Extremism

I love that idea that someone is finally talking about having a rational opinion. I am surrounded by radicals in Conservative Republican Cincinnati, OH. I have always said why is it that racism is so offensive but it is OK to be a "Christian". Church is a great way to rationalize extremism.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on August 21, 2009 at 9:15pm: I call your call. George Soros in action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuafAqAHrc; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ibc on August 23, 2009 at 11:09am: John Antonelli said:
I call your call. George Soros in action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuafAqAHrc

a) I don't recall George Soros ever being elected to public office, being chosen to lead the Democratic party, or being appointed as a spokesman for "the left"--aside from what folks like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh may have tried to do; and b) that aside, Soros did not actually call Bush a Nazi, but given the fact that, yes, totalitarian regimes of the 20th century *have* used fear, obfuscation, and domestic propaganda to sway public opinion, I would say Soros was not incorrect. Given that he spent much of his life either living in totalitarian eastern europe or fighting communism, he probably has more credibility on this than anyone.

In fact, Bush's head of DHS recently charged that the Bush administration manipulated the terror alert messages in multiple cases to obtain political advantage over domestic political opposition. (Smears against Soros come from the same place as the manufactured outrage against Sen Durbin when he said that US contractors and soldiers in Abu Graib had engaged in the same behavior as the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, or the worst of the Communists.)

It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to understand the difference between calling someone a Nazi for cheap political reasons, and pointing out that someone's behavior is quite literally and *objectively* the same behavior as the Nazis, Stalin, and Mao engaged in.

But again...other than being Chief Boogeyman for the Limbaugh-O'Reilly-Hannity axis, Soros doesn't officially represent anyone on the left. Meanwhile Sen Grassley is saying that Obama's a eugenicist who's coming to kill your grandma.

Your false equivalence is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to.

Sorry you can hunt

Given the fact that Tom Ridge recently came out; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on August 23, 2009 at 6:54pm: George Soros is the Democrats money man and also chief pitbull.

ibc said:
John Antonelli said:
I call your call. George Soros in action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuafAqAHrc

a) I don't recall George Soros ever being elected to public office, being chosen to lead the Democratic party, or being appointed as a spokesman for "the left"--aside from what folks like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh may have tried to do; and b) that aside, Soros did not actually call Bush a Nazi, but given the fact that, yes, totalitarian regimes of the 20th century *have* used fear, obfuscation, and domestic propaganda to sway public opinion, I would say Soros was not incorrect. Given that he spent much of his life either living in totalitarian eastern europe or fighting communism, he probably has more credibility on this than anyone.

In fact, Bush's head of DHS recently charged that the Bush administration manipulated the terror alert messages in multiple cases to obtain political advantage over domestic political opposition. (Smears against Soros come from the same place as the manufactured outrage against Sen Durbin when he said that US contractors and soldiers in Abu Graib had engaged in the same behavior as the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, or the worst of the Communists.)

It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to understand the difference between calling someone a Nazi for cheap political reasons, and pointing out that someone's behavior is quite literally and *objectively* the same behavior as the Nazis, Stalin, and Mao engaged in.

But again...other than being Chief Boogeyman for the Limbaugh-O'Reilly-Hannity axis, Soros doesn't officially represent anyone on the left. Meanwhile Sen Grassley is saying that Obama's a eugenicist who's coming to kill your grandma.

Your false equivalence is exactly the sort of thing I was referring to.

Sorry you can hunt

Given the fact that Tom Ridge recently came out; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ibc on August 23, 2009 at 7:36pm: John Antonelli said:
George Soros is the Democrats money man and also chief pitbull.

Laughably wrong. You need to turn of O'Reilly and get out more. When you find a Democratic elected official with national prominence making wild incendiary claims we can talk. But you cannot.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on August 23, 2009 at 8:16pm: When was the requirement that it be a Democratic elected official? I think I made my part of this.

ibc said:
John Antonelli said:
George Soros is the Democrats money man and also chief pitbull.

Laughably wrong. You need to turn of O'Reilly and get out more. When you find a Democratic elected official with national prominence making wild incendiary claims we can talk. But you cannot.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ibc on August 24, 2009 at 11:00am: John Antonelli said:
When was the requirement that it be a Democratic elected official? I think I made my part of this.

Ok, I'll try one more time:

Let's not pretend there was anything equivalent during the Bush years, much less in W's first six months. That is unless you have any evidence. The exact same lunacy took over the Right during the Clinton years. Elected Congressmen, some in the top echelon of the GOP, accusing Clinton of killing Vince Foster, or some other nonsense.

It's no wonder we're deadlocked in this country; one side has been whipped up into a state of irrationality where the right-wing media machine can play them like a fiddle. Case in point is this demonization of George Soros. The man is pretty much unknown by 80% of folks on the left, but is a *huge* target by folks on the Right who've been spoon-fed on Limbaugh and Hannity for too long..

Even if he were an extremist--rather than one of the most credible advocates of democracy and open society over the last half of the 20th century--he's simply not analogous to Tom DeLay or Chuck Grassley. He's a private citizen, not elected, and certainly not a party leader. To argue otherwise is to display a deep lack of understanding of how our system of government works.

Finally, if someone were to quote one of the elected leaders of the Democratic party behaving as "an extremist" (which you have spectacularly failed to do), and I responded by posting a youtube link to Richard Mellon Scaife, I would hope I'd have enough wherewithal to be embarrassed .; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on August 24, 2009 at 11:07am: Well considering no one (including me) has any clue who Richard Mellonhead is, but many folks know Geroge Soros, thereyou are....

ibc said:
John Antonelli said:
When was the requirement that it be a Democratic elected official? I think I made my part of this.

Ok, I'll try one more time:

Let's not pretend there was anything equivalent during the Bush years, much less in W's first six months. That is unless you have any evidence. The exact same lunacy took over the Right during the Clinton years. Elected Congressmen, some in the top echelon of the GOP, accusing Clinton of killing Vince Foster, or some other nonsense.

It's no wonder we're deadlocked in this country; one side has been whipped up into a state of irrationality where the right-wing media machine can play them like a fiddle. Case in point is this demonization of George Soros. The man is pretty much unknown by 80% of folks on the left, but is a *huge* target by folks on the Right who've been spoon-fed on Limbaugh and Hannity for too long..

Even if he were an extremist--rather than one of the most credible advocates of democracy and open society over the last half of the 20th century--he's simply not analogous to Tom DeLay or Chuck Grassley. He's a private citizen, not elected, and certainly not a party leader. To argue otherwise is to display a deep lack of understanding of how our system of government works.

Finally, if someone were to quote one of the elected leaders of the Democratic party behaving as "an extremist" (which you have spectacularly failed to do), and I responded by posting a youtube link to Richard Mellon Scaife, I would hope I'd have enough wherewithal to be embarrassed .; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ibc on August 24, 2009 at 11:24am: John Antonelli said:
Well considering no one (including me) has any clue who Richard Mellonhead is, but many folks know Geroge Soros, there you are....

Yep, my point exactly. :) Practically no one on the left knows who Soros is. Most movement conservatives know nothing about Soros, but almost all of them know the name, and have been taught to hiss and boo him like he's the villain in a morality play.

I know who he is because I studied modern Central and Eastern European history for a few semesters, and he was one of the key figures in the liberation of the eastern europe from communism.

Suffice it to say, what you *think* Soros is to the Left, Scaife actually *is* to the right. You could probably get a brief synopsis of either man by reading his Wikipedia entry... I know, I know... Right-wingers eschew Wikipedia because of reality's notorious liberal bias. (Also the dictionary, any encyclopedia, all newspapers but the Washington Times, things written on the back of cereal boxes, etc... ad infinitum.); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John G. Boyle on August 24, 2009 at 5:25pm: John,

Careful. You're painting with a REALLY broad brush there. I'm a member of a local UU congregation, and my congregation is far from extreme.

John Antonelli said:
Like the Unitarian Universalists? They are pretty extreme as a group, extreme liberals that is.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on August 24, 2009 at 10:45pm: John, that was humor, it is hard to imagine the UU being extreme in anything as that religion is the most accepting there is.
John G. Boyle said:
John,

Careful. You're painting with a REALLY broad brush there. I'm a member of a local UU congregation, and my congregation is far from extreme.

John Antonelli said:
Like the Unitarian Universalists? They are pretty extreme as a group, extreme liberals that is.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John G. Boyle on August 25, 2009 at 1:34pm: Doh! I guess that I'm so used to getting grief for being a UU that my my funny compass is out of whack :(

John Antonelli said:
John, that was humor, it is hard to imagine the UU being extreme in anything as that religion is the most accepting there is.
John G. Boyle said:
John,

Careful. You're painting with a REALLY broad brush there. I'm a member of a local UU congregation, and my congregation is far from extreme.

John Antonelli said:
Like the Unitarian Universalists? They are pretty extreme as a group, extreme liberals that is.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Antonelli on August 25, 2009 at 1:50pm: Nothing wrong with UU's. They are very easy to get along with!
Lutherans or UUs, UU everytime (blame this on Garrison Keilor).

John G. Boyle said:
Doh! I guess that I'm so used to getting grief for being a UU that my my funny compass is out of whack :(

John Antonelli said:
John, that was humor, it is hard to imagine the UU being extreme in anything as that religion is the most accepting there is.
John G. Boyle said:
John,

Careful. You're painting with a REALLY broad brush there. I'm a member of a local UU congregation, and my congregation is far from extreme.

John Antonelli said:
Like the Unitarian Universalists? They are pretty extreme as a group, extreme liberals that is.; ▶ Reply to This