- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 29, 2008 at 6:25 am #629071
JoBParticipantJune 29, 2008 at 6:47 am #629072
JanSParticipantJoB..I wanna know what trouble he was getting into that kept him out so late ;-)
June 30, 2008 at 1:14 am #629073
TheHouseMemberVincent or someone else, please cite where the Nazi Part stated “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about”.
June 30, 2008 at 4:19 am #629074
vincentMemberlet me get my nazidex out and give you an exact date and time.
or I can just quote an american.
Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.
June 30, 2008 at 4:51 am #629075
TheHouseMemberNo, Vincent. You’re the one that stated that I “basically quoted a Nazi party line”, stated that I looked like a colossal idiot and called me a troll.
So the burden of proof is on you. Prove your statement about the Nazi Party.
Let me guess….you saw it on an episode of Oprah……
June 30, 2008 at 5:08 am #629076
JoBParticipantTheHouse…
I am assuming your question about nazi quotes was a real one.
i admit.. i have always thought the basic line that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear came from Goebbells… and then was echoed by Orwell in 1984…
i don’t even know if that makes sense chronologically.. and i didn’t check that.
however, i did try to source the quote and in doing so read enough of Goebbells to make me physically ill…
although he alludes to that concept in more than one speech, i didn’t find the phrase or paraphrase.
that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.. just that i didn’t have stomach enough to read any more.
and i didn’t try reading any of his fellow nazis.
i did find a site where other people were looking for answers to the same questions.. but lots of political talk and no citations.
I also remember hearing a paraprase of that concept in relation to the purges in Russia after Lenin…
but again.. i couldn’t source it.
Maybe someone else will do a better job than i.
June 30, 2008 at 5:40 am #629077
AnonymousInactiveSoooo, no one can substantiate House being called a Nazi, an idiot and a troll?
But, that’s ok anyways?
Look at yourselves! What a bunch of hypocrites!
And, JoB, I believe you tried (wholeheartedly), but you were unsuccessful, right? Found nothing?
Hmmmm…. maybe someone should be scolded for calling someone else names.
June 30, 2008 at 5:52 am #629078
JoBParticipantNewResident
take a deep breath…
noone called TheHouse a nazi.
that would be a particularly rude thing to call TheHouse.
They did say that the phrase he was using was out of a nazi playbook.
House asked, i got curious and i looked.
although i wasn’t able to find a direct quote, i was certainly able to find several places in speeches made by Goebbells that implied exactly what that quote implies.
that the quote itself came from something written by Goebbells is one of those assumptions that is made by most intellectuals i have ever heard discussing the origin of the phrase… and he did write many similar things.. so i can understand why someone would think that phrase “out of a nazi playbook”.
I just couldn’t verify it.
I don’t know if i couldn’t verify it because it wasn’t there or because i couldn’t stomach reading that filth long enough to find it.
so.. there is nothing to scold anyone about.
This is a clear case of the difference between attacking an idea (though the phrase used to attack it was somewhat offensive in context) and attacking a person.
i understand this is often a difficult concept to grasp in the heat of an argument.. but.. especially with the upcoming political season.. it is an important one to get.
June 30, 2008 at 5:56 am #629079
AnonymousInactiveOf course, JoB!
June 30, 2008 at 7:35 am #629080
AnonymousInactiveJune 30, 2008 at 5:59 pm #629081
JoBParticipantNewResdient
I am going to assume that you had an honest question and answer it the best way i can.
calling anyone any name is rude…
i think there are probably instances where you can call someone an idiot in a spirited conversation without being rude… if you are referring to a specific point in a debate…
as in..”are you our of your mind?” … “you had best go look for those marbles you lost somewhere” … “are you an idiot or what?”
in those cases, they would be used about an idea, not a person. calling someone’s ideas idiotic is not the same as calling someone an idiot..
i personally think the phrases i quoted and their many variations are fine as long as they are limited to a single point in a discussion .. but even they have limits.
i think using a phrase like that with someone you have not already established a history of communication with is probably verging on pretty rude.
the least it will do is offend… but worse, it might stop someone who had interesting things to say from posting again.
and i definately think using a phrase like that referring to anything other than a single currently debated idea is rude…
As in.. ” are you out of your mind.. you keep throwing out the same crap and expecting us to digest it “
I hope that answers your question.. and i hope i haven’t quoted anyone here … as i tried very hard not to use some of the phrases that have been reappearing here…
July 1, 2008 at 5:17 am #629082
AnonymousInactiveFirst of all, there is absolutely NO proof that this was the method involved with Spitzer. If you can prove me wrong, do it. And the operative word there is “prove”.
Second, the even better argument to House’s “if you have nothing to hide….” (which is, somehow, aligned with Nazis???? Unsubstantiated, btw), is that it is completely structured and there are guidelines. Most of all, it is necessary.
To be concerned that this is a slippery slope is naive. Imagine how many phone calls you made today and then multiply that by 300,000 million. If the Government was interested in listening to all our conversations, there would have to be a whole new agency formed.
There are specific cells that the Government SHOULD have access to listen into. If someone, here in the US is speaking with a suspicious person in that specific cell, it not only should, but needs, to be done.
July 1, 2008 at 5:33 am #629083
TheHouseMemberJoB, I appreciate you attempting to find the info b/c I attempted and could not find anything to substantiate the claim.
I’ll take the high road on this one and drop the subject with my head held high that I was correct….yet again.
July 1, 2008 at 5:53 am #629084
JoBParticipantsorry house… you were not right..
the only thing unproven is the exact quote or a paraphrase… there is a huge difference you know.
i would be glad to go back and find the website that archived his speeches for you if you would like to verify that the basic sentiment is contained in his writing.. but i won’t go there again and read more of that.
and i am still curious as to just where that quote came from… so i will probably look more in a different direction.
i think i should research 1984.. and read it again… as tho i needed an excuse:)
July 1, 2008 at 5:56 am #629085
JanSParticipanthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/187371/-Ive-Got-Nothing-To-Hide-and-other-Misunderstandings-of-Privacy
sorry…it’s long :( I take that back…not sorry :)
July 1, 2008 at 6:03 am #629086
JoBParticipantJanS..
i think i will put off reading that link until tomorrow. it is one i haven’t seen yet.. and looks to be a well researched article…
An interesting discussion.
July 1, 2008 at 6:32 am #629087
AnonymousInactiveHouse – I know that I don’t have to tell you this, but because some person on a forum tells you you are not right, does not make it so…. at all.
Please, hold your head very high!
July 1, 2008 at 6:37 am #629088
AnonymousInactiveBtw, Jan, you have attempted to debunk House’s argument of “Nothing to hide…” with that link, but you have in no way aligned it with the Nazis.
July 1, 2008 at 7:05 am #629089
JanSParticipantFWIW, this thread isn’t about nazis or calling someone a nazi, or whether the nazis used that one particular statement first.I’m not going there. This link is in reference to the original post…getting back on track. :)
July 1, 2008 at 7:52 am #629090
feydrasMemberGodwin’s Law for reference…
“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Edit: weird that the link cuts off the last few letters and so doesn’t point to the right place. Copy and paste should work though.
July 1, 2008 at 8:37 am #629091
TrickParticipantNewResident,
Do you realize they already have tapped domestic calls? It’s not about foriegn calls only from the outside, it’s all calls, being monitored and diverted by the NSA to large Data mining computers.
That’s why Bush-Co is pushing hard to give the Telecoms that cooperated (without a court order) amnesty.
“So many people in America think this does not affect them. They’ve been convinced that these programs are only targeted at suspected terrorists. … I think that’s wrong. … Our programs are not perfect, and it is inevitable that totally innocent Americans are going to be affected by these programs,” former CIA Assistant General Counsel Suzanne Spaulding
Then why does this administration block everything from document requests of the bi-partisan 911 commission investigation, to energy policy talks with Oil Executives held in secret in the White house?
They certainly don’t practice what they preach, that is the true hyprocisy.
For those that have sound, this explains the dilemma of spying domestically.
July 1, 2008 at 10:12 am #629092
feydrasMemberThere was an interesting segment on This American Life recently involving an author’s experience with the US government tapping his phonelines during all of this but before it was revealed. The scary part to me was not so much that they were tapping him (he was interviewing some shady types across the seas for a book) but that they were so inept at it. They made some incorrect assumptions and the right hand didn’t seem to know what the left was doing by their own admission. Many of the prisoners at GITMO are examples of our government’s sloppy mistakes.
What i find bizarre is the Republicans who still support Bush. The Republican party has historically promoted small government (taxing and spending, not just the former), moral integrity, and keeping the government out of peoples’ lives. Bush has pretty much done the opposite of his party’s line. Add to that the obfuscation, misleading, and betrayal (Valerie Plame, fired DAs) this administration has done and i am genuinely suprised that any Republicans still support Bush or are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
July 1, 2008 at 12:52 pm #629093
KenParticipanthttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
A link to the original site of the essay above. I had lost it among my archives since the link gives no clue as to its content.
I don’t expect it to alter the views of the 23%ers
I have friends who held the most absurd views on Clinton and accused him, with no evidence whatsoever, of doing many of the things we have evidence that Bush/Cheney have done.
The entire black-helicopter conspiracy theory concerning eavesdropping, NATO, the UN and Jewish bankers, comes from the wingnuts of the 90’s and before. And yet when American citizens are actually spied on, the balance of trade tossed into the abyss, the doctrine of pre-emtive war made policy (by the first major power since the 1930’s Germany for the obligatory invocation of Godwins Law) and propaganda/PR practiced at the highest levels of government, the “conservatives” are silent.
BTW: For those interested in the current “playbooks” original source document, here is the link.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/
The core belief that supports Bush is no longer conservatism, it is naked nationalism and if left unchecked will lead to the precipitous decline of this republic Amid the very social upheavals the conservatives believe they are defending us from.
“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage-torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians-which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.â€
George Orwell,“Notes on Nationalism.†,1945
July 1, 2008 at 2:49 pm #629094
KayleighMemberI really do get that Obama has to do some things I don’t like in order to win the general election.
My question is: does he GET how a lot of us on the left feel about the issues? I mean, there are a lot of us over here on the left who believe strongly that in order to survive, America has *got* to move toward the left. I’m not a centrist or a comprimise-ist. I’m a LIBERAL.
I wouldn’t vote for McCain for dog catcher (I’d be worried he’d lose his temper and kill a dog.) But come on.
July 1, 2008 at 3:14 pm #629095
charlabobParticipantThis morning’s headline on HufPo is that Obama will expand Bush’s office of Faith Based Initiatives, including support for the right of religious organizations to hire and fire based on religion. It’s only July. I’m starting to wonder when, for me, the last straw (or shoe) will fall.
Yesterday, I thought disowning General Wes Clark’s completely reasonable answer to Bob Scheiffer’s questions on Face the Nation was it. Today this.
I agree with KL, and I’ll vote for Obama no matter what — but my enthusiasm is waning by the minute. And, sadly, I don’t think Clinton would be doing anything differently.
The good thing is that McCain is triangulating every bit as much as the Dems are. His base is as PO’d as we — latest on that front is that Mitt Romney is the favorite in the VEEP-stakes. This morning I heard that was to win over the Christian base, since Romney is a conservative Christian. Even Mormons don’t claim to be Christians — this is a masterpiece of revisionist history.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.