1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What's the MOST bias new channel?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by -, Mar 30, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Actually it is people like you who make such a lame argument who are "trivializing the Holocaust". The only comparison made was the use of patriotism and nationalistic ferver to dupe a vulnerable population, which the Nazis and the Bush administration have both done. The quote which clearly illustrates that tactic as a conscious action happened to be from one of the top people in the Nazi party, which makes its relevance all the more chilling. However, that is not the same as saying Bush is comparable to Hitler, which I would never say because it isn't true. That the two have used a similar tactic does not make them comparable, which would infer much more similarity. Hitler probably brushed his teeth, so should everyone else never brush their teeth again out of respect for those lost to the Holocaust? That's the message you attempt to send, so you cheapen the lesson and turn it into a "cry wolf" scenario.
     
  2. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    I didn't say that. Of course it could happen again, and there is nothing wrong with watching out for it. My objection is the using of Hitler as a comparason any American politician, like that offensive commercial at moveon.org did. It does cheapen the Holocaust. I don't care who's doing it to whom.

    Like FDR did with Japaneese Americans durring WWII? The big difference is, that those Japaneese Americans committed no crime.

    Actually, I said none of those things. You seem to assume a position for me based on the fact that I object to the trivializing of the Holocaust for political gain.

    It would be just as irresponsible if I were to compare Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kusinich and Barbara Boxer to Stalin. After all, many of their economic and social beliefs are very similar. It would be obcene to do so, because they don't engage in mass murder of their own people. It would also cheapen the deaths of those who died under Stalin's bloody rule.
     
  3. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Which every leader durring wartime does. So why not compare him to Churchill? Or if you must choose a bad guy, why not Mussolini? Why Hitler? Because it has emotional impact on people. It's just plain Trollish, and it cheapens the lives of those who died in the Camps. The more times Hitler is compared to every politician with whom one disagrees, the less horrible the Holocaust seems. Also, the using of the Holocaust as a political hockey puck, is obcene and offensive.
     
  4. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Bush may not be a Hitler, but Ashcroft is definately a Goering.
     
  5. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    Jon,

    Maybe I've missed it, but I can't find any provision of the Patriot Act that says that searches can be kept secret forever. Section 215, I think, allows for notice to be delayed if it would interfere with an investigation. That's not forever, but your language implies that it is. I have news for you. I was getting orders allowing the delay of notification of searches back in the 80's. The only difference is that the reasons for delay were more narrowed. But not by much. Think about it. If the feds are working on uncovering a massive plot to blow up, oh, an Hawaiian island, and they had reason to believe they would find a treasure trove of information at someone's home, but that if that someone knew the feds had looked there it would change the details, but not the outcome of the plot, what the heck sense would it make to give notice??

    It's funny how liberals often claim that the Constitution is a "living document," but it only lives to satisfy liberal impulses. When the constitution was written, no one had the ability to destroy an entire city with a tiny explosive. They do now. So, back when the Constitution's framers were drafting the document, even if a search revealed that the feds were on to someone, the worst that could happen is a few people, maybe even hundreds, might die. Now, millions could die. If the constitution is living, it knows our current needs. If one of our needs, to survive not only as a nation but as a species, is to delay notice of searches in very serious matters, then so be it. If we find that the authority to do so is being abused, then I'm all favor of taking action to cure the problem. So far, I havent heard of such a problem.

    Many people think that the government is willy nilly doing all sorts of wiretaps, computer taps, etc. They get this mainly from tv shows, i suspect. That belief has existed for many years. Back in the late 80's i did a few wire taps (armed robbery, kidnapping, murder cases). I found out, to my surprise, that the wires I did were one of only two or three done in the entire state of Minnesota for each of the entire years I did them. They are a MONUMENTAL pain in the butt. The paperwork and manpower to do one of any decent duration are huge. They can quickly wipe out a police department's budget. Most of the people (including me) who have to do them HATE them, because they are so tedious. So, they are RARELY used. They are SO rarely used that I was asked to give an instructional speech to detectives at a large midwest crime investigators conference. Why? Because I was considered an "expert" merely because I had done three of them.

    Methinks that there is a certain degree of paranoia out there about this. Also, some politicians trying to make hay.
     
  6. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well, that's not necessarily true, is it? There were certainly Japanese spys in the US before and during WWII and it would be foolish to assume that none of them were Japanese-Americans. Some of them probably ended up in those camps, if nothing else by accident. This however does not justify the actions taken by our government against all Japanese-Americans.(in all fairness, there were probably more Japanese spys who were not of Japanese ancestry, but like many spys, were in it for the money)

    This brings us to the current "camps". We have no way of knowing if the prisoners there have committed any crimes either since they have not been charged with any crimes. Undoubtedly, there ARE some who deserve to be tried and punished for their ties to al Qaida and terrorism. But it appears we have no intention of doing that in the near future, or anytime for that matter. For the most part I suspect the majority of the "illegal combatants" just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time believing in and fighting for the wrong cause. Of course, there is no way to confirm my suspicion because no charges have been brought against them!

    I'm sure these comparisons have been made. In fact, you just made them. And I'm not accusing George Bush of engaging in mass murder. I'm simply saying there appear to be disturbing parallels to more then a few of his actions and policies when compared to Nazi Germany. And I would be happy to substitute Mussolini here except I had been hoping to save that for Tony Blair.;)
     
  7. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    It would be you doing that, not me.
     
  8. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Actually, it is the FISA of 1978 that does that, however it was strengthened by the Patriot Act. Under FISA, the issuing of warrants, the search, the evidence... all can be kept secret indefinitely. And the language of the act is so vague that, though in name it is supposed to apply to foreign agents, it has been used, and recently, to go after US citizens if the DOJ determines them to have "interest".
     
  9. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Huh? You're not making any sense.
     
  10. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    So where were the liberals in 78 when Carter signed it? Maybe they weren't quite as concerned then, huh? Maybe because it wasn't a political issue they could turn against a Republican president, huh? Was John Ashcroft behind the old statute too? Nah, I'm sure I'm just being cynical. :lol:
     
  11. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Most people have never heard of it and have no idea that there is such a law. If they did, I have no doubt there would be far more uproar about it. While some provisions of the Patriot Act were necessary, I do not agree that it should be made permanent (let it expire as it was intended) and I definitely do not think the "Patriot II" should be passed. Currently I see just as many conservatives who disagree with the Patriot Act as I do liberals. It's a constitutional issue, not a political one, or shouldn't be a political one at least.

    But tell me, it doesn't bother you that a secret court could issue a secret warrant based on secret charges which result in your home and your car being secretly searched? Evidence, as determined by the DoJ could be taken from your house without your knowledge, and you have no right to know what was taken, why it was taken, or even when it was taken? You don't even have the right to know the charge against you that resulted in the warrant and search? That sounds almost KGB-like, or Stazi. Most people, if you asked, would think that couldn't happen here in the USA. But it can, and does.
     
  12. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I imagine if you go back and check, you'll find civil liberties groups and other "liberals" DID object. But as usual "security" and "fighting crime" trumps civil rights in politics. It's much easier to create the fear that average citizens will be effected by crime or terrorism then by an obscure civil liberties technicality that they can't imagine could ever apply to them(until of course it DOES).

    It's all perspective, but Carter was not all that liberal as President. He was pretty much a moderate. Only in his retirement has he seemed to become more "liberal".
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page