More drivel from Hollywood elite. Keep it coming, fellas, we'll smash the democrat party to pieces in 2006 and 2008.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=680&u=/usatoday/20041117/en_usatoday/lindaronstadthumminanoutragedtune&printer=1
-snip-
Don't get her started on the recent presidential election. "People don't realize that by voting Republican, they voted against themselves," she says. Of Iraq (news - web sites) in particular, she adds, "I worry that some people are entertained by the idea of this war. They don't know anything about the Iraqis, but they're angry and frustrated in their own lives. It's like Germany, before Hitler took over. The economy was bad and people felt kicked around. They looked for a scapegoat. Now we've got a new bunch of Hitlers."
-snip-

And she represents the majority of the people in the Democrat Party…how?

Hollywood yells the loudest. Even if they don't represent the majority, they get their point across often and loudly.

It turns off voters because she's associated with democrats.

Personally, I hope she keeps exercising her free speech. Maybe they'll kick her out of another casino and the republicans can win some more elections until the democrats understand that they have to vocally distance themselves from this trash.

Awww, you mean like your fellow Rush Limbaugh…and Neo-Conservatives yelling that the Prisoner Abuse was just Some fun our troops were having, sort of like college hazing Yeah, that’s who you guys are associated with.

Now, any intelligence person would understand that she does not represent the vast majority of Democrats. Just like Rush Limbaugh does not represent the vast majority of Republicans.

Basically what I’m saying is, we have extremes on both sides. We have people on both sides that are crazy and idiotic. And any reasonable, intelligent person would understand that. And if they don’t, then they aren’t even worth the time. And they sure as hell aren’t smart enough to be apart of any political party.

A thought on the prisoner abuse thing.

Yes, some of our soldiers did make muslim men wear panties, get into piles naked, get walked around on a leash and have large mean dogs scare them. In some cases, the guards were having fun.

Then there were other muslim men who took unarmed prisoners and beheading on television. This was there idea of fun.

I see quite a bit of difference in the two.

About the Linda Rondstatt thing. People look to Hollywood stars for entertainment, not for political indoctrination. Entertainers should limit their polictical opinion to news interviews, and do so thoughtfully and logically.

You don't stand up their on stage, in the middle of a concert and start bleeting out your polictical opinions without pissing off a lot of people. They don't pay to hear about what their politics are. Concert goers pay for entertainment. There is a time and place for politics, the stage, or the Oscars isn't one of them. Dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Yes, some of our soldiers did make muslim men wear panties, get into piles naked, get walked around on a leash and have large mean dogs scare them. In some cases, the guards were having fun.
You have a narrow view of what went on in the Prisoner Abuse Scandal, don’t you? They abused these men, smeared their blood all over the prison floors, attacked them with dogs, and even in some cases, killed the Prisoners. Several reports of deaths came out of these prisons.

Also, not all of the images and video was released from the abuse. Congress decided not to release it (after viewing it). Many described the images and video we (American public were not allowed to see) as “horrifying” “grotesque” and “in some cases, as bad as the Holocaust” I think it’s safe to assume, that we did far more then what you are describing.

Not to mention, 90% of these prisoners were innocent civilians.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Then there were other muslim men who took unarmed prisoners and beheading on television. This was there idea of fun.

I see quite a bit of difference in the two.

Firstly, we expect these actions from them. We don't expect our troops to act like the people we are calling "evil"

Yes, the actions they commit are more severe…and gruesome…but then again, we didn’t see all of what we did in the Prisoner Abuse Scandal.

But, we are fighting evil. And when we even resemble the actions they commit, it makes us look no better then the terrorists. We are held to a higher standard. Period.

Also, this is going to be used as a recruiting tool in the Middle East to gain support for Anti Americanism. That isn’t good no matter what side of the political spectrum you are on.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
About the Linda Rondstatt thing. People look to Hollywood stars for entertainment, not for political indoctrination. Entertainers should limit their polictical opinion to news interviews, and do so thoughtfully and logically.
Wrong. They can say whatever they want. Just because they are in the spotlight, doesn’t mean they can’t say what they want, as much as they want. They have the right to free speech, and they don’t have to limit anything. It’s their right, and they can say whatever they want as much as they want. I don’t agree with what she is saying, but she has every right to say it as much as she wants.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
You don't stand up their on stage, in the middle of a concert and start bleeting out your polictical opinions without pissing off a lot of people. They don't pay to hear about what their politics are. Concert goers pay for entertainment. There is a time and place for politics, the stage, or the Oscars isn't one of them. Dammit.
I agree with the Oscars…and appearances that include people from all political sides. But in terms of concerts, it’s their concert. They can do whatever they want, it’s their stage, and they can do whatever they want on it.

You're right. She can say absolutely whatever the hell she wants. Just don't bitch when she gets tossed out of another casino or loses another gig because people are boycotting the businesses that hire her.

Free speech is not the freedom from the consequences of your speech. As long as someone hires her and gives her publicity, she can say what she wants to millions of people.

I'm all for it. Especially when they're as shrill and hateful as she is.

As for Rush, people listen to Rush BECAUSE he says what he says. They're not listening to him because they want to hear him sing.

At any rate, I'm all for her continuing this trend of insults. The more the better for the Republicans.

How is it better for Republicans? I highly doubt anyone is going to change his or her mind based on her one comment. I highly doubt anyone has even taken notice to her comment, besides the hard-right-wing conservatives who want to make a big deal about nothing. I’ve heard no news coverage of this, and I highly doubt it’s going to become a reason to not vote Democrat.

The fact is, when I hear crazy republicans on TV, I don’t go, “I’m not going to vote Republican because of them” because I understand they only represent a small minority of that party. Just like most intelligent people, would understand that she is only a small minority of the Democrat party.

You are blowing her comments way out of proportion and it’s almost laughable.

Originally posted by Overdose
Awww, you mean like your fellow Rush Limbaugh…


hmmmm whats worse.....an AM radio talk show host doing drugs? or your nation's president getting blowjobs from his secretary?

It's like Germany, before Hitler took over. The economy was bad and people felt kicked around. They looked for a scapegoat. Now we've got a new bunch of Hitlers."

Ms. Ronstadt makes an excellent point.

So does John Chuckman, at ---
http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman05272003.html



" While I find those images on the Internet of a blunt little mustache digitally-scribbled onto President Bush's upper lip feeble and unhelpful, still, there are parts of Bush's character and behavior that strikingly resemble at least one major biographer's interpretation of Hitler. Ian Kershaw's two-volume life of Hitler puts great emphasis on his being a driving high-stakes gambler--with innate, animal-cunning about human psychology, few gifts of statesmanship or strategy, and little systematic learning--attributing most of his success and all of his failure to his compulsive quality.


Several observers have commented that Bush's recent stunt of flying to the deck of an aircraft carrier in order to make a televised speech might well have been copied directly from Hitler's flight to the gigantic Nuremberg rally, his plane dramatically circling in descent towards a million people gathered in barbarian tribute, his purpose being to make a filmed speech. Whether Bush's crowd consciously followed the script set down by Hitler nearly seventy years ago matters less than that the thinking is so similar, with the manipulation of dramatic, militaristic props for propaganda being identical.

Bush never goes anywhere where his stage crew has not first assembled giant flags as background. He always wears a sizeable American-flag pin on his lapel. This kind of totemic, obsessive use of flags was absolutely characteristic of Hitler.

Hitler was a troubled, difficult person, but there is no evidence of any genuine insanity or psychosis (see Dr. Fritz Redlich's excellent study, "Hitler, Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet"). It is precisely this fact that made him, and makes those like him, all the more dangerous. It is easy to dismiss a genuine lunatic.

Given any circumstances other than those of the unique and troubled period in which he embraced German politics, Hitler would have been an utter failure, likely to be laughed off the stage with his sputtering, eye-bulging speech and fantasy claims. He had never, except for extremely brief and intermittent times, before entering politics in the revolutionary ruin that was post-war Germany, made an honest living.

There is a close parallel here with Bush. Except when friends of his powerful father made attractive, low-risk, undemanding opportunities available to him, young Bush was a failure. He demonstrated no business acumen, no academic application, and he did a lot of aimless drifting, much like Hitler's time in Vienna before the First World War. There are totally unexplained periods in Bush's early adult life, an extraordinary thing for an American national public figure.

The support of German industrialists was an important part of Hitler's being able to sustain his slow rise to power. Many of these business people thought they would heavily profit from the success of the odd, theatrical little man they bankrolled. The one absolute certainty was that Germany under Hitler would rearm, massively and quickly, with lots of profitable contracts coming available. Bush's measures for defense and security after 9/11, almost instantly swelled to tumor-like masses, offer an unprecedented opportunity for well-positioned people to make new fortunes.

Bush's apparent ability to be charming face-to-face has been publicized by insiders wishing to humanize his public image. Well, that is a characteristic Hitler possessed in abundance.

Bush has demonstrated his capacity for vicious anger a number of times, despite his handlers working very hard to hide this from the public. His response to the nomination challenge of John McCain was manic. His response to the rightful and fitting challenges of France or Germany to his Iraqi policies has been ugly......

The closest parallel to Hitler's behavior was in Bush's approach to Iraq. It is clear that he was determined--despite all facts contrary to his claims, despite the heroic efforts of weapons inspectors, despite the voice of most of the world's diplomatic community, and despite demonstrations by millions--to invade Iraq. The litany of false and even irrelevant claims made over and over combined with his lack of shame or embarrassment when found out time and again, closely mimics a behavior pattern of Hitler who more or less invented the "big lie" technique.

Even more closely resembling Hitler was Bush's insane rush towards a huge, high-stakes gamble on quick success in Iraq. He displayed not an ounce of statesmanship. It mattered not at all that he put the UN, NATO, and the EU through a crisis and embarrassed longstanding allies to get what he wanted.


Too many people do not understand that the preponderance of forces in Germany before the Second World War were for peace. Hitler sometimes spoke of peace eloquently, but, as we now know, he had a rather odd definition of the word. When it looked like Germany was on the brink of war, great waves of despair went through Germany. All the bands and panoply of Nazi propaganda could not cover up people's sullen reaction displayed even under dictatorship.

But when Hitler quickly defeated Poland and then quickly defeated France, the mood in Germany immediately changed. Hitler had achieved a relatively bloodless victory of stunning proportions. He became a hero, a national savior. And so with Bush's massive, high-tech assault on pathetic little Iraq.

Hitler's manipulation of the idea of peace is paralleled in Bush's manipulation of the idea of justice. Both are complete distortions. Bush's genuine feeling for justice was perhaps best captured during the election campaign with his smug, joking response to a question about a soul on death row in Texas. For those with acute perceptions, still not dulled on a steady diet of synthetic emotions and cardboard ideas from television and Hollywood, there could be no surer sign of how potentially dangerous this man is". ---------chuckman@counterpunch.org

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
A thought on the prisoner abuse thing.

Yes, some of our soldiers did make muslim men wear panties, get into piles naked, get walked around on a leash and have large mean dogs scare them. In some cases, the guards were having fun.

Then there were other muslim men who took unarmed prisoners and beheading on television. This was there idea of fun.

I see quite a bit of difference in the two.

you guys are trying to measure nastyness. nastyness and hate cant be put in degrees, you either do it or you dont. those guys behead, we do what we do with guns. if you dont think that our soldier havent intentionally hurt some innocent men , your crazy. they behead people to make a louder statement than ours. to them its all about the last lick. to them, the things we do are just as nasty. i say this, you're gonna look at it as if they are the savages, and they are, but so are we ! you put any spin on it that you want, fighting for their freedom? lie, over there to stop terrorism ? lie....but for whatever reason, its all about who outdoes the other. our innocent hearted soldiers, had their humanity virginity taken away. we sent the over there, and programmed them to be as hateful, and evil as the people they fight. we cant deny this, young guys came home from vietnam , emotional wrecks. it will happen that way again. savagery is created through anger. people are the same all over. we defend ours and make them look like the heros, they defend theirs. whats the difference. i know that you guys are gonna say , "hey, they behead people, we dont ", so i guess, the way we kill them, they can die with dignity, huh ? death is death ! the way they do it , is to make whatever statement they want to make, but there is no dignified way to die in war.......we went there and started it, they fought back........they're insurgents, we call ours "allies".......whats the damn difference. right now , i just want our boys to hurry up and win this, so that they can come home ! outside of that, WE ARE NOT RIGHT FOR BEING THERE !

Originally posted by Decka
hmmmm whats worse.....an AM radio talk show host doing drugs? or your nation's president getting blowjobs from his secretary?

When in the hell did Clinton enter this situation? When all else fails for the Republicans, bring up Clinton! Good job guys! You’ve done it again….

*Rolls eyes*

a couple of points.

First to Overdose. the people abused in the prison scandal were not "innocent civilians", they were the worst of the worst, men caught in the act of setting up or detonating IED's, men captured in battle. Those men in those pictures are still in jail. I think you hve as much to learn about it all as youinsist others do.

another thought is, that as much as the left claims we are hitlers, which is wrong, it is a lot more accurate to call the left a bunch of neville chamberlains and the UN the League of Nations. THey will insist to the end there is no threat, and as long as we get the dictators word that he is being honest, that is good enough, and we will have peace in our time. Until Hitler storms poland that is.

Now, how much of the left claims that? Percent please? Because no liberal on this forum thinks that...which would mean (most likely) that most liberals don't think that.. .

WTF?? you keep saying there was no threat! Saddam and the LEague of Nations said he wasnt a threat, so it must be true! go read a history book. you probalby believe the Irainians when they say they are not developing nukes. They have all these high tech ICBMs soley for the purpose of launching conventional weapons, ya, and I'm the pope

Great post Freethinker. I've been saying for years that Bush is similar to Hitler. However the neocons who have been drinking the koolaid laugh at my sugestion that bush is dangerous. They are seeing only what they want to see and ignoring the everything else.

LOL, ya, that hitler post was great. why dont you give us some of you expert insight into the working of the mind of adolf hitler echo? or when you say you ahve thought bush and hitler were similar all this time because both were mean white men who attaked innocent countries? seriously, you know jack shit about the subject. they were both mean, thats your big comparison.

Originally posted by Echo2
Great post Freethinker. I've been saying for years that Bush is similar to Hitler. However the neocons who have been drinking the koolaid laugh at my sugestion that bush is dangerous. They are seeing only what they want to see and ignoring the everything else.

Yeah, that Chuckman article was right - clearly the use of the American flag by the American president is meant to brainwash us! I still find it interesting that when I compared Hussein to Hitler I was met with quite a few posters arguing passionately that it was an unfair comparison.

But back to the original point of this thread - I have to agree with OD. Linda's not typical of Democrats and is not especially informed, so who gives a rat's ass?

Once again Lionel - right on! Good post...

About Linda Rondstadt (sp?):

Yes, she does have the "right" to say what she wishes, any time she wishes and however long she wishes to. However, when the audience starts packing up and leaving, and tearing down her posters on the way out, she shouldn't start crying about free speech. Those are the consequences of her actions. This is why I said that there is a time and place for such opinions and concerts are not one of them. The Hollywood types seemed to be stunned everytime the consquences of their antics come and bite them on the ass.

I've also stated that if one of the Hollywood types desires to make a political statement, it should be done thoughtfully and logically. People in America DO value honest, thoughtful disent and debate. Shrill insults at the President can and do create a backlash. In addition to Ms. Rondstatt, you can ask the Dixie Chicks about that one.

Question about comparing Bush to Hitler. If it were true that Bush is Hitler reincarnate, then why oh why did MoveOn.org pull that ad off the TV and off its website? Could it be that their views could have the effect of making the average American vomit? Could it be that far more Democrats know that to get voters, they have to appear a little less psychotic than what they are?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Question about comparing Bush to Hitler. If it were true that Bush is Hitler reincarnate, then why oh why did MoveOn.org pull that ad off the TV and off its website? Could it be that their views could have the effect of making the average American vomit? Could it be that far more Democrats know that to get voters, they have to appear a little less psychotic than what they are?

Sadly, you are ill researched on this issue. Typical of the Republicans, though. Moveon.org was having a contest on who could create the best Anti-Bush ad. A very extreme Democrat sent in the Hitler-Bush ad. Basically, it was one person, sending in one ad that was not “Ok”. Right when Moveon.org found that the ad had very disturbing material they pulled it, and rightfully so. They understand that it’s wrong to compare Bush to Hitler.

Sadly, the Republicans assumed it was actually Moveon’s ad, when one person sent it in. Proving the point of, only a small few are as extreme as this Hollywood star and that person who sent in the videotape.

You guys are blowing this out of proportion, it’s going to have no affect what-so-ever.

And I see you now understand that your take on the Prisoner Abuse was incorrect. Good job.

Overdose,

That's just it, though. If moveon.org thought that particular ad was too extreme, they never should've posted it.

Again my question, was it a concern that a particular ad was too extreme, or was it that moveon.org didn't want the general public to know just how extreme they were?

Has moveon.org ever apologized for that ad? I know Bush did denounce 527 groups after the Swift Boat Vets dared to criticize Kerry, where's the apology for the moveon.org ad?

While I'm on the subject, does anyone know if Dan Rather apologize for the phony documents that ran on CBS?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Overdose,
That's just it, though. If moveon.org thought that particular ad was too extreme, they never should've posted it.
Almost all the ads were posted that were sent in. They were all up for viewing. When they realized that this one was incorrect and wrong (out of the hundreds they had up) they took it down. Sorry, you can’t blame them or make generalizations upon Democrats for that.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Has moveon.org ever apologized for that ad? I know Bush did denounce 527 groups after the Swift Boat Vets dared to criticize Kerry, where's the apology for the moveon.org ad?
Actually, they said this (I don’t know word for word, but I remember an apology) “We, Moveon.org, didn’t mean for the ad to be posted, and we are sorry for anyone this ad offended” The republicans didn’t care, though, and they still made wild claims like “Democrats think Bush is Hitler!” And all of this other nonsense.

hmmmm whats worse.....an AM radio talk show host doing drugs? or your nation's president getting blowjobs from his secretary?

I'm not sure why I'm having to choose between these to acts, but since you asked, doing the drugs is worse because it alters his mind and could cause harm to others. Now that you know the answer, what was your point?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
While I'm on the subject, does anyone know if Dan Rather apologize for the phony documents that ran on CBS?

Yeah, he apologized on his newscast. I saw it and I thought it was well done.

He didn't apologize for using false documents. He still has not admitted they were false.

Originally posted by dnamertz
I'm not sure why I'm having to choose between these to acts, but since you asked, doing the drugs is worse because it alters his mind and could cause harm to others. Now that you know the answer, what was your point?

Cheating on a spouse does not harm the spouse or the family?

Sheez

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Question about comparing Bush to Hitler. If it were true that Bush is Hitler reincarnate, then why oh why did MoveOn.org pull that ad off the TV and off its website?

Because the controlling Conservative faction in this country begins to set up a loud clamor of protest whenever they are confronted with the unvarnished truth .....especially when that truth concerns the fascist designs of Bush and his cronies.

Hitler and Bush share many, many commonalities, and it obviously embarrasses and offends the Rightwing to have someone call attention to it.

Muahahahahahaha!!! I can't wait for the internment camps for liberals, complete with razor wire and guard dogs!

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
Muahahahahahaha!!! I can't wait for the internment camps for liberals, complete with razor wire and guard dogs!

Unfortunately, I think that somewhere inside, the Rightwing really DOES look forward to the day they can somehow eleiminate any "liberal" opposition.

The Republi-Fascists have approriated the ideals of "goodness" and "superiority" and "morality" for themselves; naturally, those who do not go along with their agenda are "evil". This is an ongoing process involving scapegoating and dehumanization.

It's easy for the ruling uber-Conservative faction to blame all societal problems on "the evil liberals" and presuppose a conspiracy of these evildoers, accusing them of emasculating and humiliating the idealized core group --the "good, patriotic Americans"--- of the nation.

Thus, to solve society's problems the Republi-Fascists need only unmask the "immoral" evildoers and either segregate them or perform such a thorough campaign of character assassination on them that they are no longer enough of a force to be even a nuisance.

off with their heads!

Originally posted by TheGreat Gatsby
Muahahahahahaha!!! I can't wait for the internment camps for liberals, complete with razor wire and guard dogs!

Liberals call theirs "college." No razor wire though.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Unfortunately, I think that somewhere inside, the Rightwing really DOES look forward to the day they can somehow eleiminate any "liberal" opposition.

The Republi-Fascists have approriated the ideals of "goodness" and "superiority" and "morality" for themselves; naturally, those who do not go along with their agenda are "evil". This is an ongoing process involving scapegoating and dehumanization.

It's easy for the ruling uber-Conservative faction to blame all societal problems on "the evil liberals" and presuppose a conspiracy of these evildoers, accusing them of emasculating and humiliating the idealized core group --the "good, patriotic Americans"--- of the nation.

Thus, to solve society's problems the Republi-Fascists need only unmask the "immoral" evildoers and either segregate them or perform such a thorough campaign of character assassination on them that they are no longer enough of a force to be even a nuisance.

Are you nuts?

You're pretty much right on free thinker but I would change the Republi-Fascists part to reconstructionist evangelical whites.

One thing for sure, there are gonna be some surprised republicans when the they find out they are going down with the rest of us. ROTF.

On edit: Here's an example -- hot off the press today. The evangelical want to rid the judiciary of all liberals and run congress from the outside. And believe me -- they will stop at nothing to accomplish their mission. Hopefully, for them, they are smart enough to stay out of Dop's space. ROTFLMAO

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1355381,00.html

Dop

dop, please, for the love of all that is good in the world, just shut the hell up witht he evangelical crap.

Originally posted by Freethinker----------
Unfortunately, I think that somewhere inside, the Rightwing really DOES look forward to the day they can somehow eleiminate any "liberal" opposition.

The Republi-Fascists have approriated the ideals of "goodness" and "superiority" and "morality" for themselves; naturally, those who do not go along with their agenda are "evil". This is an ongoing process involving scapegoating and dehumanization.

It's easy for the ruling uber-Conservative faction to blame all societal problems on "the evil liberals" and presuppose a conspiracy of these evildoers, accusing them of emasculating and humiliating the idealized core group --the "good, patriotic Americans"--- of the nation.

Thus, to solve society's problems the Republi-Fascists need only unmask the "immoral" evildoers and either segregate them or perform such a thorough campaign of character assassination on them that they are no longer enough of a force to be even a nuisance.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Are you nuts?

Wow, Dave.

That is ---for what it's worth-- one of the most profound refutations by a RightWinger that i've heard on these boards.

"Are you nuts?"

It's brilliant.

No, really.

I mean, who could POSSIBLY argue with such an erudite and well thought out riposte?

Just answer the question...

That is ---for what it's worth-- one of the most profound refutations by a RightWinger that i've heard on these boards.


What makes you think I was trying to refute anything? I just asked a question and you flipped out.