Does the hatred in the Netroots know no bounds?
In 2006, one of their leaders posted a picture of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) in black face.
On Tuesday, one of the "Recommended Diaries" at Daily Kos featured a picture of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a Gestapo uniform (right) under the headline, "Today's Worst Person in the World" (h/t NBer Gat New York).
After some quotes from an Associated Press article about Scalia's views on "so-called torture," the DKos piece elaborated (with seemingly requisite vulgarity I might add while cautioning readers before they proceed):
I realized that this place gets a little touchy when it comes to Nazi portrayals and comparisons... if I jumped the shark, so be it, flame away, Godwin's Law be dammned. My late father, God rest his soul, went to war to put an end to this s**t. Those of you who read what I write here know that I very rarely if ever resort to profanity, but I say from the bottom of my heart and with every last breath of pride in my country, "F**k you, Antonin Scalia." I am not a government scholar, but surely there is something in place to censure or disbar your ass.
Can these people write anything without profanity?
Of course, this question is rhetorical, for even when vulgarity is absent from their prose, virtually everything that emanates from these folks is profane.
Those that can stand it should venture into the comments section to witness how such detritus is worshipped at this far-left website. Markos Moulitsas must be so proud of what he's created.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
The Libs are the Nazis
February 13, 2008 - 11:33 ET by mattm13 of the most relevant points from the Nazi Party's 25-point program of 1920, its Munich manifesto:
Well the thing is, MattM,
February 13, 2008 - 12:37 ET by JasonCWell the thing is, MattM, most of these sound good on paper, and many correspond to modern conservatism as well (#18; Patriot Act?). None of what you've cited makes any mention of ethnic/theocratic liquidation or brutal invasion of neighboring sovereign nations, of course. Those are the things that make Hitler's Germany notorious and unequivocally repugnant. Citing a few items from a social platform and saying "Look! They sorta resemble the Democrats' plans! But [drumroll] it's from the Nazis!" is the height of disingenuity, intellectual laziness, and a transparent attempt to duck Godwin's Law.
All you've proven is that you, as well, can think of no better form of discourse than to slap a rhetorical swastika on the opposition.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Patriot Act Schmatriot
February 13, 2008 - 12:50 ET by mattmPatriot Act Schmatriot Act... No American citizen has had his constitutional rights violated by the Patriot Act...
You just can't deal with the fact that there is so much similarity between Dems/Libs and Nazis...which is why, in my opinion, the Left is so quick to slap the Nazi label on Conservatives - it's a deflection tactic.
FDR Put Japanese Americans in concentration camps.
The Clintons burned down a private compound, and would have stamped all of our foreheads with a "health security" account number if they could have gotten away with it.
It is the Libs who want to reinstate the draft.
It is the Libs who want to criminalize the decision not to buy health insurance.
It is Libs who banned the bible from public schools while allowing kids to access porn via the school's internet connection.
It's the libs who want to take 1/2 your money and redistribute it to suit their social-engineering agenda.
Every Left Wing "solution" expands the size and scope of government while diminishing the Liberty of the citizens.
If Liberals truly were liberal, they wouldn't be Liberals.
Get a clue, pal.
Well, either you're right about the "Patriot" Act...
February 13, 2008 - 12:58 ET by sarcasmoOr the Justice Department's Inspector General's right, but both can't be right at once. And is it too much for libertarian types like me to ask that congresscritters voting on 1000s of pages of BS have a few minutes to actually read 'em over first??
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
I'm not saying that the
February 13, 2008 - 13:07 ET by JasonCI'm not saying that the Patriot Act has resulted in violations of citizens' rights, mind you (though it has the potential to, and that alone should be a red flag). I'm merely saying that the language of the item in the list of Nazi platforms that mattm so generously provided invokes similar language. Furthermore, my point was that those sort of things on paper do not adequately sum up the actual viciousness of the Third Reich, because of course the sourse of their notoriety is not explicated in political tracts like this; a point that sailed unnoticed over mattm's head like a Brady pass in the Super Bowl.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Am I describing American
February 13, 2008 - 19:00 ET by liberal_bug_zapperAm I describing American Liberals here?
They are ardent socialists who loathe the free market, believe in free health care, oppose inherite wealth, spend vast sums on public education, purge Christianity from public policy, and insert the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life.
They declared war on smoking; supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control; and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities -- where campus speech codes were all the rage.
Nope, all of that which I describe above is the policy and platform of the Nazi Party in Germany in the 1930s.
Fascism, Nazism, Progressivism, and modern liberalism are much alike in principle, in that all believe that government should be allowed to do whatever it likes, so long as it is for "good reasons"
Not only do we have to oppose modern Progressives and Liberals at any price, but we may actually be forced into a second civil war because of their activities. The slow road to facism is being walked by Liberals... not Conservatives.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
First of all, not all
February 13, 2008 - 12:58 ET by JasonCFirst of all, not all liberals are Clinton-supporters. Second, your post is a conservative paranoiac's wet dream, not a list of actual platform items. Way to put a delusional twist on every single one! Porn via school computers? Where is that happening?
The Libs! The Libs! Your little list, when composed as just the opposite, is generally dismissed as "BDS Talking Points". So what does that make this?
Put down the Ann Coulter book and John Birch pamphlets and try to get a more original argument than "You're the Nazis!"
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC there is a
February 13, 2008 - 13:15 ET by Dan The Man 2JasonC there is a difference when you shout Nazi without justification or logical comparison and when you have logic behind it. His post had logic and drive and yours has none. The Patriot act has potential like any law to be abused. Look at the SCOTUS RoevWade and the abuse in it. The point about Clinton was that the abuse usually happens under Dim rule and you have essentilly agreed it does not happen under GOP rule.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
The Patriot Act has
February 13, 2008 - 13:19 ET by JasonCThe Patriot Act has particularly malicious potential for abuse, seeing how its very nature is the erasure of due process.
His post does not have logic. How many times do I have to spell this out? Do you know how easy it would be to make a little list of Bush's executive behavior and draw comparisons to things the Nazis did? Quite easy, and you know this, because knee-jerk liberals have been doing it for a long time. My point is that drawing comparisons based on vague domestic policy similarities is disingenuous and merely a cheap way of making the leap to the Nazi comparison.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
You, as usual, completely,
February 13, 2008 - 13:23 ET by mattmYou, as usual, completely, and probably deliberately, missed my point.
And what was that? If
February 13, 2008 - 13:58 ET by JasonCAnd what was that? If it's something besides "Nuh-uh, you're the Nazis" then I'm all ears.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Sorry Pal, I don't have
February 13, 2008 - 13:21 ET by mattmSorry Pal, I don't have time to write a novel. If you want to make a point based on rhetoric or semantics, then you're having an anal wet dream.
Your delusions of intellectual superiority have blinded you to how idiotic you are. My argument was not "you're the Nazis." Anyone with a functioning brain would know that....
My argument was that Kos has no credibility in saying "you're the Nazis" to conservatives because it is Liberals like them whose belief system so closely resembles the Nazi Party.
There. Does that spell it out for you clearly enough???? Sheeesh!
What is the definition of
February 13, 2008 - 11:36 ET by AJWhat is the definition of professional journalism any more?
And anyways, the author of the article sounds like a high school drop out.
"I realized that this place gets a little touchy when it comes to Nazi portrayals and comparisons..."
Sounds like he was not sure... hmmm. Oh, and this...
"I am not a government scholar..."
A journalist doesn't typically comment on issues that are outside his or her realm of knowledge... though, I have heard ESPN anchors make passes at President Bush.
AJ this one "I am not a
February 13, 2008 - 11:46 ET by Dan The Man 2AJ this one "I am not a government scholar, but surely there is something in place to censure or disbar your ass." also got me. I imagine if he is commenting on something like he did a sitting SCOTUS judge and has not looked into how and what methods to disbar him, then he is on "feelings" alone. What an idiot. He defintely opened his mouth and proved he was an idiot.
That said I really liked what Scalia said about Europe keeping their nose out of our laws.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Maybe.....
February 13, 2008 - 11:45 ET by NavyBuckeyeWe can get one of the computer masters out there to make a picture of Billary looking like Stalin and one of Obama looking like Castro..... imagine the outrage.
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” - Thomas Jefferson
Barry
February 13, 2008 - 11:51 ET by dmntd1I was thinking about an image of Barry Obama dressed like Che, his image posted on tshirts, flags, hemp bags.... all of the assorted claptrap of the left.
I really think that questioning others' masculinity is a game probably better left to people who haven't had more cock in and out of them than a Tyson Chicken regional distribution center. AceOfSpades 06162007
Pic
February 13, 2008 - 11:54 ET by mattmPic
Man, she actually looks
February 13, 2008 - 15:37 ET by Gary P JacksonMan, she actually looks better WITH the mustache!
Thanks, Noel
February 13, 2008 - 11:56 ET by RJI just sent part of your piece to a local (Hartford Courant) columnist. He and I have been having pretty good conversations for years, but today he wrote a factless, emotional rant against "right wing hate radio" and your piece was a great point of take off in response. As we know, there's MUCH more hate coming from the left than from the right.
ALL the hate is coming from
February 13, 2008 - 12:24 ET by mattmALL the hate is coming from the Left. (I don't count fanatic funeral protesters)
From the Right you get issue oriented discussion which sometimes includes satire and a bit of purposeful hyperbole to make a point.
Most Libs simply can't handle being disagreed with, so they call it mean-spirited hate, as they fly off on another insane tirade...
Since these Neo-Stalinist
February 13, 2008 - 11:59 ET by ConservativeRexSince these Neo-Stalinist pushed so hard for the "hate crime bill" I say we use it against them. Surely a hate crime was committed here. You dress a sitting member of the SCOTUS in Nazi garb you're stating your racial/religious/political/ethnicity intolerance (pick one) toward another human being, in public no less. I contend this is NOT covered by the First Amendment, how could it possibly be?
Not to split hairs or in
February 13, 2008 - 12:23 ET by JasonCNot to split hairs or in any way defend Daily Kos, but aren't they in fact making an implication about Scalia's alleged racial/religious/political/ethnic intolerance? Not that Scalia exactly has Aryan features, of course. But yeah.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Duh, Jason. Of
February 13, 2008 - 12:28 ET by mattmDuh, Jason. Of course they're making that implication, but the point is it's a FALSE one...
The libs are the Nazis.
Zeig Heil
And, in accordance with
February 13, 2008 - 12:40 ET by JasonCAnd, in accordance with that ancient mode of argument - "I'm rubber and you're glue" - I see you've turned that accusation right around on the Left. Watch out Plato, there's a new rhetorician in town!
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So, basically, Jason, your
February 13, 2008 - 12:46 ET by motherbeltSo, basically, Jason, your argument is that it's true???
Scalia is a Nazi at heart??
huh? Where do you get
February 13, 2008 - 12:49 ET by JasonChuh? Where do you get that? My point was that the original poster claims that the Kos Krowd was betraying their own racial/ethnic prejudices, but it seems clear to me that they're trying to make a point about Scalia's. I don't see how accusing someone else of being a Nazi, untrue or irresponsible as it might be, makes the accused automatically a bigot. Misguided, shallow, and intellectually lazy, perhaps.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
mattm made the argument
February 13, 2008 - 13:14 ET by motherbeltmattm made the argument that it was a false accusation, and you said he was turning it around.
That's where I got that.
MB, I see. I thought I'd
February 13, 2008 - 13:16 ET by JasonCMB, I see. I thought I'd made myself clear what I thought of the Kos accusation, and my sarcasm regarding matt's "turning it around" was only in reference to his "The libs are the Nazis" link/tagline.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
"...in reference to his
February 13, 2008 - 13:36 ET by mattm"...in reference to his "The libs are the Nazis" link/tagline..."
The point of which was to demonstrate that the Kos use of the Nazi tag was without credibility. Which should have been obvious, but you, in your knee-jerk bigotry, immediately assumed I was arguing from some fanatical base of opinion. You do this alot around here and it's getting pretty old.
Did the Kos try to equate Scalia with Nazis? Yes
Do those points from the Nazi platform resemble the philosophy of modern Liberals? Yes
Is that philosophy in direct contrast to the free-market, constitutional philosophy of conservatives like Scalia? Yes it is.
Are the Kos people Liberals? Yes
Therefore, it is correct to point out that Liberals, like the Kos people, have no business slapping the Nazi tag on anyone.
But Matt, your above posts
February 13, 2008 - 13:56 ET by JasonCBut Matt, your above posts had nothing to with DKos; the first lays out Nazi political platforms from the 30s and claims that their vague , highly-arguable similarity to modern liberalism makes liberals Nazis. Your subsequent post is about liberalism in general, with a few specific swipes as the Clintons and FDR. Our repartee above has barely been about Kos, but almost exclusively about your attempt to link liberalism with Nazism. This is not about my 'bigotry'. This is what you posted. You want to claim it was tongue-in-cheek? Fine, I'll buy that. But our specific argument ceased long ago to be about a couple of disgruntled Kos posters. You want to bash (figuratively, of course) the Kos posters, I'll be right there with you. But I read your remarks as seizing on the opportunity to literally claim liberal/Nazi equivocation, and that is what I've been arguing against.
Neither side should be making Nazi comparisons about the other. Not because it's "mean" but because it's lazy, inaccurate, and sounds so absurdly scripted.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Ok how about this for a
February 13, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Dan The Man 2Ok how about this for a Nazi comparison. The Dims are like Nazis in their glee for embryonic stem cell research and abortion. The Nazis classified the jews as non human to experiment on them in the same way teh Dims classify babies as blobs of tissue and not human to experiment on them.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
The difference being that
February 13, 2008 - 14:51 ET by JasonCThe difference being that the US, under the law of Roe v Wade, does not demand or mandate that these things happen, but delegates the choice to the individual to decide for their own particular case.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So, If I DECIDE that the
February 13, 2008 - 16:02 ET by BDSo, If I DECIDE that the crowd in front the of latest hollywood movie is subhuman, then I can mow them down?
After all, that is MY delegated choice, correct? The Supremes would back me up, correct?
Depends. Are all of those
February 13, 2008 - 16:47 ET by JasonCDepends. Are all of those people unsentient, living inside of you, and wholly dependent for existence on your various bodily nutrients?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
People paying to watch
February 13, 2008 - 17:23 ET by BDPeople paying to watch current Hollywood movies? Yep, theya re Unsentient.
People watching Hollywood movies are also mostly living off the Govt dime in the form of transfer payments so , yes, they are wholly dependant on my for existance and bodily nutrients.
At least more so than a baby/fetus which can now survive outside the womb at nearing 4 months gestation.
Can I whack the crowd outside of the theater?
I'm going to need a
February 13, 2008 - 17:29 ET by JasonCI'm going to need a citation for your second paragraph; considering the sheer number of people who consume Hollywood's output, I find it hard to believe that there's any particular trend or economic characteristic that can be applied to "most" of them.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So, THAT is your concern?
February 13, 2008 - 18:02 ET by BDSo, THAT is your concern? That it might be applied to theater patrons?????????
So, therefore, what if I were to say we should summarily execute all persons drawing transfer payments (Welfare etc)
They all depend on me in some way shape or form for their existance, would I be okay in mowing down the crowd queing up for welfare?
Hey, I'm just trying to
February 13, 2008 - 18:06 ET by JasonCHey, I'm just trying to have this discussion on your terms.
But when you say they're depending on 'me', what you really mean is the complex entity of economic and political society as a whole. I'm quite certain they'd do fine without you personally.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
What if "I" were the only
February 13, 2008 - 18:12 ET by BDWhat if "I" were the only tax payer in the country? Would I be justified then in mowing down the Welfare crowd outside the Welfare office?
Does the Top 1% of the population get to make this call since they pay the overwhelming tax burden?
What If I were to have the combined incomeof Bill Gates, George Soro's, Warren Buffet, and the Walton Clan? Since a huge swath of American Welfare addicts depend on them for their daily sustenance (And crack money) can they order a nathionwide round up for the sole purpose of handing the issue?
JasonC, first off RovevWade
February 13, 2008 - 16:03 ET by Dan The Man 2JasonC, first off RovevWade is not a law it is a court decision that said abortion was legal. There is a difference, but perhaps not to you Dims who think it is settled law, in that it may be overturned and a new edict put in place. You show you have no idea of what is law and what is Nazi like by this post.
In the USA as in Nazi Germany it was also a choice. The Dims are making killing babies acceptable as the Nazis made killing Jews acceptable. There is a valid comparison. They do it by dehumanizing the people. And you understand that all actions are individual choices; so if someone says I must kill I say no.
The Democrat abortionists are misleading the public just like the Nazis propaganda mislead their public and called some faction less than humans so the public would look the other way.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan, Roe v Wade is the law
February 13, 2008 - 16:55 ET by JasonCDan, Roe v Wade is the law of the land. Even Ann Coulter has said as much. Until, like any other law, it is changed and/or replaced, it grants women the right to abort; although, because of the 1st Amendment, it does not allow them to do so without being accosted by hordes of pro-life zealots who are either unemployed or have figured out how to get some sort of "protest leave" that allows them to stand around outside a clinic for hours every day.
What I find interesting is that those who want Roe v. Wade overturned are loathe to admit that doing so would be a largely symbolic gesture. In reality, it will only make the situation worse. If women want to abort they will find a way, and that way may include horrendously unsafe procedures, a black market for substandard procedures, lots of partial-births, more dead women, and so on. And women who have money will go to Europe and have it done just the same. It's almost the exact same argument as the drug war. People want to make drugs illegal because they're bad, and in turn make almost every aspect of drug abuse exponentially worse. I'll concede that abortion is bad. It sucks that ours is a culture in which it's an in-demand service. But it is, and if it's made illegal, supply will spring up to fill that demand.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC, sigh, show me the
February 13, 2008 - 17:31 ET by Dan The Man 2JasonC, sigh, show me the law and tell me why it is a law. I will repeat it is not a law; it is a ruling that abortion was not illegal. Laws are different than rulings or judgments. What you said is akin to saying the law of the land is separation between church and state and it is not. Dim to the core aren’t you.
Jason give me some facts about the before Rowe v Wade times. I don’t think that this “horrendously unsafe procedures” will happen any more than it does now. The stories are largely hearsay and anecdotes with little facts. Heck we might even get back to abstinence being the best birth control method. Ill bet you did not even know that the states were allowing abortion little by little. We need to allow the states rights to pass their own laws.
1967
Apr. 25: Colorado Gov. John A. Love signs the first "liberalized" ALI-model abortion law in the United States, allowing abortion in cases of permanent mental or physical disability of either the child or mother or in cases of rape or incest. Similar laws are passed in California, Oregon, and North Carolina.1970
Apr. 11: New York allows abortion on demand up to the 24th week of pregnancy, as Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller signs a bill repealing the state's 1830 law that banned abortion after quickening except to save a woman's life. Similar laws are passed in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington state.
1971
Apr. 21: The U.S. Supreme Court rules on its first case involving abortion in United States v. Vuitch, upholding a District of Columbia law permitting abortion only to preserve a woman's life or "health." However, the Court makes it clear that by "health" it means "psychological and physical well-being," effectively allowing abortion for any reason.
1972
By year's end a total of 13 states have an ALI-type law. Four states allow abortion on demand. Mississippi allows abortion for rape and incest [1966] while Alabama allows abortion for the mother's physical health [1954]. However, 31 states allow abortion only to save the mother's life.
New York repeals its 1970 abortion law but Gov. Rockefeller vetoes the repeal.
Thus proving you are emotion and no facts
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
So your beef is not with
February 13, 2008 - 17:43 ET by JasonCSo your beef is not with the morality or the safety of women or a culture in which abortion is in demand...this is all just a states' rights issue?
Fine, it's not a law in the sense of the "This is how a bill becomes a law" video we all saw in 3rd grade civics. However, you cannot legally intervene to stop somebody from having an abortion within the legal time period. Regardless of which branch it came from and the extra-legal ramifications of it, I think a solid litmus test would be: can you call the police when you see a woman entering a clinic for an abortion and tell them that a mother is about to kill her child? What would happen?
Dim to the core? I'll leave that one alone.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason: Dan is
February 13, 2008 - 18:07 ET by BDJason:
Dan is correct. Roe was not an actual law, simply a ruling based on a bizarre finding of privacy (poor ruling actually).
Let us just put it this way.
If my home state decides through the legilative process that abortion should be outlawed, it is defacto a law. It MIGHT then be overturned as Un-constitutional by the Supremes but it is still a law on the books.
I will defer to the legal types (I am an poor intel guy) on when a law actually comes OFF the books after being overturned by the Supremes....
So it is de facto, or in
February 13, 2008 - 18:10 ET by JasonCSo it is de facto, or in practice, a law? I'm not particularly interested in the legal intricacies. The point is, women do have the right to abort; you cannot bring the force of the law against someone who chooses to do this. If this were not the case, then pro-life conservatives would not be so determind to get appointed judges who would likely help overturn it.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
They have that right purely
February 13, 2008 - 18:19 ET by BDThey have that right purely on the basis of Judicial Fiat.
The point is, women do have the right to abort; you cannot bring the force of the law against someone who chooses to do this.
Sure you can, and we used to do so for most of our nations history. In fact, if we were to use the Anthony Kennedy practice and follow International law as a guide, you would say the vast majority of foreign nations either prohibit altogether or restrict abortion. (I actually do NOT endorse the following of the practice of referring to other nations laws when handling US legal business.)
No I have a beef with
February 13, 2008 - 18:12 ET by Dan The Man 2No I have a beef with murdering human beings in a mother’s womb. I presented an argument from a secular point of view to make it more conceivable to the Dems like you. Once we get the idea of Roe v Wade being unconstitutional then we can argue the moral merits. I know most Dems have no morals in that area and are just like the Nazis.
This is patently “you cannot legally intervene to stop somebody from having an abortion within the legal time period” false. First there is no time period in Roe v Wade, it not specified. Second a law passed can limit and stop or specify a legal intervention. Think before you put something down. Also I can stop my wife and then have it ruled legal; Im sure it has been done before as mental stability ploy. Wasn’t Brittany taken to the Looney bin on such a charge?
But the abortion issue should remain a states rights issue. In doing so the constituents have a chance of living in a state they want to with the laws they decide and not some unelected court.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Mothers safety?
February 13, 2008 - 18:21 ET by woolIt's funny how that the big pitch for abortion legality often comes down to "we have to keep women from performing abortion on their own".
If the left really cares about the safety of women- and all others- why don't they want to do something about the tens of thousands of people killed by illegals in the last decade?
Also, I am unconvinced that back alley abortions were ever that prevelant, but if they were, it was pre-Murphy Brown and the stigma was unlike todays social climate of single mother acceptance. Add to that the tremendous demand for adoptable infants and there is no reason for women to reach for a hanger.
It was, as per the general
February 13, 2008 - 15:48 ET by mattmIt was, as per the general methodology here, in direct response to the topic of this thread - which was DKos' use of the bogus, but typical, "Conservatives are Nazis" accusation.
No Jason
February 13, 2008 - 12:47 ET by Gat New YorkWhat they are doing is defaming people and using symbols of hatred in an indiscriminate way.
Some other comments made by these bigoted Koz Kidz are:
Advocate for torture, get Photoshopped with a swastika on the Internets. I think that's totally justified.
Scalia needs to quit walking and quacking if he doesn't want to be seen as a Torturing, Nazi Duck!!!!!!
Fat, Fuckin' Evil Pig !!!
Daily Kos has a history of promoting hatred and its founder does not really care.
Yeah, I realize all that.
February 13, 2008 - 12:54 ET by JasonCYeah, I realize all that. But I don't take DK particularly seriously, nor do I for one second believe that they are the face of liberalism or the democratic party.
And frankly, I think a moral equivalency argument between advocating torture and Nazism could be made. But taking the shortcut of photoshopping a picture of someone who advocates torture to be wearing SS officerial garb is stupid.
If I must put it in black-and-white, the DK posters are, by and large, morons. But, to make a parallel here, when certain NB posters have taglines advocating the indiscriminate execution of Islamic people, illegal immigrants, and journalists, I make a point of not projecting that nonsense onto the NB masthead.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
DK is indeed the face of
February 13, 2008 - 14:57 ET by ConservativeRexDK is indeed the face of liberalism. They believe that, so I'm not going to argue that they are not the face of liberalism. They also believe the represent the democrat party, again, no argument here.
I see the use of the word torture by a select few anti-Americans...which bothers me not one bit. I always have to grin when I think that we are saving these poor, stupid bastards on the left by using the techniques to get information that we do use. But you know what, stop all of our information gathering techniques, cut them all out. Every man for himself, I am capable to defend my family and myself. I am not sure if everyone can though. But too bad I guess, the left doesn't want us to hurt the feelings of the folks who would just as soon see them dead as anything. At this point, it's really not my problem.
KO will be so outraged!
February 13, 2008 - 12:06 ET by connorinMISTER Keith Olbermann (fellow Kos poster) will surelyvoice his outrage over this use of Nazi symbolism to denegrate someone for political reasons. We have all heard from his own lips that Nazi comparisons have no place in poltical discourse (I forget was that before or after his various Nazi references to the Bush administration and BillO'Reilly?)
The head is held in place
February 13, 2008 - 12:34 ET by motherbeltThe head is held in place by a vise. An incision is made at the base of the skull. A suction tube is inserted through the opening, up into the skull, and the brain tissue is suctioned out.
Could we run this by those sensitive Kos Kids, and see if they consider it torture?
Would they allow this as a means of execution?
Wouldn't Work
February 13, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Gat New YorkThey don't regard a fetus as a living being. They also don't regard anyone that does not agree with them as a living being either.
"They also don't regard
February 13, 2008 - 12:56 ET by DCC1"They also don't regard anyone that does not agree with them as a living being either"
That is exactly right, and if there is anything more evil and Nazi than that I don't know what it is. Those Kos nazis can burn in hell! Well they all will eventually anyway, but I'd rather it was sooner than later.
Terrorists want change too
Ironic isn't it...
February 13, 2008 - 12:47 ET by orlandocajunLiberal wackos paint Scalia as a Nazi, but he's one of the few justices who would defend their right to call him one. Scalia voted against the Kelo and McCain-Feingold decisions. Do liberal wackos think that seizing property clearly in conflict with the constitution was a good idea? Do liberal wackos want justices who decide how and when to change the constitution with their decisions? How would they feel if their right to sound insane was taken away and they were arrested and charged with a hate crime for their stupidity? Well, Scalia also voted against McCain-Feingold.
The stupidity of the idiots at the KOS knows no bounds, but Scalia will defend their rights of insanity to his death.
Call me crazy
February 13, 2008 - 13:37 ET by Dustin JolleyCall me crazy, but somehow I don't think that Keith Olbermann is going to name the Daily Kos "The Worst Persons in the World" for this. Of course, he wouldn't anyway because that idiot's working for them now anyway.
All I have to say is
February 13, 2008 - 13:40 ET by happyuscitizenScalia Rocks and why isn't he running for the nomination!
"I'm just a big fat hairy American Winning Machine!" - Ricky Bobby
I wonder just what would
February 13, 2008 - 14:37 ET by bigtimerI wonder just what would happen if NBs put for example Ruth Bader Ginsberg in the same attire and posted some of the same sentiments...eh?
Just a thought...
Nice work Matt
February 13, 2008 - 15:39 ET by woolBrilliant work there on the matching agendas and on point. Jason seems determined to make this about deflection. How about a refutation of the points Jason? I heard Hillary say earlier this week that she wanted to "make sure that America has shared prosperity". Does anyone think that she means anything other than further wealth redistribution?
For perhaps the 10th time,
February 13, 2008 - 18:03 ET by JasonCFor perhaps the 10th time, I'm not disputing that some of the things in that list correspond to various domestic policy proposals of the Democrats. Some of them also correspond to the right. Both of these things are beside the point. My point is that to underscore those similarities (the most important ones, according to Matt, or at least the most supportive of his premise) in order to draw a comparison between Nazism and liberalism (or any other modern ideology) is lazy and irresponsible, because those are not the things that made Nazi Germany infamous and horrible. Yet, the point of this tactic is to get the unassuming reader to equate the two, to hear "The Nazis did it too" and immediately condemn whatever is be equated to them. That is, the really horrible things the Nazis did, like liquidating their political and ethnic 'enemies' and brutally invading other countries, will be projected unduly onto the discussion; even though Nazism only came up because of relatively benign political proposals.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Which is why
February 13, 2008 - 18:07 ET by balboaWhich is why what's-his-face's book cover is ridiculous.
Of course it is. but I
February 13, 2008 - 18:12 ET by JasonCOf course it is. but I suppose it's understandable. The right has had to deal with liberal idiots (I reject the premise of BDS, but will submit that many of them are idiots) who have portrayed Bush as a Nazi for 8 years. Now that they see an imminent loss of their political influence, legislative last year, very likely executive next year, they've realized there is a certain cheap, populist appeal in such portrayals.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Portrait
February 13, 2008 - 15:51 ET by ammo johnIt must not have been all that hard to photoshop that picture. All Markos had to do was get the portrait of himself wearing his daily Nazi garb and put Justice Scalia's face on it.
Nazis and the left
February 13, 2008 - 17:56 ET by szampIt is very interesting to see leftists comparing Nazis to conservative people when Nazis were socialists. Nazi means Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, in other words, National Socialist Party. They came from labor unions. These comparisons reflect a complete ignorance about history.
I never have understood why
February 13, 2008 - 22:22 ET by DCC1I never have understood why they hated the communists so much, after all the Russians are pretty much perfect aryans, and share their socialist views. Do you know why they were at such odds?
Terrorists want change too
DCC1,
February 13, 2008 - 22:41 ET by R D HelmI have often wondered about that myself. When you get right down to it, Marxism (what is now modern liberalism) is government control of government owned resources, whereas Fascism (which is essentially what the Nazis were) is government control of privately owned resources.
Other than that, they were essentially identical, as there was virtually no recognition of the rights of the individual. Under both ideologies, the individual was considered to be the property of the state.
Obama: Elect me and I'll lose the war AND raise your taxes! - Bryan/HotAir.com
I've always felt its
February 13, 2008 - 22:51 ET by onlybeef42I've always felt its because they are so close its like 2 brothers growing up, they can never seem to quite fighing.
Here is a website with a nice easy table comparison of the two, I used when writing a paper once.
http://www.tfp.org/w...
onlybeef42, Thanks for the excellent link.
February 14, 2008 - 00:29 ET by R D HelmLOL-Too bad the net wasn't around until very late in my college career. It would have saved me God only knows how many library hours.
Obama: Elect me and I'll lose the war AND raise your taxes! - Bryan/HotAir.com
The lazy but efficient generation
February 14, 2008 - 01:00 ET by onlybeef42:-), and it keeps getting better. I'm in law school now and there is no way I could handle researching the old way. I take the whole law library (probably more like 1000s of libraries) into classes and home with me every night. Even if I wanted to do the extra work I'm not really sure how those things people call 'books' work... lol
Context and ignorance
February 13, 2008 - 22:33 ET by onlybeef42This past summer I took a class taught by Scalia in Innsbruck, Austria not far from the birthplace of Nazism. As he stressed there and throughout his judicial opinions, it’s not for the judiciary to create laws, rather they apply what is written by the legislature and enforced by the executive branches to life’s fact patterns. He frequently quoted the Federalist papers citing how courts have no power over “force nor will but merely judgment”
These ‘journalists’ assume he and the court should decide what is torture but it’s a fundamental principal that this country is founded on that the Congress writes those laws and the executive will enforce them. These foundations of our country are repeatedly obscured by the media, even the dean of the school hosting him was in awe of the way he could weave our country’s funding documents together without stealing power from the other branches of government. These ‘journalists’ would be left brain dead if they attempted to grab hold of the judicial process on their own, but for Scalia’s amazing ability to put tough concepts into common English (My constitutional law classes made sense for the 1st time after hearing his phrasing).
As both the AP article and that website overlooked he was speaking about what is torture under the US Constitution and laws. If they want the law to say something different there is a proper way to change it, and Scalia will apply it as written subject to the Constitution as he has many times in the past, setting aside any personal views. (and hopefully the whole court, too). Two examples he told us about are, the incorporation doctrine and substantive due process. He stressed though these are incorrect lines of cases they are now deeply rooted common law principals and should not be changed without extreme caution.
I wonder how many of these leftist know that we (US scientist) created the doctrine of eugenics it was just the Nazi’s who used it. The government was being given more and more power and along with that power came the ability to pick and choose what lives are worthy of living. The scary thing is the leftist are advocating the very programs which created Nazism, genetic manipulation, abortion, this quest to cure disease and improve our quality of life requires pause and reflection on past mistakes to learn better paths to walk down. It is those who are accusing others of Nazism who are seeking a government with greater and greater say over private lives ideals not far from Nazism. King Solomon in Ecclesiastes said it best “There is nothing new under the sun.”
Wow that was a big soap box... sorry
Excellent post. You've just
February 15, 2008 - 01:34 ET by ZapExcellent post. You've just completely demolished anything those Kossers could say.
Too bad that none of them would be able to comprehend anything you wrote, and thus would have to respond by screaming something incoherent about neocons.
ob42... Wow...thank you
February 15, 2008 - 01:44 ET by bigtimerob42...
Wow...thank you for that post...never ever apologize...enlighten us more when you can...please.
As an aside you wrote ....
These ‘journalists’ would be left brain dead if they attempted to grab hold of the judicial process on their own, but for Scalia’s amazing ability to put tough concepts into common English (My constitutional law classes made sense for the 1st time after hearing his phrasing).
I immediately thought what do you mean left brain-dead....they are to begin with.
Thanks once again for the knowledge you posted.
Nazi were socialists -- like Democrats are
February 14, 2008 - 00:21 ET by j17ghsDidn't George Schwartz (Soros) actually help clear out Jews in his native Hungary during WWII? Yet only Bush and Scalia are Nazis, which is so Orwellian it is scary.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And Daily KaKa wants to make sure we will not learn.
Didn't (Soros) actually
February 14, 2008 - 00:32 ET by JerDidn't (Soros) actually help clear out Jews in his native Hungary during WWII?
Uh...no. But, later, he did help clear the communists out of Eastern Europe.
Jer