Post Right Wing looniness here

Seattle Husker

Seattle Husker

10,000+ Posts
This thread may be just for @OUBubba and I.

I fear this will just be a thread about Marjorie Taylor Greene mostly but here goes anyways. Her comparison of mask mandates and vaccines to Nazi Germany was egregious. Here is where she made the comparison.



Today she says she didn't make that comparison and it's all a bunch of lies.


Don't believe your eyes/ears. I'm certain her goal of getting into the headlines was achieved and she likely saw an uptick in political donations simply by being an idiot.

The Auschwitz Memorial Museum has the best response. Oh what I wouldn't give to be there when someone explained the response to her.


I couldn't agree more that antics like MJT and some on the left are a "sad symptom of moral and intellectual decline."
 
Last edited:
MTG is a shitshow, and I hope she loses her congressional seat (preferably in a primary but I'd settle for a moderate Democrat over her). However, I can't get too outraged about her Nazi comparison, because we see stupid Nazi comparisons all the time in politics including by many who are attacking her for making one. I'm talking about partisan Democratic politicians and commentators, not Switzer and Husker who are above this sort of crap. (Yes, Switzer is actually too good for a few things - not many but a few.)

My opinion is that Nazi comparisons are fine but only if the comparison is true and is actually based on something bad that Nazis did. Why the "bad" requirement? Because as a practical matter, a Nazi comparison is per se inflammatory and negative. If you support building nice roads and rail systems, you have something in common with the Nazis, but the moral judgment on the Nazis is in spite of their priority on infrastructure, not because of it, so the comparison is applicable but foolish. If you support a strong military or a national healthcare system, you have something in common with Nazis, but again, those aren't the bases for the moral judgment and culpability of Nazis. If you support treating people differently because of their race or religion, the comparison becomes a lot more appropriate. If you support the long-term incarceration or killing of others without legal cause or due process, the comparison becomes more appropriate. If you support aggressive war for the purpose of expanding your borders at the expense of another nation, the comparison becomes more appropriate.

The reality is that the Nazis were uniquely bad (at least in the modern era), so the number of legitimate comparisons are very few and virtually nonexistent in the United States among people in the mainstream political parties. A vaccine logo is not like the yellow badge worn by Jews, and the comparison is ridiculous. However, it's no more ridiculous than saying the detention of illegal immigrants is like Dachau or Auschwitz or that slowing the rate of growth in Medicare is Nazi-like. My wish is that people just quit the comparisons as a political weapon and reserve them for that extremely rare occassion in which they are applicable and wise.
 
Mr. Deez said:
MTG is a shitshow, and I hope she loses her congressional seat (preferably in a primary but I'd settle for a moderate Democrat over her). However, I can't get too outraged about her Nazi comparison, because we see stupid Nazi comparisons all the time in politics including by many who are attacking her for making one. I'm talking about partisan Democratic politicians and commentators, not Switzer and Husker who are above this sort of crap. (Yes, Switzer is actually too good for a few things - not many but a few.)

My opinion is that Nazi comparisons are fine but only if the comparison is true and is actually based on something bad that Nazis did. Why the "bad" requirement? Because as a practical matter, a Nazi comparison is per se inflammatory and negative. If you support building nice roads and rail systems, you have something in common with the Nazis, but the moral judgment on the Nazis is in spite of their priority on infrastructure, not because of it, so the comparison is applicable but foolish. If you support a strong military or a national healthcare system, you have something in common with Nazis, but again, those aren't the bases for the moral judgment and culpability of Nazis. If you support treating people differently because of their race or religion, the comparison becomes a lot more appropriate. If you support the long-term incarceration or killing of others without legal cause or due process, the comparison becomes more appropriate. If you support aggressive war for the purpose of expanding your borders at the expense of another nation, the comparison becomes more appropriate.

The reality is that the Nazis were uniquely bad (at least in the modern era), so the number of legitimate comparisons are very few and virtually nonexistent in the United States among people in the mainstream political parties. A vaccine logo is not like the yellow badge worn by Jews, and the comparison is ridiculous. However, it's no more ridiculous than saying the detention of illegal immigrants is like Dachau or Auschwitz or that slowing the rate of growth in Medicare is Nazi-like. My wish is that people just quit the comparisons as a political weapon and reserve them for that extremely rare occassion in which they are applicable and wise.
Click to expand...

Godwin's law is becoming more common in the wild, especially by politicians hell bent on publicity. It's a lazy argument strategy, typically leveraged but the less bright among us.

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is a saying made by Mike Godwin in 1990.[2] The law states: "As a discussion on the Internet grows longer, the likelihood of a comparison of a person's being compared to Hitler or another Nazi reference, increases."[3][2] That means that as more people talk on the Internet for a longer time, it becomes more and more likely that someone will talk about Hitler or the Nazis.
Click to expand...

It was not appropriate to compare Trump to "Hitler" either. Yes, he had authoritarian tendencies but so do many strongmen leaders around the world.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Godwin's law is becoming more common in the wild, especially by politicians hell bent on publicity. It's a lazy argument strategy, typically leveraged but the less bright among us.



It was not appropriate to compare Trump to "Hitler" either. Yes, he had authoritarian tendencies but so do many strongmen leaders around the world.
Click to expand...
Trump is a symptom, not a disease. It’s happening in many places.
 
When asked why a Myanmar-like coup can't happen here Michael Flynn says "No, I mean it should happen here."



That dude is a 100% certified loon and traitor.
 
theiioftx said:
Should Hunter and Hillary be in jail? If you say no you are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
I guess if you could highlight their crime, sure. I love how Flynn is already crawdadding telling them to report that he didn’t say what he was recorded saying.
 
Hillary destroyed her computers and cell phones during an investigation. Hunter lied on a federal gun license application. Neither of those did it under the FBI threatening them with going after their family.
 
Then jail HRC. Hunter lied on an application? Like Jared did in his security clearance form (a bit more serious, no?)?

hypocrite.
 
If you find yourself defending a former US military officer who just said we SHOULD have a military coup in the US you should check your patriotism claims at the door.

That is the antithesis of every life lost by our soldiers.
 
A former military hero who was illegally prosecuted by the US Justice Department in the name of politics. That’s how dictators like Putin rule. The democrats lead by Obama have decided doing illegal things is okay if it gives them power.
 
He has feathered the nest now so that ANY charge that comes out against him after we got rid of the most partisan DOJ in history will be treated as "partisan" by the right. Just like his boss said every election that he was about to be involved in was "rigged" prior to the election, you know, only if he lost it.
 
OUBubba said:
He has feathered the nest now so that ANY charge that comes out against him after we got rid of the most partisan DOJ in history will be treated as "partisan" by the right. Just like his boss said every election that he was about to be involved in was "rigged" prior to the election, you know, only if he lost it.
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence that the prior DOJ was the most partisan in history? I remember the one before it. They expressly stated they wouldn't go after blacks, unfairly went after police, used lies to push an identity politics narrative, and secretly, they thought, met with the target of a criminal probe (turns out that the probe was also half-assed) on an airport tarmac that also happened to be running for President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top