Veteran Seattle Post-Intelligencer political columnist Joel Connelly had to go and ruin what for him was actually a fairly decent piece on Montana's bumptious, pork-friendly, but appropriately tough-on-terrorism incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Conrad Burns, who faces a stiff challenge from Dem Jon Tester. Connelly does so by using an old quote (from a 1930s Montana senator worried about FDR's Supreme Court picks) to link Burns, the GOP Congress and President George W. Bush to the alleged growth in the U.S. of something resembling totalitarian fascism, a la Hitler and Mussolini. The quote is:
"It is an easy step from the control of a subservient Congress and the control of a Supreme Court, to a Hitler or a Mussolini."
"Words worth remembering," Connelly sagely advises, in clear reference to his own coverage in the column of Burns' support for Bush on terrorism and national security. Look, Joel, we can all agree to disagree, in a civil manner, about matters such as Iraq and The USA Patriot Act. But when you trot out your trademarked historical pedantry to insinuate that President George W. Bush (with the help of pliant knaves such as Burns) is leading us to a future resembling that of Hitler's Germany or Mussolini's Italy, you reduce yourself to a hamfisted shill for the whack-a-loon Left. Which all too often substitutes passion for reason.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 11, 2006 10:40 AM | Email Thisfunny, he sure enjoys his fancy resort cabin in N. Wisc., a nice teaching job and the ability to say nearly anything about his country & government without "disappearing" as he might in Iran, N. Korea, Cuba or a host of other "enlightened, progressive" African countries. and he does not have cabins there? why not?
for a country that's so hated, it sure makes a comfy base of operations for the likes of him, 'Sheehans' and others.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 11, 2006 11:01 AMCall it the Lite version for accuracy - if it makes you feel better.
Posted by: shrike on October 11, 2006 12:06 PM
BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Yer KILLIN' me!!!
Posted by: BRC on October 11, 2006 12:21 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 11, 2006 12:25 PMGodwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. It is particularly concerned with logical fallacies such as reductio ad Hitlerum, wherein an idea is unduly dismissed or rejected on ground of it being associated with persons generally considered "evil".
The law states:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress
Posted by: JDH on October 11, 2006 12:30 PMConstitution, Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, Independent Judiciary.....i.e., things we have that Germany and Italy did not.
Any of these sound familiar to you, or do you suffer from a public school education?
Posted by: ewaggin on October 11, 2006 01:10 PMIt is the most liberal governing template in history.
That's why you guys are always fighting it (and the ACLU).
Let us see how many liberal concepts you fight (against the ACLU)
1- The Establishment Clause
2- cruel and unusual punishment (torture)
3- due process (black sites are so Bushian)
4- illegal search and seizure
5- government spying without a warrant
6- right of privacy (the foundation of contraception)
7- free press (applies to Larry Flynt to)
That's for starters. Admit it, you righties hate the Constitution b/c us liberals/libertarians get to do what we want without your (gods) consent.
I admit that the Bushies are constrained from full-throttled fascism. But for how long?
Posted by: shrike on October 11, 2006 01:22 PMI'll admit you're a fool and not worthy of an actual, sane discussion.
Posted by: jimg on October 11, 2006 01:56 PMThere's an old saying "When you point at somebody, there are three fingers pointing back at you". Heed it.
Posted by: srodli on October 11, 2006 02:38 PMBut nevertheless, I listed SEVEN principals of the Bill of Rights that conservatives abhor.
I notice that you all avoid a discussion concerning the conservative attack on the Bill of Rights.
Why do you hate the BoR?
By the way - I am contribute to Cato as well as the ACLU. I fully support the Second Amendment as well (the ACLU covers the others since no one else will).
If you cannot discuss the Bill of Rights, then your position is defined by your lack of support thereof.
Posted by: shrike on October 11, 2006 03:02 PMI am a liberal/libertarian. I despise both equally.
But the US Constitution is my holy document.
Posted by: shrike on October 11, 2006 03:15 PMAre you a parody of a leftist? You still haven't acknowledged that Nazism was a Socialist party.
however, i noticed--without exception--that the most vocal U.S. or military haters/dissenters usually are comfortably situated HERE with assets, vacation cabins and other trinkets and property--gained by--and enabled by--guess who?! the very system they profess to hate.
so--until i see these 'dissenters' vote with their feet or money and relocate to Brussels, Ho Chi Minh City or Bakuba, i will take their speech as interesting, but not substantive.
walk the talk. go live in Paris & make your millions THERE if this place is 'so evil.' i respect actions, not someone's soapbox bubbles.
But why quibble about a defeated ideology?
I support the US CONSTITUTION - unlike Bush-type conservatives.
Shaun of the Dead - why do you hate the US Constitution?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1695399/posts
See message # 9.
Posted by: Proudpapa on October 11, 2006 04:20 PMhttp://www.testerforsenate.com/about
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbytopic.asp?topic=National%20news&id=1415
Posted by: proudpapa on October 11, 2006 04:22 PM1- The Establishment Clause
what about the establishment clause is President Bush against, I do not see anywhere where he has tried to establish religion.
2- cruel and unusual punishment (torture)
if you consider interrogating prisoners of war (I am using prisoners of war even though that is not what I consider them.) the same thing as using cruel and unusual punishment then we will have to agree to disagree.
3- due process (black sites are so Bushian)
who's due process has been not allowed by President Bush?
4- illegal search and seizure
again, where has this happened.
5- government spying without a warrant
in time of war it is actually the governments responsibility to spy on the enemy, it as an enemy not citizens or criminals that are being spied on.
6- right of privacy (the foundation of contraception)
This is an opinion, contraception was developed to keep from having babies, not on a right. now if you are referring to abortion as contraception that is pretty bad.
7- free press (applies to Larry Flynt to)
I have no idea who larry flynt is, but are you telling me that blogs like this one and HA aren't allowed to say what they want?
Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from hearing about it, or from having government acknowledge its importance in the lives of its citizens (the 10 Commandments in Alabama, "under God" in the Pledge, etc.). Free press doesn't negate penalties for libel; apparently THE PEOPLE decided it doesn't allow for people like Larry Flynt to pander crotch shots to minors, either. Legal precedents exempting libel, pornography, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and the like from these protections were established in our judicial system long before we started seeing today's "activist judiciary".
Amendment II: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Since you say we have no disagreement on that, I'll not use space on it here.
Amendment III: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." THE PEOPLE, as used in the Constitution, applies to citizens, not aliens originating phone calls from foreign soil, nor to foreign fighters waging war against the United States.
Amendment V: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Did you get that? "EXCEPT IN CASES ARISING IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, OR IN THE MILITIA, WHEN IN ACTUAL SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER". Or are you one of those "Bush bombed the towers for political gain" wackos?
Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." You may shout "Guantanamo" - I'll reply "citizens". And see my comments in Amendment V.
Amendment VII: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Does this make small claims court unconstitutional?
Amendment VIII: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Not only is the "torture" you people whine about better treatment than a prisoner in Mexico receiving due process gets, it's not designed for punishment, but information extraction. As soon as the information is received, the discomfort (only a shrill shill would call it "torture") stops. See my comments under Amendment V.
Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
By the way, did you see the word "privacy" anywhere in the Bill of Rights above? I didn't. The closest I could come is the first clause in Amendment IV. I have a hard time seeing how that gives anyone a right to commit infanticide.
For further elucidation, read the writings of the Founding Fathers. For example, I believe it was Madison who said that every delegate to the constitutional convention had a copy of Blackstone in one hand and a Bible in the other.
If people like you would spend even one-fourth the time focusing on your responsibilities that you spend screaming about your rights... Oh, never mind, why fantasize?
Posted by: sro on October 11, 2006 04:31 PM1- The Establishment Clause
Who in hell has proposed there be a nationally established official religion? No one has. It's a straw man arguement made by the left.
2- cruel and unusual punishment (torture)
Interrogation of enemy combatants is not punishment.
The Geneva Convention explicitly does not apply to irregular comabatants (not in uniform, not openly carrying arms, not reporting to a regular command structure of a state)
3- due process (black sites are so Bushian)
I'm not sure what black sites are. Shouldn't they be called sites of color?
4- illegal search and seizure
Can we have an example, please. Have the feds been to your house lately without a warrant? If you are indeed phoning up Osama in the middle of the night I don't think you should be complaining if we listen in, eh?
5- government spying without a warrant
Spying has never in history needed a warrant. See the 007 films. If you mean spying on US Citizens who are chit chatting with the Taliban, we probably should formally charge them with treason and ask for the death penalty, after due process.
6- right of privacy (the foundation of contraception)
Griswold v Connecticut is half-century old established constitutional precident. I challenge you to find any conservative or GOP member who has advocated reversing it. Now, Roe v. Wade is another matter indeed. But the right of privacy is not the issue, the issue is whether that right applies in the case of killing a third party (the tiny one) without their consent.
7- free press (applies to Larry Flynt to [sic])
It is absolutely, unequivocally true that the supression of ideas in America comes almost exclusively from the left. See campus riots over conservative speakers, so-called hate speech codes, Dems threatening licenses of TV networks showing politically incorrect docudramas, etc.
Ha! That was actually funny. They stole my name!
As far as Hitler being a "self-professed Christian"...surely you know history shows he rejected Christianity, endorsing Paganism, and jailed/executed all clergymen that dissented with his ideology.
ACLU: Founded by communists. Are you a communist, Shrikee?
Posted by: Shaun on October 11, 2006 05:05 PMI will return tommorow as I will join some other MLB fans for the remainder of the night.
My your/my team win! Good luck, gentlemen.
Posted by: shrike on October 11, 2006 05:23 PM"A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore...and PBS newsman Bill Moyers...have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming. Grist Magazine's staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the "bastards" who were members of what he termed the global warming "denial industry."
Check it out at http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568
When the NY Times refused to publish the Mohammed cartoons, it sure wasn't Bush and Rove who were behind it. Nor were they behind the thefts of the entire press runs of campus newspapers which editorialized against hate speech codes. Nor is it they who prevent, by force, those with conservative views from speaking at campus forums. It is the left who does all these things, repeatedly - and then spreads the big lie that it is the right who is a threat to our freedoms.
The fact is the lefties fall into two groups - those who are truly delusional about the state of the world, and those who actually see nothing wrong with censorship of ideas different from their own (for the greater good, you see - you have to break a few eggs to make a socialist utopian omelet).
Posted by: Steve on October 11, 2006 08:50 PMThe shrub is trying to go there, and you are helping him...
How about that... A Nazi named Rosenberg...
Posted by: Playin' Possum on October 12, 2006 08:33 AM"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
For a supposed protector of the Bill of Rights, the ACLU, would like to rip that clause out of the Constitution!
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 12, 2006 11:24 AMHow anyone who claims to love the constitution can support the Campaign Finance Reform abomination is beyond me. I don't just fault the Democrats for supporting that law, I also fault John McCain (the Republican sponsor) and President Bush for signing it (thinking the Supreme Court would do the right thing and rule it unconstitutional)! HOWEVER, it was overwhelmingly DEMOCRATS that supported that law. By the way, I will never vote for John McCain until and unless he reverses himself on that law.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 12, 2006 11:41 AMhttp://auto2dealer2lease.blogspot.com buy new lease car car
http://lisinopril4u.blogspot.com generic zestril guest lisinopril prinivil book
http://simvastatin4u.blogspot.com simvastatin scandinavian survival study
http://tricor4u.blogspot.com side more drug tricor effects