Can't watch your video at the moment. As for the article, Sowell is comparing the gullibility of German citizens to that of the American people. I don't have a problem with that observation. That goes back to what I consider an almost universal, though in my view unhealthy, need to mythologize our leaders. This is the extent of the "Hitler comparison". Sowell does not consider Obama evil, just dangerously naive. Hence: "A leader does not have to be evil to lead a country into a catastrophe. Inexperience and incompetence can create very similar results, perhaps even faster in a nuclear age ..." I would consider the Hitler comparison to Bush much more hard-hitting, given the focus there was on stuff we really identify with the "evilness" of Hitler -- rampant militarism, restriction of civil liberties, callousness to the plight of minorities, disregard for international opinion, etc.
You are ignoring half of the comparison. In Sowell's comparison of people's gullibility they are only gullible when dictators are trying to indoctrinate them. He uses the word dictator. Given that part of the equation he is most definitely comparing Obama to Hitler. It may not be hard-hitting because there is no legitimate reason to bring up the comparsion, but Sowell was most definitely making one.
Perhaps I missed that. Where does he say that people are only gullible when its a dictator? "A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than to an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence." Jean-Francois Revel was not referring to the United States when he wrote those words, nor to his own France, but to human beings in general. He was certainly not referring to Sen. Barack Obama, whom he probably never heard of, since Revel died last year. To find anything comparable to crowds' euphoric reactions to Mr. Obama, you would have to go back to old newsreels of German crowds in the 1930s, with their adulation of their Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. With hindsight, we can look back on those people with pity, knowing now how many of them would be led to their deaths by the man they idolized. The exultation of the moment can exact a brutal price after that moment has passed. Nowhere is that truer than when it comes to picking the leader of a nation, which means entrusting that leader with the fate of millions today and of generations yet unborn. ...
Clearly he was only talking about the good qualities that are shared between Obama, Castro, Hitler and Stalin. The fact that he refers to them as dictators and put Obama in a listing of three of the most pronounced enemies of the United States (or the world) in history? Coincidence.
Yes, and to "infer" anything from an educated person would be "silly." Oh, giddyup. You are truly one of a kind.
I'm pretty sure these debates only occur anywhere on the internet if giddyup is around. Do we really need to debate whether or not Ted Nugent is racist? giddyup thinks so. Do we need to debate whether or not Hagee's a bigot? Whether or not Ann Coulter is a stupid ****? Whether Sowell's Hitler talk is meant to remind us of, oh, Hitler? Only giddyup can take such otherwise resolved questions and turn them into 20 pages worth of "debate."
I think Obama' intentions were benign. Sowell disagrees. If I was asking the question, I'd ask if he felt the same way when George Bush addressed the school children. If not, I'd ask him what about Obama makes him more skeptical as to his motives. The problem with the television or radio interview format, particularly when being conducted by a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh, is that people aren't asked to explain themselves. I'd rather give him the opportunity to put down his thoughts on paper, with some time to think it through, and then judge him. I'd continue, but I think my back just broke. Edit: thanks, by the way, for doing the dictation for me.
So you think he just has an agenda to cast him as a bad guy? Or that whatever Obama's intentions are, he believes the effect will be indoctrination?
Of course I do. I can't even believe this is up for debate. Sowell doesn't sincerely believe there is any chance at all of Obama being another Hitler. He knows what he's doing. And people like you and giddyup make it easier for him to do it. Congrats!
Thank you for the genuine affection you express. What I said was that it was silly for someone to describe their own inferences from a scholar's work as "innuendo and slander" while acting as if that were nothing but an objective evaluation. Please.
All Sowell has to believe is that Obama's political agenda is bad for the nation. If that's what he believes to be the case, let him make his case and let the argument stand or fall based on the merits of actual events. You guys are trying to shut him up while the echoes of Fascroft are still traveling through the atmosphere.... and can be found with the search function right here, I'm sure.
Yes, how "silly" of me to infer "innuendo and slander" by a comparison between Obama and ****ing HITLER. You are out of your freaking tree.
That would be swell. But do you think he could leave out the Hitler youth and Nazi Germany imagery? He's parodying his own points, if, in fact, he has any.
There's always a chance a politician would want to sway the minds of children, politically (I wouldn't put it as "being another Hitler"). Goodness knows we put a lot our resources into doing exactly that abroad. I don't think that was the case with Obama with that school address, especially considering the nature of the speech. I think it's possible Sowell thought otherwise. Was that interview conducted before or after the speech was made?
Going back to the original article posted, he talked about them both being "pragmatic." Is that innuendo or slander... or neither?
