Ward Churchill - NOT a Native American? Fire him.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 03:59
VIEWED: 16391
PAGE 6 of 16
"Bush hasn't lied anywhere in regards to Iraq." And all the OTHER lies are irrelevant? Sort of like lying about... er... sex??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I'm sorry, but you just gave me the biggest chuckle of the day. Thanks!
heh heh heh..... mmmphh! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep. The analogy is pretty clear. Not only are you surprisingly ignorant of history, but you condone the intentional murder of thousands of innocent civilians in much the same way that Hitler did. The only difference is the number, and I’m sure that not even Hitler knew just how many he and his Nazi minions would actually end up killing in the end. If this is really the kind of idiotic ideals you subscribe to, then you are as much a fruitcake as Churchill.
Originally posted by SignyM:
How close is the analogy? Close enough to be instructive?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not condoning it, I'm trying to prevent it. Like the Germans who were stampeded by fear when the Reichstag was burned, we were stampeded by fear when the Twin Towers came down. And look what happened- we "pre-emptively" invaded Iraq. And what were we preventing? Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, didn't have WMD, didn't even have a delivery system- in other words, posed no threat to us or to its neighbors. Nonetheless, we killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in an entirely preventable war.
Mass fear is a tool of the powerful. If a people believe that they are facing life or death, they will round up and gas the "conspirators" en masse, machete their neighbors, bomb and invade irrelevant nations.
I listened to the makers of "Downfall" yesterday. Their point is that Hitler was nothing special- just a man. The phenomenon of Nazi Germany is quite ordinary and can occur anywhere.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Intelligent people can disagree on whether going to war with Iraq was the right or wrong thing to do. I don’t have any problem with you not agreeing with the war in Iraq, and if that is what we were talking about then I might even be willing to concede that you may be right about some of that.
However, regardless of what you claim now, you have been defending Churchill’s comments. And Churchill clearly said that the intentional murder of 3000 innocent civilians was “befitting” based on some hand-waiving about the evils of “technocrats” and “stock brokers.” It is interesting to note that one of the common ethnic slurs used to justify the hatred and subsequent murder of Jews by Nazis during the holocaust was to dismiss Jews as a bunch of corrupt bankers and lawyers. Effectively the exact same bullshit that Churchill is spewing. Your position only now has changed to the war in Iraq; your position previously was defending Churchill’s logic.
Furthermore your analogy between the US and Nazi Germany is completely fallacious. Regardless of one’s position on the issue of Iraq, it is impossible to draw the conclusion that the US is hording civilians into concentration camps and committing genocide. Claiming so, without solid evidence is a lie, and there is no evidence. It’s irresponsible and I would even say idiotic to make those kinds of fabricated analogies.
So effectively, you have been defending comments by a man who claimed that the intentional murder of 3000 innocent people was “befitting” while concocting lies about US foreign policy in an attempt to cultivate justification for a position you know is nothing short of condoning murder. Not only are you defending Churchill, but you are doing so under a deceitful pretense.
The “phenomenon of Nazi Germany” was that people like Churchill were in power. People who believed that targeting and murdering innocent people to achieve a political goal was completely justifiable. Fortunately, no one like Churchill is in power in the US today. But considering how people dismiss and justify fruitcakey comments, and how willing we seem to be to put a person like Churchill in a position where he can implant fruitcakey ideas in impressionable minds, maybe someday you’ll get your analogy.
Hitler was just a fruitcake who happened to be in power.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Iraq had nothing to do w/ 9-11. I'll buy that. Since 9-11 wasn't the primary reason for attacking Iraq in the 1st place.
...didn't have WMD Umm..., yeah it did. Zero doubt about that. Did we 'find' stockpiles like we were told Saddam likely had? Nope. Doesn't mean Iraq hasn't buried them, or moved them across the border to Syria, like so many of Saddams henchmen and relatives.
.., didn't even have a delivery system-
Again, factually incorrect. Iraq was in posession of illegal rocket systems. Hell, the scud rockets were reaching Israel in the Gulf War. No delivery systems ?
Your attempted comparison between the Germans of the 1920's - 30's and what the United States faced on 9/11/01 is a total non sequitur. Jews didn't attack ANYONE, while the Islamo - terrorist literally murdered thousands. And the Islamo-terrorist have vowed to do it again. Trying to compare the 2 utterly unlike events is a stretch beyond imagination.
Oh, and did you forget that we invaded Afghanistan a full YEAR before engaging Iraq ? Did you even remember al Qaeda was in Afghanistan and was the guest of the Taliban Gov't ? Sure seems like you did. .......................
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As I understand it, Churchill said some unpopular things and the right-wing vigilantes decided to make an example of him, not by debating the issues, but by digging up dirt.
And then these good folks here started baying that it wasn't b/c of what he said but because of how he got his job. Why, it was outrageous I tell you! It DESERVES punishment!
But this is what you DIDN'T see when the hotmilitarystud boy-toy entered the White House press room ...
AUraptor: Never mind issues of 'free speech', this clown seems to have used fraud and deception to attain a position that wasn't ever meant for him. ... Did he get his positon on false pretenses ? Yes or no? ... any favoritism he might have received which he didn't deserve warrents investigating.
Finn: Considering the idiotic things this clown has said, I find it hard to believe that he could have made it through the system without considerable hand waiving. I think that if he acquired his position through fraud and that can be determined, then I think he should be dismissed immediately. I don’t need to be intimately familiar with this man’s work in order to draw the conclusion that he is a fruitcake. I only need to be familiar enough, which I am.
ttp:// www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/23/more_gannon/
Quote:
Gannongate: It's worse than you think
Feb. 23, 2005 | When the press first raised questions about why Jim Guckert had been awarded access to the White House press room for two years running while he worked for Talon News, critics charged that Talon, with its amateurish standards and close working ties to Republican activists, did not qualify as a legitimate news organization. It turns out the truth is even stranger: Guckert was waved into the White House while working for an even more blatantly partisan organization, GOPUSA.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan originally told reporters that Guckert was properly allowed into press briefings because he worked for an outlet that "published regularly." But that's when the questions were about Talon. More recently McClellan offered up a new rationale. Asked by Editor and Publisher magazine how the decision was made to allow a GOPUSA correspondent in, McClellan said, "The staff assistant went to verify that the news organization existed." (Emphasis added.)
That, apparently, was the lone criterion the press office used when Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon) approached it in February 2003 seeking a pass for White House briefings. Not yet working for Republican-friendly Talon News, which came into existence in April 2003, Guckert, using an alias and with no journalism experience whatsoever, was writing on a voluntary basis for a Web site dedicated to promoting Republican issues. To determine whether Guckert would gain entrance to the press room, normally reserved for professional journalists working for legitimate, recognized and independent news organizations, the press office simply logged on to the Internet and confirmed that GOPUSA "existed," and then quickly approved Guckert's access. In a White House obsessed, at least publicly, with security and where journalists cannot even move between the White House and the nearby Old Executive Building without a personal escort, Guckert's lenient treatment was likely unprecedented.
....
Unlike Guckert, though, Kinsolving has an authentic background in journalism, having worked for the San Francisco Chronicle and the Indianapolis Star. Talon's defenders suggest that it too is a legitimate news outlet. But providing some insight into how it operates, Eberle told the New York Times last week that he rarely monitored Guckert's White House work. "Jeff did his thing. I did my thing," Eberle said. In other words, it appears that Guckert, who often cut and pasted White House press releases and posted them on Talon as "news," did not even have an editor. As Media Matters for America noted, Talon "apparently consists of little more than Eberle, Gannon, and a few volunteers."
Just how blatantly the White House press office looked the other way in regNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
rue -
Bait and switching by bringing up irrelevent issues doesn't really get us anywhere. Tonto now has more troubles, as he's been copying art work from other artist, reversing the images, and then selling the pieces as originals......that HE made! This guy is a wall to wall con artist, and nothing less.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep. That's probably the way you understand it.
Originally posted by rue:
As I understand it, Churchill said some unpopular things and the right-wing vigilantes decided to make an example of him, not by debating the issues, but by digging up dirt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Been busy- quick replies:
"...didn't have WMD. Auraptor:Umm..., yeah it did"
No, it didn't. The UN inspection teams said it didn't, the post-war inpsection teams (David Kay et al) said it didn't, but you have what is called an idee fixe and there's nothing I can do about it except chalk it up to paranoia.
".., didn't even have a delivery system-
Again, factually incorrect. Iraq was in posession of illegal rocket systems. Hell, the scud rockets were reaching Israel in the Gulf War."
The Scud missles were dismantled. The "illegal" rockets could ahve reached 120 miles instead of the allowed 90 miles (or something like). We OTOH are about... oh... 12,000 miles away. Another idee fixe.
"Your attempted comparison between the Germans of the 1920's - 30's and what the United States faced on 9/11/01 is a total non sequitur. Jews didn't attack ANYONE, while the Islamo - terrorist literally murdered thousands. And the Islamo-terrorist have vowed to do it again. Trying to compare the 2 utterly unlike events is a stretch beyond imagination."
Apparently you have attempted the comparison bass ackwards. I'm not trying to compare 1930's Jews to radical Islamists, so I fail to see your point.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by SignyM:
Been busy- quick replies:
"...didn't have WMD. Auraptor:Umm..., yeah it did"
No, it didn't. The UN inspection teams said it didn't, the post-war inpsection teams (David Kay et al) said it didn't, but you have what is called an idee fixe and there's nothing I can do about it except chalk it up to paranoia. - The UN inspectors ( those not on the take ) said they didn't FIND any WMD. Doesn't mean there wasn't any. HUGE difference. Remember all those pesky U.N. Resolutions ? Yeah, sure you do. Iraq had the burden of proof to come clean on the WMD's THEY THEMSELVES said they had. They could not account for where their WMD went, nor how they 'disposed' of them or the facilities.
".., didn't even have a delivery system-
Again, factually incorrect. Iraq was in posession of illegal rocket systems. Hell, the scud rockets were reaching Israel in the Gulf War."
The Scud missles were dismantled. The "illegal" rockets could ahve reached 120 miles instead of the allowed 90 miles (or something like). We OTOH are about... oh... 12,000 miles away. Another idee fixe. - Iraq had illegal delivery systems. Now you're pushing back the goal post to fit your definition. How quaint. Sorry, but the U.N. didn't buy it, nor did the rest of the world.
"Your attempted comparison between the Germans of the 1920's - 30's and what the United States faced on 9/11/01 is a total non sequitur. Jews didn't attack ANYONE, while the Islamo - terrorist literally murdered thousands. And the Islamo-terrorist have vowed to do it again. Trying to compare the 2 utterly unlike events is a stretch beyond imagination."
Apparently you have attempted the comparison bass ackwards. I'm not trying to compare 1930's Jews to radical Islamists, so I fail to see your point. - Heh heh heh....figured you come up w/ some lame ass attempt to weasle out of your silly analogy. Blame ME for taking you to task, when your comparison was so inept. Classic. 
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME