Yes, and for some time now, there have been conservatives talking in private or in books about restricting the freedom of speech and suggesting that we need to take more aggressive action against nations that we may think are dangerous or don't conform to our way of thinking.
"Restricting freedom of speech" is not very specific, but if your talking about restricting flag burning, or removing government funding for Mapplethorpe exhibit, then I would say none of those things can reasonably be interpreted as signs of an impending Nazi like regime or even signs of a desire for something like that by the right wing of the Republican party. As for invading countries because of a perceived danger from them, that is nothing new, and isn't particularly associated with the Nazis, countries with all different types of government all over the world have invaded other countries to root out what they saw as dangerous, or beyond that even just to conquer (which we have not been doing). Was the British empire Nazi like? Where the American presidents during the Indian wars, the Mexican American war, the Spanish American war ect. like Hitler?
Again, only an idiot would expose his views like Hitler did. Since then, we have learned to keep those views hidden.
The fact that something might be hidden if it does exist is not evidence that it does in fact exist.
I have never once said or suggested that conservatives were serial killers.
Just that they where like Hitler.
I think a sense of proportion would help you.
BTW - Can you name any specific conservative Republicans that you think are like Hitler?
Not all presidents dealt with Saddam types in the way they did under the Reagan administration.
Bill Clinton dealt with North Korea's brutal regime, Nixon recognized China and expanded trade and diplomatic contacts, In WWII we were allied with Stalin. Every post war president has at least dealt with murderous thugs and tyrants, if not ones with an army and WMD program as large as Saddam's was. And even if its was wrong (either in a practical or a moral sense) it hardly makes one like Hitler. Was FDR like Stalin because he allied with Stalin? Of course not. Again a sense of proportion is called for. Few people should be called Hitler like, not only because it is unfair to them but because it make light of what Hitler did. Also because if every one is "like Hitler" then when a real Hitler type comes along the phrase will have lost some of its power.
Don't you think that by the time they demonstrate what they are that that might be too late?
No. For any number of reasons. First of all I don't think that any of the people you are accusing are vaguely Hitler like. Secondly you can oppose them without calling them Hitler. Also calling them like Hitler doesn't really help. If they are dangerous, wildly exaggerating the danger is as likely to make people think you're a fruitcake as it is to alert them of the danger.
Tim |
