comment to Mr. Gelbart.

Mr. Gelbart,

After reading your commentary regarding Justice Thomas on your website (3/4/05), I feel I should express my feeling that your characterization of Justice Thomas as a "Nazi dressed for a minstrel show" was uncalled for.

I can understand your indignation over Justice Thomas' opinion in the case cited. I agree that the exclusion of minority jurors from the case should be sufficient grounds for an appeal as the Court has found in other cases. Further, the fact that the Dallas prosecutor was apparently following guidelines for jury selection that explicitly called for elimination of minorities from juries raises the issue to one of policy in the prosecutor's office.

Having said that, however, I feel you should have taken into account other explanations for Justice Thomas views. For example, it is entirely possible that he is simply a bigot, not a Nazi. It is also possible that his understanding of Federal jurisprudence in this area is so underdeveloped that he is unaware of the precedents in this area. Finally, it is possible that his understanding of the concept of Federalism leads him to believe that no level of misbehavior on the part of a prosecutor calls for intervention by a Federal Court.

I realize, of course, that the last explanation begs the question of whether Justice Thomas has ever read the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and raises questons about his vote in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case. However, it is quite possible that Justice Thomas simply doesn't understand the law rather than that he is a Nazi in a minstrel show.


Now, having said that, I'd be interested in hearing how you would respond to Peggy Noonan's commentary in the Wall Street Journal, a periodical with somewhat greater circulation and influence than "useless-knowledge.com" from a former Bush advisor with somewhat greater influence and credential as a commentator than Mr. Gelbart, an internet blogger.

In lambasting those who believe Mr. Schiavo should have the right to carry out his wife's wishes as he maintains they were expressed to him, Ms. Noonan says in part...

"When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla."

Feel free to read her complete article, cited in a post above, and let us know how a conservative would respond to a claim that we're on the road to Auschwitz by following the decisions of judges in both the State of Florida and the Federal system. The WSJ website, by the way, provides the opportunity for you to express your own indignation, assuming you feel such indignation.

I will readily admit that I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but it certainly is clear that ...

Arguing with Liberals, and Why I Have Stopped
Statements like that, for one -- I don't understand, but I understand perfectly.

once again, you are not making any intellectual honest effort to refute the quoted statements.

Because intelligent people understand that promiscous comparisons of people to Hitler/Nazis are too absurd to respond to.

Oh, I could go into specifics, such as comparing Scalia's take on religious values in government with Hitler. The Third Reich didn't want to promote Christianity -- it wanted to subvert and replace it with a form of Teutonic neo-paganistic mysticism. An analogous argument would be comparing people who oppose religion in schools to Stalin.

But mainly, there is no reason to respond to the smoke jsh1120 is blowing -- he is just covering up his acceptance of Nazi/Hitler/minstrel smears. I knew beforehand that he would not condemn them: In the very same post he said "Well, let's not ask about Pat's familiarity with Nazism" (with all the snide implications that involves) and "I promise, however, if I ever hear such a comparison that I will rise up in righteous indignation and point out the absurdity of such a statement." Which means he should have been rising up against his own post.

Screw it. I'd like to buy a vowel, Pat.

Buying a vowel is the perfect metaphor for corporate greedheads who want to exert a monopoly on our communications technology and refuse to admit that information wants to be free.

(I'm joking, but I probably just launched someone's thesis.)

...
Oh, I could go into specifics, such as comparing Scalia's take on religious values in government with Hitler. The Third Reich didn't want to promote Christianity -- it wanted to subvert and replace it with a form of Teutonic neo-paganistic mysticism. An analogous argument would be comparing people who oppose religion in schools to Stalin.

But mainly, there is no reason to respond to the smoke jsh1120 is blowing -- he is just covering up his acceptance of Nazi/Hitler/minstrel smears. I knew beforehand that he would not condemn them: In the very same post he said "Well, let's not ask about Pat's familiarity with Nazism" (with all the snide implications that involves) and "I promise, however, if I ever hear such a comparison that I will rise up in righteous indignation and point out the absurdity of such a statement." Which means he should have been rising up against his own post.Sorry, friend. I guess my comment was a bit subtle for you. What I said was...

"Well, let's not ask about Pat's familiarity with Nazism and just assume that his facelifts conceal his age."

My reference was to Mr. Sajak's age, not his political views, as I assumed would be obvious if one read the entire sentence. In fact, Mr. Sajak was born in Chicago, Illinois on October 26, 1946, thus limiting his personal experience with Nazism.

Next time I'll try to spell it out for you in more detail since, apparently, what I thought was a fairly obvious meaning was a bit much for you.

As far as Mr. Scalia is concerned, neither of the websites you cited claim that Mr. Scalia is either a Nazi or that he favors the same policy goals as Hitler. What the websites do say is that Justice Scalia's notion that the separation of church and state was no barrier to religious persecution in Germany was historically incorrect since the Nazis eliminated that separation when they came to power.

Further, the argument presented in the article from which you extracted a line out of context, much as you did with mine, maintains that eliminating the separation of church and state provides a lever for the state to define the content of religious belief, opening the door to the sort of perversion of Christian belief that occurred in Germany.

Again, the argument appears to be somewhat too complex for you to grasp.

It bears noting in this context that in the cited article Justice Scalia's views are compared to a rather extensive collection of perspectives of other American political thinkers including, most notably, James Madison, the principal architect of the Constitution and the most significant proponent of the separation of church and state.

Mr. Hartmann's entire article, cited in the article you took out of context, is worth reading; not because it paints Justice Scalia as a proto-Nazi, but because it lays out rather well the extent to which his thinking departs from the "original intent" of the Founders, a principle to which Justice Scalia so often pays homage.

As a liberal, who am I with Pat to vie? A bowel, he (it seems to me).

some (not all)people adopt the side's viewpoint instead of agreeing with some points and disagreeing with others.

Do you remember... nah, you're a young 'un... there was this great Amiga game called "Lemmings." It was such great fun... these cute little yellow buggers would all follow each other around, no matter how dangerous the path... and ya had to try and guide them to safety.

Fun, but frustrating too.

Arguing with liberals, and why I have stopped, Part Deux.
Statements like this:
Personally, I've never heard anyone compare Justice Scalia to Adolph Hitler, even in the secret meetings of liberals where we plan how the major networks will cover the news. In fact, the only such comparison I've ever heard or read comes from Mr. Sajak.
jsh claims that he's never heard such a thing, as if this means it never happens. (And jsh is posting on the internet, where comparing opponents to Nazis/Hitler is as common as l33t 5p34k.). jsh refused to discuss the common tactic of liberal comparing people to Nazis. He's just derailing the discussion.
Examples of the Nazi/Hitler comparison are so common you can find scores of them with a quick google. Like:
Beginning in 1933, there was another regime that made outrageous claims without even a pretense of reality. Based on these odious claims, extremely harsh steps were taken. Draconian cruelty within was followed by naked aggression against the regime’s neighbors. The regime is commonly referred to as the Third Reich. (http://www.hibbingmn.com/placed/index.php?sect_rank=4&story_id=197021) The promised 1000-year reign lasted 12 years, ending in a maelstrom called World War Two. Today, the White House trampled the rights of Michael Schiavo. Tomorrow …?

Then there were the ads submitted to a contest on moveon.org comparing Bush to Hitler. Moveon.org kept them up until word got around. Senator Robert Byrd makes a comparison between the Bush administration and the Third Reich and fascist Italy -- and websites support him with stuff like "Senator Byrd Is Correct To Equate Bush With Hitler." (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0503/S00048.htm) Another one with the title "BUSH AND HITLER: Is History Repeating Itself?" (http://home.comcast.net/~slimyslugs/reichstag_fire_and_september_11.htm) has a cartoon of Hitler and Bush saying the exact same thing. Emerge Magazine ran two covers on Clarence Thomas -- one depicting him as Aunt Jemima, the other showing him as a lawn jockey. Just the tip of the iceberg, here.
And in waltzes a liberal like jsh who claims, I've never seen it, so it never happens. Then they give a 1,000 word analysis of why calling someone a jack-booted thug is not a Nazi comparison but instead involves esoteric issues of cobbler history and chaos theory that our poor little minds just can't comprehend.
If jsh and such liberals would get real, stop practicing denial, and actual address all those Nazi comparisons, we could talk. But instead he makes an empty promise to denounce such rhetoric, then finds excuses not to.
Which is why I have stopped arguing with liberals.
And another reason is stuff like this:
Sorry, friend. I guess my comment was a bit subtle for you. ...Next time I'll try to spell it out for you in more detail since, apparently, what I thought was a fairly obvious meaning was a bit much for you. ...Again, the argument appears to be somewhat too complex for you to grasp. ...
You know what I don't like about that sort of thing? It's just so ... sloppy. Jsh forgot to say "work on your reading comprehension," "get some counseling," "forgot to take your meds?" as well as the 50 demands for "cites" and multiple demands that I read his deathless words again. Sloppy. Perhaps he'll do better next time.

Arguing with liberals, and why I have stopped, Part Deux.Gee, I haven't noticed that you've stopped. Or is "Part Deux" the part where you resume arguing? :p

Gee, I haven't noticed that you've stopped. Or is "Part Deux" the part where you resume arguing? :p

Sorry, friend. I guess my post was a bit subtle for you. ...Next time I'll try to spell it out for you in more detail since, apparently, what I thought was a fairly obvious meaning was a bit much for you. ...Again, the argument appears to be somewhat too complex for you to grasp. ...
My bad, but I couldn't resist.

...
jsh claims that he's never heard such a thing, as if this means it never happens. (And jsh is posting on the internet, where comparing opponents to Nazis/Hitler is as common as l33t 5p34k.). jsh refused to discuss the common tactic of liberal comparing people to Nazis. He's just derailing the discussion.No, I wasn't "derailing the discussion." I was responding specifically to the point made by Mr. Sajak. To wit.

"Personally, I've never heard anyone compare Justice Scalia to Adolph Hitler, even in the secret meetings of liberals where we plan how the major networks will cover the news. In fact, the only such comparison I've ever heard or read comes from Mr. Sajak."

Did I say I've never heard anyone compare anyone to Hitler? Did I say I've never heard anyone compare the tactics of the current administration to those of Nazi Germany? No, I didn't. Did I say it has never happened? No, I didn't. Such a comment would be nonsensical and unverifiable.

What I did say was that to maintain, as Mr. Sajak implied, that silly generalizations like, "Scalia is worse than Hitler," are a common refrain from "liberals" is ridiculous. On the other hand, one can hardly listen to a week of broadcasts from the most influential conservative broadcaster in America without hearing the phrase "feminazis" to describe feminists. Moreover, I cited the opinion of a leading conservative "intellectual," Ms. Peggy Noonan, writing in the most respected "conservative" periodical in the United States, the Wall Street Journal, that the various "leftist" voices raised in support of Michael Schiavo were "paving the way to Auschwitz."

My point was, and is, that while one can undoubtedly find a dunderhead somewhere who makes the outrageous generalization that "Scalia is worse than Hitler," such a view is hardly propagated widely in the established liberal media or subscribed to by liberals generally. On the other hand, offhand remarks and serious conservative opinion apparently has no difficulty in making such sweeping generalizations about "liberals" and those "on the left."

Furthermore, the context in which Mr. Sajak quoted his "friend" suggested that this was the best he could do in terms of having an intelligent discussion with a "liberal." I think it's fair to suggest that claiming that "liberals" are incapable of any greater subtlety in argument than such a comment would suggest says more about those willing to have a conversation with Mr. Sajak than it does about "liberals."

In fact, this exchange appears to illustrate the problem Mr. Sajak claims he has with "liberals."

Efforts to qualify or limit statements are ignored. Sentence fragments are taken out of context as a basis for criticism.

In order to justify sweeping generalizations about "liberals" various websites are cited as authoritative sources of liberal opinion.

And when these and other errors are noted, the poster complains that the response is too "esoteric" to comprehend, demanding that the discussion be simplified.

Further, the only citation that speaks even marginally to the original point, comparing Justice Scalia' views on the separation of church and state to the practices of the Third Reich (which, by the way is distinctly different from claiming that "Scalia is worse than Hitler) actually notes correctly that Justice Scalia's own comparison of the current US political situation to that of Nazi Germany is fundamentally flawed and historically incorrect. (Even the comment that the article calls Justice Scalia "a jack booted thug" is, of course, incorrect and apparently only a fantasy of the poster.)

Fortunately, I wouldn't generalize this experience to all conversations with "conservatives." If I did, I might be inclined to believe that it's worthless to argue with conservatives because they are unable to stick to the original topic, are unable to comprehend complete sentences, (limiting their responses to sentence fragments), and are prone to exaggerated rhetoric (e.g. "jack booted thug") that interfere with reasonable discourse.

Lord Help Me, Sajak, I'm Falling Again ...

Did I say I've never heard anyone compare anyone to Hitler?
Good start.
It's easy for me to believe that a liberal called Justice Scalia "worse than Hitler" because I've seen that sort of rhetoric so often. A quick google search yields tons of similar comparisons, one of them even coming from a Democratic senator.
If your pundits actually wanted to teach valuable lessons about totalitarianism, they could cite the Soviet Union, communist China, Warsaw Pact nations, the Khmer Rouge, etc. But that would involve acknowledging the evils committed by leftist regimes. Instead they keep going back to Hitler and the Nazis, which allows them to present evil as an attribute of right-wing regimes. The Third Reich is history, but Marxism is alive and well and still has many apolgists and supporters.
What I did say was that to maintain, as Mr. Sajak implied, that generalizations like, "Scalia is worse than Hitler," is a common refrain from "liberals" is ridiculous.
Your denial is ridiculous, especially after it has been shown how easy it is to find them.
"Personally, I've never heard anyone compare Justice Scalia to Adolph Hitler ..."
And you still didn't. The woman said "Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler." I guess that post was a bit subtle for you. The argument appears to be somewhat too complex for you to grasp -- and etc.
I cited the opinion of a leading conservative "intellectual," Ms. Peggy Noonan, writing in the most respected "conservative" periodical in the United States, the Wall Street Journal, that the various "leftist" voices raised in support of Michael Schiavo were "paving the way to Auschwitz."
<babblecode> Insert JSH-style denial on how that's not actually comparing anything to Nazis but is actually a recondite analysis of the ethics of transportation technology. </babblecode>

In order to justify sweeping generalizations about "liberals" various websites are cited as authoritative sources of liberal opinion.
Yeah, including moveon.org. What was I thinking?

(Even the comment that the article calls Justice Scalia "a jack booted thug" is, of course, incorrect and apparently only a fantasy of the poster.)
My comment must have been too esoteric to comprehend.

I might be inclined to believe that it's worthless to argue with conservatives because they are unable to stick to the original topic ...
Yo, jsh. You did not start this thread. You cannot pop in on the second page and dictate what the original topic is. You need to rein in that sense of entitlement.

Wow...I had no idea...My views are his on the subject...he nailed it.

Reading the article, I got the impression he'd been lurking on the RX-8 forum! :D

... "Personally, I've never heard anyone compare Justice Scalia to Adolph Hitler ... ...And you still didn't. The woman said "Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler." I guess that post was a bit subtle for you. The argument appears to be somewhat too complex for you to grasp -- and etc....


Yo, jsh. You did not start this thread. You cannot pop in on the second page and dictate what the original topic is. You need to rein in that sense of entitlement. Sorry, this is simply too silly to continue. I finally lost interest when you maintained that saying "Scalia was worse than Hitler" was not a comparison between Scalia and Hitler.

Apparently you operate in a universe in which the English language has meanings that the rest of the world does not comprehend.

You're correct. I did not start this thread. I was under the impression, however, that the "original topic" was Mr. Sajak's diatribe about his inability to have an intelligent conversation with "liberals." That was the topic to which I responded. Apparently, you believe the topic is something else. What that is, I must say, is now a mystery.

What I've seen come from you is so utterly nonsensical that I admit defeat in trying to carry on an intelligent exchange. I don't believe this is true of all conservatives, but I have to say that someone who is unable to discern a comparison in the words "Scalia is worse than Hitler" is simply incapable of carrying on such an exchange.

I was under the impression, however, that the "original topic" was Mr. Sajak's diatribe about his inability to have an intelligent conversation with "liberals."


Quod erat demonstrandum.

SPEAKING OF KICKING ARSE

A Florida man beat the shit out of his girlfriend since she decided to vote for Kerry instead of Bush. This just about sums up the Republican Party...beating up helpless people.

http://www.local10.com/news/4333447/detail.html

the "original topic" was Mr. Sajak's diatribe about his inability to have an intelligent conversation :D

Game, Set and Match to No More Oldsmobiles :D

i worked on Sajak's wife's 740 :D

Aw shucks, thanks khoney.

I'd jump over the net and shake jsh's hand, but I'm sure that would offend some interest group.

I won't even get into how Pat and Vanna are a thinly veiled metaphor for the conservative paradigm of male superiority and female subserviency.

Right out of Militant feminist handbook, volume 3 page 17….LOL, sorry…I could not hold it back…

Seriously, now. Pat Sajak? A game show host? Now I realize that pointing this out will only lead to charges of being condescending toward the right...but really, is a game show host the best representative of a thinking "conservative?"

No one said he was the spokesman; he just spoke up and gave his opinion and no one said he was the best example either??? Your giving it too much value it seems...

You see…what he said is a truth, what some so called “liberals” say about republicans…is also true…it’s never ALWAYS true, but there is a good amount of truth in it for both sides.

That’s why I’m not a republican or democrat while I tend to be closer to a republican than the other. I hope we do have a green party…and then another…we need more choices than just two because the bitter fights aint doing much for our country other than separating us.

My .02

You see…what he said is a truth, what some so called “liberals” say about republicans…is also true…it’s never ALWAYS true, but there is a good amount of truth in it for both sides.

That’s why I’m not a republican or democrat while I tend to be closer to a republican than the other. I hope we do have a green party…and then another…we need more choices than just two because the bitter fights aint doing much for our country other than separating us.

My .02

Pat Sajack is an F-ing loser...he has been on the same damn show for years watching a spinning wheel as idiots answer stupid questions to apease the numb masses

who really gives a flying f-ck what he says or thinks...his brain must be the size of a peanut since it sure isn't expanding at his day job
:cool:

Pat Sajack is an F-ing loser...he has been on the same damn show for years watching a spinning wheel as idiots answer stupid questions to apease the numb masses

who really gives a flying f-ck what he says or thinks...his brain must be the size of a peanut since it sure isn't expanding at his day job

Why so angry...hit a nerve...lol, I"m sorry...I"m not trying to start a fight. That's what you think...opinion noted...

Why so angry...hit a nerve...lol, I"m sorry...I"m not trying to start a fight. That's what you think...opinion noted...

actually I was responding to the whole thread and initial posting of him kicking ass which he really does not accomplish

he's a millionaire. so he's the man in my books. i worked on his car and he gave me a fat tip...so i like him :D

If there was someone as bad as Hitler, and somebody compared that person to Hitler, he would be tacked up on the barn door ;).

I made a Hitler reference today, in fact, on another thread in this forum. But it was not for political gain, but using a historical scenario about reparations and controlled inflation compared to the falling dollar, and how quickly Hitler was able to salvage the German economy afterwards.

But in terms of comparisons to Hitler, why would all of those right wingers I saw compare Saddam to Hitler, or the Shiavo case to Hitler, instead of say, some left wing government. It must be because they wish to demonize the right wing :p.

Now, to me personally, the biggest problem with the article is Pat seems to be unable to think outside of generalizations and stereotypes. Liberals do this and that, can he only see some blended mass of his preconcieved notions instead of individual people?

The left wing has moral superiority? Awesome, so all the moral voters vote liberal, when did the Church come over to our side?

I don't have a problem with Professor Churchill. What he said has been distorted and taken really out of context. The Eichman comment was definately inappropriate in the strength of the association implied between the crimes of our government and the "technocrats of empire" (most everyone in the Twin Towers was not a technocrat of empire) in the Twin Towers, even though he qualified it with "little" and Eichmann wasn't punished for war crimes. However, there was a CIA office in the Towers, so according to how we apply our own military doctorine, the Towers were a military target. His overall point was that we cannot continue to do things like kill 500,000 children in Iraq by starving them through economic sanctions after we destroyed all the factories, which dropped unemployment to 90% so most people had no money and the price of food skyrocketed, and not expect a response from somebody, or feign innocence when our Sec of State called the lives of the 500,000 children "worth the cost" and "necessary collateral damage." His point was violence only begets violence and he quotes Martin Luther King in defense of his position. Terrorists, they don't quote MLK. They think the ends justify the means, not the other way around.

Summers was actually even more correct than Churchill. I have no objection to his statements, as what he said has actually been shown to be true by respected studies he cited.

Liberals want to legislate what you drive and are against free speech? When did these happen? All I thought is they were for cars with better gas milage. What food you can eat is called the FDA, and I didn't know conservatives were against that either. The biggest supporter of limiting political contributions, McCain.

And the second to last paragraph is the best of all. Pat mentions how liberals fail to see the irony of labeling someone a hatespeaker and then comparing them to a mass murderer. I do not fail to see the irony where he found a caricature of right wingers insulting while his whole article is a caricature of liberals. :D

...
But in terms of comparisons to Hitler, why would all of those right wingers I saw compare Saddam to Hitler, or the Shiavo case to Hitler, instead of say, some left wing government. It must be because they wish to demonize the right wing :p. Sorry, buddy. You haven't been keeping up. According to the "No More Oldsmobiles" there were no "comparisons to Hitler," only a statement that "Scalia was worse than Hitler."

It was at that point that the discussion left the realm of reality and drifted completely off to some other universe.

Game, Set and Match to No More Oldsmobiles :D
Thank God. If your level of discernment admitted another outcome I'd be concerned.