What!!!?????? Aghast wasn't saying that Thurmond was like Hitler, only that Thurmond was a bad mark on American History like Hitler was a bad mark on Germany. Surely we should be more open minded when talking about Hitler, right? I can't believe you are the one to all of a sudden switch places on comparing people to hitler.
Are you really that dumb or are you just willing to tell a lie to try and make a point (same for you googrux)? I'll add your names to my hit list for Gene. My remark about Obama was based on one point made in one article that Obama was a pragmatic politician... as was Hitler. That's it. There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point. Then aghast wrote this: "... Thurmond's legacy is as much a stain on the United States of America as Hitler's is to Germany" and then in defense blames Thurmond for every wrong heaped upon black people before, during and after his life in public service. That is just ridiculous and maybe even hateful. BTW, how did you measure my fury? Whatever fury I mustered was aimed at Ottomaton not aghast. Now you're in the club...
thurmond is a stain on america. hitler is a stain on germany. and then you of all people, whose back still has to be sore from it bending so far backwards to defend a comparison between hitler and obama, finds that offensive, and you don't see why some of us would find that hilarious?
Here a quotation from aghast: ""... Thurmond's legacy is as much a stain on the United States of America as Hitler's is to Germany" Point 1: "As much" is far more compelling than "like." Point 2: A "stain" is a far more heinous charge than is one of sharing a characteristic of political "pragmatism." You guys need to learn how to draw distinctions. If you really think about it, I was defending Obama by insisting that Sowell's remark was a very narrow and targeted one that was not about Obama's character or agenda. Here, in spite of all the insinuation, I'm not about to defend Thurmond's character or agenda, but I do object when the scale of his ugliness is equated ("as much a stain") to the greatest criminal in the history of human history.
I notice your powerful editing there buddy. You left out my smilies on the "threat" of Gene. No Pulitzer Prize for you, sorry. And you left out my qualifiers about the story of the early release of the title of the president's speech. Where's the part where I said that I had not heard that rumor refuted? I did not assert that as fact without question. No Pulitzer Prize for you, sorry. In fact, it is this kind of thinking and executing which marks you The Liar.
There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.There was no "repeatedly" being compared when I made my point.
I don't disagree that Thurmond is a stain. My objection is to the assertion that he is as great a stain as the greatest criminal in the history of mankind. Can you not really get that distinction? In fact, it is you guys who are bending over backwards trying to make some charge stick to me when you don't even know exactly what I've said. Why not play fair? Did I ever say that Thurmond was not a stain. I didn't defend his politics. I refuted the equation to Hitler which I think most historians would agree with. A list of the worst "stains" in human history would never have Hitler as 1A and Thurmond as 1B.
Thank you for confirming that you have nothing to say on your behalf against the factual points I made. Try playing fair.
I'm not defending the comparison of anyone to Hitler. But using your logic, let's look at the information we have. Was Thurmond a stain on America? Yes Was Hitler a stain on Germany? Yes I'm just using your logic when you defended comparing Obama to Hitler. It's strange that your open mindedness applies when Obama is compared to Hitler, but when a racist like Thurmond is compared to Hitler you object.
giddyup reminds me of basso so much it is scary. only giddyup doesn't start threads. so he gets some credit there. but he's still deliberately obtuse and as factually illusive as they come.
In the other thread where I made my assertion, the "comparison" of Obama to Hitler was limited to the observation that they shared a common characteristic of political pragmatism. Nothing more had been said, but lots of other stuff was brought out afterwards from other stuff that Sowell had written and that was glommed onto my original point about the one thing said about both being pragmatic. I agree that Thurmond was a fool but that doesn't mean that he is the equivalent of Hitler which is what "as much a stain" implies. B&E and Murder are both crimes but that doesn't make them equivalent crimes. My agenda is to be fair to the truth. Did you note the irony that my insistence on what I said did in effect distance Obama from the Hitlerian hysteria? In fact, I said as much in some of the later posts... which has been completely ignored. Likewise I've only defended Thurmond from being equated with Hitler which is ludicrous on its face and I don't even know why it needs to be reiterated.
Still waiting for someone to overturn the facts as they were written by us in this thread. All they come up with is name-calling. Sad. BigBenito edits my "quotes" so they better fit his agenda. Is that not patently dishonest? I know no other word for it. If they were coincidences and accidental then he is just incompetent. If they were purposeful then he is a liar. What does that make all of you who ignore that reality? You just keep blindly piling on.
because you made a fool of yourself defending a comparision between obama and hitler in another thread and then you freak out at someone else being compared to hitler. newsflash, it's never good to be compared to hitler. you can rationalize your past attempts, but you'd be better served admitting how wrong you were in that thread instead of playing this game.
If you say so pal, I copy/pasted the relavent points. Other thread involved Sowell repeatedly comparing Obama to Hitler. In this thread, I pasted a confirmation of your acknowledgement that there was another comparison. Sure when you initially made your point there was no other comparison. But during the discussion there were multiple pages on his other comparisons. You willfully ignore those other comparisons and cling to your early defense that you have not swayed from, even in the light of additional information. You ignore reality. I left out your wink, ok... putting in a wink in a multiline threat. my bad. I should have copied the first part to, where you went full capslock HE'S NOT ADOLPH HITLER
I took the liberty of combining your consecutive posts and bolding the key issues in each. Apologies for taking so long to get to this, but I was so disgusted with the Cowboys' performance, I went immediately to bed. First, why should there be facts -- that is, the language -- in any serious bill that "people can and will distort to make scary." That just means the language is dangerously imprecise and needs a re-write. Third (I know I skipped one, but the best question should be saved for last), how can you bring 47 million (or is now 30 million -- Obama keeps changing the figures) more people into the health coverage system without more staff? Even if the system performed a surgery or cure the day of diagnosis with the desired result, there's still tens of millions of new patients thrown into the mix. Maybe you feel differently, but I don't want an overworked doctor working on me. I want the one who's still got a clear head and steady hands. Second (now, for one of the most interesting questions in the thread), here IMO are some of the problems with the current tax plans followed by a painfully brief explanation of terribly complex subjects: 1) Hidden costs and fantasy funding. First, Obama would be extremely well served by immediately cutting waste and fraud (which he says will pay for the bulk of cost increases) in the M/M (Medicare/Medicaid) system. This would lend proof to his proposals. That said, non-partisan government economists (CBO) are showing trillions of dollars of extra spending. Ultimately, normal working class people will be forced to onerous taxes. Also, mandatory health insurance payments may start low, realistic and fair, but where will they go? Is the sky the limit? Who knows? 2) Public option. I love the idea of public option and its fraternal twin, single payer, as well. I do. The problem is I can't see it as a practical solution long term. For the moment, let's forget that it will IMO lead to the eventual elmination of the millions of jobs revolving around the insurance companies. Theoretically, it allows private industry to compete with the government and doctors to operate their practices as they see fit. Realistically, neither will be possible as yet another creeper bureaucracy takes over. 3) Abortion funding. Obama has stated the bill does not fund abortions. The bill does not. However, where he is being disingenuous is in the amendments to the bill that increase abortion funding by millions of dollars. Personally, as I have said numerous times before, I don't care how many abortions a woman has so long as the public doesn't have to pay for her irresponsibility (rape and actual serious -- non-contrived -- health risk to the mother excepted). Clear, unequivocable language outlawing government payment (with the above exeptions) for abortions IMO needs to be in the final bill. 4) Elimination of Corporate Insurance Disguised as Business Penalties Penalizing a business not providing insurance 8% for a benefit that costs 10% only incentivises savvy business owners to pay the penalty and not worry about health insurance. In this way, government is forced to take over the health care completely, which is Obama's long-term goal.
