Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
I was prompted to start this thread by another discussion on the politics board in which multiple contributors bought into a serious comparison between George Bush and Hitler. The discussion prompted me into contemplating the irrationality of some, of not most, forms of Bush hatred I see both on this forum and in the real world. By coincidence, I then stumbled upon this article, which effectively expresses a lot of thoughts that I had not yet assembled cohesively.
I suggest you follow this link to the full article, as Dr. Sanity's commentary is very insightful... |
The common characteristic of links posted on this forum by members who consistently espouse POV's from the right of the mainstream American right, (where most of the rest us.... according to roachboy....live) is that they are nearly always on the fringe, as the site referenced in the thread starter,
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/ is. In the rare instance when a link to a "news" site is posted, it is usually to foxnews.com or to washingtontimes.com .
Why are the places on the web where the "rest of us" find our news reports and commentary (AP articles are an example of consistently unbiased reports) almost never referenced by those who attempt to counter strong critics of Bush, for example?
According to Fox, a source you probably consider "fair and balanced" latest polls indicate that Bush is overwhelmingly disapproved of, in the categories of the job he is doing and in the ethics of his administration compared to past administrations, by <b>Independent</b> voters:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_111005.pdf
His job approval number among republican voters has dropped from 80 percent, to 72 percent, and among all those polled, to a new low, 36 percent. Dr. Sanity's "article" would have been more persuausive four years and 54 polling percentage points ago, than it is now.
By the way politicophile, the discussion that you say prompted you to "start this thread", was intended to be a discussion of how to avoid being a "good German", taking the example of Ann Wright, a patriot who is setting an example of how to object to and resist the Bush administration and it's policies.
My intent was to discuss examples like these, and how they compare to our present circumstances and the choices that Ann Wright has had to make to be true to her convictions:
Quote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...572667,00.html
....Unknown to many members of the church, however, Ratzinger’s past includes brief membership of the Hitler Youth movement and wartime service with a German army anti- aircraft unit.
Although there is no suggestion that he was involved in any atrocities, his service may be contrasted by opponents with the attitude of John Paul II, who took part in anti-Nazi theatre performances in his native Poland and in 1986 became the first pope to visit Rome’s synagogue.
“John Paul was hugely appreciated for what he did for and with the Jewish people,” said Lord Janner, head of the Holocaust Education Trust, who is due to attend ceremonies today to mark the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. .....
....He has since said that although he was opposed to the Nazi regime, any open resistance would have been futile — comments echoed this weekend by his elder brother Georg, a retired priest ordained along with the cardinal in 1951.
“Resistance was truly impossible,” Georg Ratzinger said. “Before we were conscripted, one of our teachers said we should fight and become heroic Nazis and another told us not to worry as only one soldier in a thousand was killed. But neither of us ever used a rifle against the enemy.”
Some locals in Traunstein, like Elizabeth Lohner, 84, whose brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector, dismiss such suggestions. “It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others,” she said. “The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice.”
|
You elected to turn my discussion into a Bush vs. Hitler debate with this post, and then you moved on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
I'm a bit confused by the appeal to authority you are making, Host. Surely, you don't believe that the majority of Colonels or of State Department officials oppose the war? If your argument against the Bush administration rests on their inside knowledge and authority, it would only make sense for you to reverse your position, as Ann Wright is in the extreme minority in her views. I'm sure she is a wonderful person, but she is no more knowledgable or trustworthy than the next State Department employee. And if the authority of one is worth a Godwin's Law-violating post like this, isn't the authority of the hundreds who hold the opposite view just that much more convincing?
You also gracelessly dodged Toaster126's criticism of your OP, a criticism that I level against you as well. Your comparison of the death toll incurred so far in the war to democratize Iraq and the 12 million killed in Nazi death factories is... foolish, to make a tremendous understatement. I think it's time for you to do some soul searching: your criticisms of the Bush administration are becoming increasingly nonsensical and irrational, as is evidenced conclusively by your outlandish analogy between the American public and complacent Nazi citizens.
|