Springer joining Jon Stewart in saying "stop the Nazi comparisons." NO!

[Atman]

What Springer and Stewart are forgetting is that Hitler didn't START by killing 6 million people in the gas chambers. BushCo is starting EXACTLY the way Hitler did, by changing the laws to make his illegality legal, by keeping the public in constant fear, by passing sweeping laws limiting citizen's rights and expanding the reach of the state.

Quite frankly, there IS NO OTHER DIRECT COMPARISON right now! There just isn't. So, if Bush is using the same tactics Hitler used, what the hell are we supposed to compare his actions to? If the fucking shoe fits, Jerry and Jon. And it fits at this stage in thier respective quests for ultimate power. It simply is ACCURATE. No one is claiming Bush is systematically shipping muslims to gas chambers. The gas chambers came much later in Hitler's reign, many, many years later. Bush is only in his fifth year. Or tenth. Or twentieth, depending upon who you really believe is behind his ascendency.

But sorry, Jerry and Jon...there ARE instances where Hitler offers an apt comparison to Bush. Therefore, more scandalous than mentioning Hitler would be to ignore the historical lessons Hitler's rise to power should have taught us.

[Maat]

1. I agree.

The point is heading a horrible catastrophic situation off - not waiting to realize what is going on after it is too late.

[leesa]

2. I agree completely this is early vintage Nazi...and since so many of the

wealthy, including the Bush family actively supported the Nazi war machine, I think the comparison is dead on. They ARE the NeoNazis.

[burythehatchet]

3. Simple and profound

nominating.

Hitler didn't start by killing $6,000,000 people.

In my opinion, the comparisons should be made at every opportunity. Frame the debate

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. oh please

Bush is to Hitler what Oasis is to the Beatles.

[burythehatchet]

6. Did you even read the post?

You can't compare the END of one dictator's campaign to the beginning of another's.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. Thank you

That's good - dead right on.

Don't people realize that Fuckface is a monster in his own right.?

Comparisons are unnecessary, inflammatory, and really cause the speaker to lose credibility.

Even I stop listening when the Nazi crap starts.

Evil is evil. Now, go after Fuckface, and keep in mind that Adolf et al. are dead.

[Atman]

7. You must not have read my post.

Or history.

[Inland]

17. So we can't say that Oasis is a musical band?

That's all it is. Bush/Oasis and Hitler/Beatles have things in common, even though Bush/Oasis isn't quite the scale and perfection of the others.

Don't blame me if Bush and Hitler are in the same general category of fascist and fascist wannabes.

[burythehatchet]

5. PLEASE send this in a letter to Jerry and Jon

Their voices are important. Their faith may be affecting their thinking on this.

[KnightoftheRepublic]

8. After all,

while killing 6 million Jews was his greatest crime, it wasn't Hitler's only crime. He also killed 20 million Russians and many others in the war, not to mention being a Right-Wing Fascist who "did away" with any who dared to speak out against him. Hmmmm.... Really does sound familiar... Although I don't think he's go that far(Though it wouldn't suprise me) Bush HAS begun a slow process of hate, especially against Homosexuals(Which was also a group Hitler hated).

[kentuck]

9. Suppress the speech? How Nazi !

:(

[Cha]

83. :(

:(

I saw some of that segment on Jon's and he had so many frames of guy's in Congress talking about "nazis" and they mostly looked like repukes.

[Ravy]

10. I think they make a good point.

A more effective tactic would be to use "pre-war Germany" rather than "Nazi" in such a comparison. Educates rather than inflames.

[The Jacobin]

73. "Pre-war Germany" works well

More obsure (and perhaps educational) is "Weimar Republic"

"Nazi" doesn't help -- it hurts a great deal. Words matter. Think of all the effort and honesty that went into the Amnesty International report on Gitmo that was all flushed away like so many pages of a Quaran just because they used the inflamatory word "gulag".

Words matter. Be calm. Be precise. Be truthful.

[Sgt. Baker]

12. doesn't help

the legitimacy of the democratic party to throw out things like that. By going to that extreme you alienate all the moderate democrats which make up a huge portion of the party. If you keep doing it you push them to the right even more so they no longer feel that they connect with their party.

It is propaganda, nothing more.

I am not defending Bush at all. I can't stand the man. Just watching him pisses me off. But throwing out propaganda comparing him to Hitler is ridiculous and counterproductive to everything we are trying to do.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. So does us making the comparison make you liklier to vote for

him?

If not, what makes you think it will push anyone into his camp?

There are two groups that object to the comparison. Those already in his camp, and those liberals who believe they must be 'judicious' in their words, an opinion not shared by those in his camp.

It's time we were a little less judicious and a little more direct, and call a fascist a fascist.

[Sgt. Baker]

40. because

it's stupid and ridiculous. I wouldn't vote for him because of it and I'm sure nobody else would either. It just pushes normal people away from labeling themselves as a democrat because they don't agree or want to be associated with a party that supports using propaganda to smear an opponent.

I hate stuff like that. It does nothing for me and makes me think that some on the left are a whacked out crazy as some on the right. What makes them any different when they both adopt the same tactics?

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. "I wouldn't vote for him because of it and I'm sure nobody else would

either."

Then just who is it pushing away?

All politics is propaganda. Propaganda does not have to be untruthful. And if the comparison is legitimate, use it.

The Bush crowd is fascistic, and afraid of democracy. Why can't we say that?

[Atman]

44. You, too, seem to have missed the point of my post.

Let's say you want to describe a foreign body in another universe, a big ball of hot burning gas around which a bunch of planets orbit. Would you start with a comparison to a campfire, or would you reference The Sun, something with which your listener would likely be familiar? IOW, why dumb down the argument?

Your emotional reaction seems to be just that, emotional. That is part of the problem. Once you get past the emotion and look at the history, you'll find the comparison stunningly accurate for this stage of their respective regimes. I can't make that clear enough, I suppose. No one is saying "Bush gassed six million muslims." But, not to reiterate my entire earlier post, Hitler did not rise to power by gassing six million jews, either. That was the END of his reign. He had to get to a point where such a thing was even concievable, and he got there by doing exactly what Hitler did in his day, through a cunning consolidation of power which made his illegalities legal.

The problem, Sarge, is that you're choosing to define the entire history of Hitler's Germany by just one period of it. Granted, it is one horrific period, but it didn't get that way over night.

It got that way because of a complacent citizenry who failed (or chose to ignore) the signs in front of their faces. As another poster stated, I'd rather shock them now and perhaps make them THINK, than to just wait until it is too late to do anything about the madman in the oval office.

[Sgt. Baker]

51. doesn't cause thought

It doesn't cause thought though. It to is an emotional reaction.

Of course you can compare Bush to Hitler in many ways. You can find comparisons between any two people if you look hard enough. I do understand the comparison and how you can come that conclusion. That's not what I find objectionable although I do find it to be a stretch.

All I'm saying is that when I hear things like this it pisses me off, not because I like Bush but because it makes members of my political party look like loons who have descended to the point where they have to use personal attacks to try and make a point that is missed by almost everyone but themselves.

All I'm hoping for is that we go after him and the others in a way that is civil. Keep the democratic party above the republicans, don't stoop to their tactics. We are better than them and I want to keep it that way.

[Atman]

55. A couple of things...

...it pisses me off...because it makes members of my political party look like loons who have descended to the point where they have to use personal attacks to try and make a point that is missed by almost everyone but themselves.

Your pre-conceptions are evident, even as you try to say they're not. WHY do you think we look like "loons?" Making a perfectly valid argument make one out to be a "loon" in your eyes? You appear afraid of people just like yourself, who will jump to uninformed conclusions about those who make the charge. And your using a personal attack on members of your own party for merely stating a demonstrable fact, is a pretty odd way of saying that WE are the ones decending to personal attack.

If you'd read my original post AGAIN, I don't think you'll find any tone indicating I'm making a personal attack on George Bush. I am making a demonstrable historical comparison which is quite valid.

Saying Bush is drunken, lying, douchebag would be a personal attack, and I agree that such does nothing to advance any debate. BUT, stating clearly, calmly, and intelligently WHY there is a comparison to be made between Bush and Hitler can do much to open some eyes. The people whose eyes cannot be opened by such a discourse aren't people you'd likely "convert" to our side in the first place.

[Sgt. Baker]

60. my preconceptions

That was actually a good historical comparison. I apologize.

[Atman]

61. All is cool, Sarge!

No apology necessary, but I appreciate it. Shows a lot of character on an anonymous message board! And if nothing else, perhaps it demonstrates that if we are able to discuss the actual Bush/Hitler comparisons in an intelligent manner, without allowing ourselves to be derailed from the true point being made, maybe we can actually make some headway convincing some on the right that we're really not loons!

[The Jacobin]

74. Facist != Nazi

One point first: if we could tell everyone but democrats to go jump in a lake and still win elections, then none of this would matter. But it does because we can't win elections with juts our core base -- we have to reach out to the reasonable middle. Speaking and acting unreasonably is never helpful in attracting that group.


Now: Facist is a usable word. It acurately describes the current administration and is not outside the permissible level of discussion set by the likes of Coulter. Nazi is not -- that reasonable middle will never believe that Bush is like Hitler. Any talk along those lines is self-destructive.

[Jimbo S]

66. Also alienates moderate Republicans and swing voters we are

trying to win over to our side.

[Atman]

68. You're not listening, Jimbo.

It will certainly alienate them if you scream "Bush is a Nazi!" But I've think I've made it clear that that is not at all what I am talking about. I am talking about being armed with FACTS, presenting your argument calmly, factually, historically, and maybe even with a bit of humility. "I don't like even bringing this up, because so many people have a knee-jerk reaction, but you know, there are some remarkable similarities between the Bush administration and the early days of Hitler's Germany." Then be ready to defend your position. If they scream at you, don't scream back. You have FACTS, dude. Facts on your side. If you allow them to define the argument as "BUSH HASN'T KILLED SIX MILLION JEWS, YOU IDIOT," simply use FACTS to gain control of the debate. Calmly. Intellectually. Sure it is an emotional issue, which is why you'd better not dream of bringing it up unless you're prepared to explain yourself. Which you CAN do.

Don't let the bastards frame the debate.

[Skittles]

79. oh now I GET IT

they can ACT FASCIST and PROMOTE POLICIES THAT WOULD MAKE NAZIS PROUD but if we POINT IT OUT we won't win moderates over to "OUR SIDE". THANKS SO MUCH FOR ENLIGHTENING ME.

[Skittles]

78. please do tell us why these thieving, lying neocon bastards

do not DESERVE the fascist/Nazi label. IT IS NOT EXTREME TO POINT OUT THE TRUTH.

[onenote]

13. sorry, but the comparisons are distracting and often lame

Bushco are not Nazis. Or Communists. Or adherents to any number of specific repressive ideologies. They are defending repressive actions and policies that Americans rightly condemn when taken by others and that should be our message. Using the term "Nazi" either a direct description of Bushco or even in a comparison is a easy but distracting shorthand. (For example, the logic of calling Bushco Nazis because of what they are doing could be used to call Roosevelt a Nazi because of the Japanese internment camps in WWII -- the better position is that those camps, like Gitmo and other Bushco policies, are the kinds of things that are done by repressive regimes and are not what America stands for.

onenote

[rman]

28. They are all corporatists in the sense that Mussolini ment when he said:

"Fascism should more appropriatly be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power".

This is what all of nazism, fascism, stalinism, and bushism have in common. You can't have proper checks and balences when large centers of power merge, regardless of how the exactly the merger takes place. All of it is on the despotic end of the political scale.
The details about what, when and where obviously do differ, but the essence of all these is the same. Therefore it is a valid comparison.

[TahitiNut]

14. Liberals have been called "commies" for decades.

As far as I'm concerned, the fascist foo shits the GOP. I avoid the "Nazi" epithet ... since their nomination as fascists is altogether valid and sufficient.

[KittyWampus]

37. I ASee Both Sides & Appreciate Both. Yes, The Left Has Openly Been

called Socialists/Communists even though the Dem politicians are pretty open to corporate deregulation.

and the sad, sorry fact is that the Bush Administration is using overtly repressive tactics. Their political system is also openly fascist.

If they don't want to hear thosecomparisons, then change their own behavior and rhetoric.

However, using the Nazi comparison does shut down the discussion, especially for us on the Left.

Of course the mediawhores don't go after Rush and Santorum when THEY use it against us, though.

[The Jacobin]

75. But not "Stalinists"

The comparison of the use of "communist" and "stalinist" is applicable to the uses of the words "facist" and "nazi".

One of each set is acceptable political rehtoric and one is not.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. And even then, Hitler wasn't in complete, irreversable control

until after he had subverted and gained power over the judiciary.

* is still working on that.

[Inland]

20. Bush isn't Hitler, but not for lack of ambition in that direction.

It's because Americans are stopping him, and stopping him by pointing out where he is heading.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. I hope so.

Because he sure seems to be a wannabe.

[Inland]

16. A comparison is apt if we share even a little with Hitler and Stalin.

I'm not comforted by the fact that we've only imprisoned tens of thousands without any process and are only holding hundreds permanently incommunicado and are only torturing a few; that's enough like Nazis and Unky Joe to bring them up.

And it certainly isn't America.

[rman]

18. both of them should see "Hitler: the rise of evil"

a historically based docu-drama about the leadup of fascism/nazism coming to power.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346293/

http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie.aspx?m=543975


"Not all fascism looks like Adolf Hitler" - someone

[Up2Late]

19. I understand what you're saying, but I also think Jon Stewart is...

...right also. What Jon was saying is, comparing someone to Hitler, takes it to a level where debate ends. At that point, you are comparing someone who could be a 8 on the Evil scale, to the 10 on the scale of 1 to 10, one being least evil, 10 being the most Evil world leader ever.

But not only that, it also diminishes somewhat, the perception of what Hitler actually did do. Think about this comparison. What if someone said, "Well, what Hitler did is no worst than what Bush has done over the last 5 years." See.

We all know what * is doing is evil and getting progressively worst, but when a person is compared to Hitler, you are actually saying, Hitler wasn't nearly as evil as he actually was. You actually, sort of giving Hitler a break that he does NOT deserve.

[smartvoter]

23. The early phase is the point of comparison. They're missing the point. nt

[Up2Late]

32. Yes, we understand that, but the point Jon, I and most above...

are trying to make, is that when the Hitler comparison is made, debate ends because you are making the comparison to the most extreme case.

A better comparison would be to Spain's Franco, or Chile's Pinochet, those guys are only about a 9 on the evil scale.

Like Jon said last night, if you compare them to a Nazi, or a Fascist, then you've left a little room for later.

[AX10]

29. Why is it that Jon decides to chastise the Democrats. The GOP has...

been making comparisons of we Democrats/Liberals to "communists, dictators, and Nazis" for 50 years! :wtf:?
All Durbin did is READ FROM and official government report!
Jon can go f#%& himself!

:grr:

[NYCGirl]

33. Did you see the piece? He showed examples from BOTH SIDES!! NT

[Up2Late]

38. But you see, you just made my point, "...The GOP has been making...

...comparisons of we Democrats/Liberals to "communists, dictators, and Nazis" for 50 years..." you say, and how has this effected the GOP's credibility in you eyes? It's gone, out the window, they have lost all credibility with you and with most of us, me included.

Worst yet, most of those comparisons are completely flip-flopped. Nazis were Fascist, and Fascists and Communists are opposites ends of the scale.

They make that comparison, and only their Brainwashed minions believe it or even listen to it.

Plus, neither I nor Jon was criticizing Dick Durbins remarks, as Jon said, "Now we're getting somewhere."

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. OK, let's try that.

In Hitler's first five years Hitler invaded two countries, non-violently, with the agreement of the League of Nations and the acquiescence of the world community.

In Bush's first five years he has invaded two countries, toppling their governments and killing upwards of 100,000 people, over the objections of the United Nations and the world community.

1 point for Bush.

In Hitler's first five years he subverted the judiciary, and opened concentration camps that imprisoned thousands of dissidents, communists, gays and other undesirables, with no access to legal aid. (Jews were not imprisoned simply for being Jewish until the fifth year).

In Bush's first five years he was worked to stack the judiciary with ideologically correct judges, and has opened concentration camps that imprison hundreds of non-citizens, and a few citizens, who languish outside the protection of American or international law with no access to legal aid.

1 point for Hitler.

So far, it looks like a draw.

[Up2Late]

42. Fair enough, but here's where * will and has failed...

Even though we here like to say it, that the media is in RW control, and that we have no voice and know way to get our voices heard, that is far better than what they had in 1930's Europe, they couldn't GET any outside info IN! We still can because of the Internet. Even if sites like this were shut down, we could still communicate though encrypted e-mail and get News from around the world.

Plus, in the 1930's, America didn't give a sh*t about what was going on in Europe until it was too late to stop it, we have friends and families around the world who really DO care what happens to us and to America.

I had one more point but I forgot what it was.

Also, What year are you setting as the start of his (AH) 5 years? He invaded a lot more than just 2 countries, and that is a point of debate depending on who you talk to.

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Starting from his election in '32. By '37 he had Austria and

Czechoslovakia under his belt, and the world let him do it. And the mass arrests of Jews who were not accused of being subversives or communists or some other pretext didn't begin until '37.

When he went into Poland in '39, he had no real reason to believe that anyone would stand against him, because up till then, no one had.

I'm afraid that Iran would be our Poland, and would unite the world against us in military and financial alliances.

[rhett o rick]

63. So we will call him "Young" Hitler, or "Early" Hitler. nt

[rniel]

21. They're using the tools of the Nazi's

So to me I don't see why you can't make a comparison. You should be able to make a comparison out of anything.

I should be able to compare bush to a pile of donkey shit, the devil or hitler.

Why is that off limits. It's this think that people don't want to talk about it anymore like it never happened.

[kentuck]

24. Bush has the potential to kill more people than Hitler...

True or False ??

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. True.

Hitler required the help of millions to kill his millions.

* could kill millions with the help of mere hundreds.

Let's not forget that the problem that we had with Nixon was not that he misused government agencies, authorized burglaries and covered up those things. The problem was that we had a paranoid megalomaniac with a finger on the nuclear button.

And now we have another.

[TahitiNut]

39. We're required to wait until he actually does kill 11,000,000 people.

After all, we sure wouldn't want to engage in name-calling until he does, right? :eyes:


Note: Approximately 11,000,000 people were killed in the Nazi concentration camps, of which about 6,000,000 were Jewish.

[Karenina]

54. View from Europe...

[Morose]

26. Stop with the Hitler, But unify on the Fascist Dictator

I agree that bringing up Hitler seems to become an issue itself which ultimately tends to derail the actual topic..>BUSHCO.

So lets use a more descriptive and current term...and unify behind it.

Evil Corporatist Overlord?
Fascist Psychopath?

Any number will do. None require we use the words Hitler or Nazi (however tempting or even accurate it might be).

[ticapnews]

27. When you say "Nazi" people tune out...

Nazi was the political party; Fascism was the form of government. And it was bigger than just Germany (nor did it start there). Former Democracies turning into Fascist governments were a phenomenon across Europe in the 1920's and 30's. That's why George Lucas' comments before the release of Revenge of the Sith caused so much controversy - because that phenomenon served as an inspiration for Star Wars, and he compared that to what was happening here. But he never called Bush a Nazi; he implied that Bush was a Fascist.

Calling Bush a Nazi is incorrect and just inflames the situation. Sure, it riles up the partisans but we need to win converts and calling Bush a Nazi is not the way to do that. Call him a Fascist and point out the ways in which he is. The people we need to reach will listen to that argument. They'll tune us out if we just keep calling BushCo Nazis.

[Atman]

46. But did I even use the word "Nazi" once in my original post?

On edit: Oops, I guess I did, in the subject line, no less. My bad. But if you read the rest of my post, I don't reference Nazis, just Hitler.

So who is confusing the issue here? I agree completely with your premise. Don't call Bush a Nazi, as it isn't a correct comparison. However, comparing him to another world leader, another politician, is certainly appropriate.

[AX10]

30. Jon Stewart is looking more like a sellout everyday.

Alan Colmes brings up the fact that Santorum compared Democrats to Nazi's during the judicial filibuster debate. Clark's response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1862000&mesg_id=1862000

Look at this thread, why was there no outrage when Santorum called us "nazis"? Jon? :wtf:?

[NYCGirl]

34. Outrage?

Stewart doesn't do outrage. He does COMEDY!

[Telly Savalas]

35. Santorum made Nazi comparisons?

Well fuck, then I guess it must be OK.

[ClarkUSA]

91. See it here - watch the whole videoclip

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/18.html#a3512

[jpgray]

47. That Santorum bit was mentioned in the piece.

Did you even watch the segment you're freaking out about?

[B0S0X87]

84. Did you even see the segment?

Stewart's point wasn't that Durbin was wrong in calling Bush a Nazi; it was that virtually EVERYONE looks foolish when they make Hitler references. He showed examples of Byrd, Michael Moore, Phil Spector, Pat Buchanan, and yes, Santorum, and said that they were all stupid for doing so.

Frankly, I really enjoyed the segment because Hitler accusations are used waaaaaayyy too much, and take all the credibility out of someone's argument.

[Zen Democrat]

41. Don't use the "Nazi" word -- use the appropriate word - FASCISM

The "N" word in the minds of millions equals death camps and genocide, although it was a political term before the end of WWII.

The "F" word is the one we should be using. It perfectly describes the current powerholders squatting in the White House and Congress.

[Up2Late]

48. Yes, and I think it gets the GOP spin machine fired up much faster...

...and more intensely too. They just kind of laugh off the Nazi comparisons.

That shows that it is far more threatening to them, and what they are trying to hide from their minions.

You call the GOP or the ReThugs a Fascist, you better be ready for a fight, because they "bring it."

[Atman]

49. The OUR spin machine must be ready with the FACTS

We cannot continue to allow their "spin machine" to frame every debate. We have one, too, you know! Why must we always be polite for fear of incurring the wrath of the fascists? Do you think they'll see that we're really just nice guys, and will stop being fascists as a thank you?

Sorry, I, for one, am sick and tired of right-wing hatemongering, fear mongering fascists telling ME I'm an unAmerican traitor simply for making a perfectly accurate, DEFINABLE, EXPLANABLE, comparison. We don't need to be on the defensive...we only need the facts.

[Up2Late]

52. I agree, but I don't think our "Spin Machine" is very good if we have...

...one at all. They "spin" and twist the facts, because all they have is lies to fall back on, or they attack the person who dares to question their version of reality.

I think you are absolutely right that we should attack their lies, but I don't think most Democrats, including most in the higher reaches of power, have the back-up forces to withstand the withering attacks the Re-Thugs bring.

Sorry for the following War metaphor, but it seems like a good comparison, so here goes:

Most of the time, the Democrats are like a squad of sword wilding Knights, but as soon as we attack with the sword of truth, they bring the Cannon fire down upon us. So, most of the time, we are forced to retreat.

What we need is another squad of Sharpshooters, ready to knock out the troops firing the Cannon. Adding lies from our side would be like opening up with Cannon fire of our own, which would just escalate the conflict and just cause additional blood shed and death without any real progress.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. okay, if it walks like a duck, it quaks like a duck and it swimms

like a duck you are telling me it is not a duck?

These people ARE Nazis, trust me when I say this... and about bloody time this was told

[Up2Late]

64. Yes, you know that, I know that, but in a public debate...

...(in the Newspapers, Cable News, etc.) it's a totally indefensible argument. At best, you might be able to defend the argument that they are Neo-Nazis, but that would still be difficult to defend, and would most likely end in a draw, if you were given enough time to defend you position. In reality, if someone goes on O'Rielly or Scarbouro, or Hannity and _______, they are not going to give you enough time to make a convincing argument.

Fascism is not just a label, it's a definable form of Government and far more defensible in an argument or a debate.

[Atman]

65. Why would they? They're right-wing talk shows.

They don't books democratic guests with the intention of allowing them to finish their points, only to ridicule them. The Democratic Party should not be sending any representatives to these shows at all, IMO. Help expose them for what they are. If we keep appearing only to allow ourselves to be used as human spitoons, we are merely enabling their cause. Appearing on these shows is part of the "allowing them to frame the debate" I spoke of. We simply must stop doing that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. hmm time you read Lackoff's don't think of an elephant

Yuo know where the idea that Tricky Dick was a crook came from?

Yep when he said, I am not a crook

Right now we have them nazis saying we are not nazis... trust me it is starting to work

[sellitman]

50. Springer is an idiot.

I never could stand him before and just because he is on AAR I still can't stomach him. He caters to the uneducated "Fox" type listener. perhaps Fox should have hired him instead of Clark.

[Atman]

56. The BEST part about Springer's show are the freepers.

Face it, Jerry has a big fan base, like it or not. Many people who loved his teevee circus sideshow have followed him to radio, perhaps expecting him to parade out a teenage gangbang queen married to her brother. Instead, they get an earful of lefty smackdown.

Unlike Rush, or certainly O'Lielly, Springer takes calls from "the other side," and instead of shutting them down, cutting them off or hanging up on them for disagreeing, Springer will take the time to thoughtfully explain an issue. It seems almost half of his callers are right-wingers calling from the trailer park. But Jerry tells them WHY Bush is evil, explains why his policies harm them. It is refreshing, and needed. I never liked him on television, never saw an episode of his crap-fest. He's not perfect on radio, but he is real. That is rarity these days.

[sellitman]

67. He is real?

I call him wishy washy. You want real.....Mike Malloy is "real".

His whiny moderate stance on almost everything of merit leaves this listener changing stations more often than not when he is on.

[Atman]

69. Well, don't read TOO much into it. "Real" is certainly subjective.

I only mean, he knows where he came from. He understands his little foray into the dark side of teevee has cost him credibility, and he tries to be fair. I agree that he isn't as informed as Malloy, nor as in your face. But still, he's not a lying sack like Rush and Hannity. He IS real. Maybe not Malloy real, but then, we can't all be Malloy.

[sellitman]

72. I'll buy that.

I sure wish Malloy was Prime Time though.

Or how about my fantasy show: The Rhodes- Malloy show!!!!!

[patricia92243]

82. I also have never seen Jerry on tv. (Have seen clips,so I know what his

show was.)

I think he is the smartest one on AAR and I LOVE his humor. Crock news is cute, and all the reasons for litening to "Springer on the Radio" are down right hilarious.

Great show - destined to be number one on AAR - just wait and see!

[CWebster]

53. That's right, let's get on with the really important business

of scolding Howard Dean.

The Holocaust is not sacred ground to be isolated as a singular monument for the victimization of a sole target group -- but a recognition of the capability of barbarism in contemporary times.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. You know, not to defend them

both are Jews (just like me)... Now I have a working theory of the American Jewish Community... they have a visceral reaction to the Nazi word... partly due to the way they have been taught. I am a daughter of a holocaust survivor, and went to school in Mexico... and the school was a zionist school where at least 1\4 of teh faculty were Israelis. They were Liberal Israelis, not Likudists, big difference by the way...

My theory is that I got from them the we take no prisoners and we all fascist for what they are and when we see Nazis we call them on it. From my personal experience American Jews (and I may be wrong on this)... have a very deep sense of victimhood and keeping those in power happy and contended, just like Germany, not realizing these SOBs have us on the list too, right after Muslims....

[noonwitch]

58. I'm still freaked out from the post about the religious camp for gay kids

That was so facist, and any republican who supports something like that is a nazi. It reminded me of someone I once met who tried to "choke the gay" out of her daughter.

[rhett o rick]

62. BRAVO nt

[Generator]

70. Well I understood Stewart's rant but

He was technically wrong about Durbin. So it irked me. "Nazi-like" is an apt description of the kind of torture and humilation tatics used in places like Guantanamo..and as we know the worst hasn't come out. Also, he compared them to pol pot which is actually probably worse than the Nazi reference. So the pol pot thing wasn't correct by Durbin, if you want to pick.

And I agree with the opening poster.

Everyone thinks they are safe from history, but as I have come to understand we aren't so unlike those "awful Germans" ( the everyday folk, not Nazi's, that knew-denied they knew and rationalized it) we grew up feeling superior to.

[Atman]

76. Much of this is rehashed from the Paperclip thread

I posted this in response to the discussion on the symbolism of the paperclip, several months back...

WHEN YOU DISCUSS THIS ISSUE, DO NOT REFER TO NAZIS. Most people WILL immediately roll their eyes at you. It is NOT about Nazis, the paper clip is a symbol of solidarity against an unpopular, unelected government. I wore one out last night, but first I actually re-read the paper clip thread and practiced my message so as not to sound like a nut-job should someone ask. I'm glad I did. Someone asked, and I was able to succinctly state what the message was in one sentence. The person was impressed. (Unfortunately, I had no other paper clips with me to hand out).

Here is a link to the thread above...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1409687#1409852


And here is a link to the original paperclip thread....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1399359#top

[DebJ]

77. just watch the military's answers at the G'tmo hearings for Hitler

philosophy. Apparently, if you are not a US Citizen, then the following words do not apply to you:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, .....that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
According to a General at the G'tmo hearings, only US citizens have any rights.

[area51]

80. nazi comparisons

No, I won't stop. If it wears a brown shirt, jackboots, & walks w/a goose-step....

[geek tragedy]

81. Nazi comparisons are dumb, shrill hyberbole.

They do more harm for our side than good.

People just tune out when they hear "Nazi."

[Atman]

88. Um...

They do more harm for our side than good.

People just tune out when they hear "Nazi."

Maybe you need to re-read the thread, starting from the original post. You seem to have missed the point entirely.

[K-W]

85. "It cant happen here" eh?

They seem to be missing the point. I would love to compare the Bush administration with various obscure governments throughout history.

I would more like to compare them with the history of facism in the US.

But Americans dont know about those obscure governments and Americans dont know about the history of American facism.

Average Americans understanding of facism is almost exclusively limited to Nazi Germany, making it the only possible comparison. Not to mention that much of international law and ethics that Bush is defying is derived from analysis and indictments of the Nazi's.

Springer and Stewert are falling into a right wing trap meant to cripple the ability of the left to show the true dangers of this administration. If Springer wants us to stop using Nazi comparisons, he better start touring the country teaching people about some other facist government that we can use as a comparison.

[Spectral]

86. Demonizing Hitler makes us forget he was a politician

We are so used to seeing Hitler as the incarnation of Satan, an anti-Christ, that we forget he was just a politician, a failed art student, a person with hatred and prejudices. Hitler would have remained an irritating back bencher (like Bob Dornan) giving speeches to empty chambers if the German people--especially powerful ones--hadn't backed him, given him power, let him take more and more power away.

Sadly, comparisons to Hilter have become hyperbole, lacking real meaning. But Hitler's rise to power is instructive. We shouldn't forget it.

[Timbuk3]

87. America, STILL better than Stalin

Bumper sticker the GOP should be selling: America, STILL better than Stalin

The issue isn't whether or not we are the same as the Nazis, the issue is that we aren't different enough. - Avi Schlaim, an Israeli historian, on the issue of comparisons to Nazi Germany

And one more observation on the Reich wing attempts to justify pre-emptive war (he MIGHT attack us, someday, if he manages to acquire the MEANS to attack us while UN inspectors are in the country and American and British warplanes are attacking targets in his country on a regular basis):

"The world may have changed on 9-11, but the Constitution did not." - Timbuk3

[Behind the Aegis]

89. Final Thoughts

get it? From Jerry Springer Show? Anyway, I have already written this, so as to not plagerize myself, it is here.

Is Bush like Hitler? I have seen some make a case for it, but it always falls short. I assert that NO ONE is Hitler other than Hitler. He is in a “class” all by himself! Yes, like Hitler, Bush has invaded a sovereign nation. Like Hitler, Bush has manipulated the media and national patriotism. Like Hitler, Bush is despised worldwide. Although a few more examples exist, Hitler was responsible for one of the most horrific genocides to ever take place in the history of humans. Therefore, Hitler stands alone. Bush may “aspire” to Hitler’s power, but he is not systematically destroying an entire group of people, in order to wipe them from the face of the planet. Even Stalin and Pol-Pot and their horrific regimes didn’t reach the level of evil that Hitler achieved. Does this mean the acts carried out by Bush, Stalin and Pol-Pot are any less evil or dastardly? OH HELL NO! But, why not compare Bush to Caesar? Napoleon? Genghis Khan? They are all examples of bat-shit crazy despots. Do you use Hitler for shock value or is there an actual comparison? When someone says “Hitler,” do you think of the struggling/failed artist? Do you think “the weasly, little nobody who could barely muster support, at first?” I bet you think “crazed madman, who sent 12 million hapless souls to their deaths!” So even if there are comparisons between Bush (or any leader) to Hitler, the only impression that people think when they hear that name is “crazed madman, who sent millions to their deaths.”

[Irreverend IX]

90. Fascist comparisons are more accurate...

Comparing Bush to Mussolini or Franco is more accurate than comparing him to Hitler. Hitler distinguished himself from other fascists with the Holocaust, and that's not likely to happen here since the neocons are hardcore pragmatists rather than adherents to any particular ideology. The Holocaust came out of the racist ideology of the Nazis, and from a pragmatic standpoint it was a huge waste of resources. Hitler would very likely have won the war if he hadn't taken the time and money to build the camps and ship so many prisoners across Europe to fill them. Bush's gang are a good deal more rational than the Nazis were. If they succeed in gaining total power, the victims of their Holocaust won't die in gas chambers; they'll die in gutters after losing their jobs and health care. Or maybe they'll pass away after decades of work for the prison industrial complex following their arrest for possessing half a gram of marijuana.