For nearly a year and half since 9/11, people were criticized for disputing the president's decisions.
Criticism is not an infringement on freedom of speech. It is an example of freedom of speech.
If you dared to criticize the president himself, then attempts were made to severely censor the party or parties who were responsible......see Dixie Chicks as a recent example.
The Dixie Chicks did not face censorship. Censorship is when someone doesn't let you say something, not when they don't like you because you say it.
Another example.....at one point last fall, FOX or another conservative outlet complained that the Seattle area was not flying enough American flags. How they came to this conclusion....it certainly had to be anecdotal...is beyond me but the message was very clear. Not enough flags means you are not patriotic enough. Now how do you think that differs from other nations with more restricted freedoms?
It doesn't just differ, it doesn't have any similarity at all. It would only be a limit on freedom of speech if people where arrested or physically attacked or fined or something like that for not having flags or being patriotic enough. Saying "people are not patriotic enough" is an exercise of freedom of speech, not a restriction on it.
I recently read excerpts from a book written by a conservative.....I don't remember the title nor the author.....but he complained that people were taking too much advantage of free speech and that our right to demonstrate or speak out against the gov't should be curtailed.
Even that isn't an example of censorship itself, but it is an example of advocating censorship. In other words its supporting restrictions on speech but doesn't mean that speech has been restricted.
Such advocacy is nothing new and doesn't have enough strength behind it to get anyware. It won't even become a bill let alone a law and the courts would reject any such law even if it could get passed.
Re. your comments above, I don't agree with people who burn the flag but I defend their right to do so.
I feel the same way. I didn't say that infringing on his right to do so was good, I only said it isn't even remotely enough to reasonably throw Hitler comparisons around. Some western European countries have similar or worse restrictions on free speech and while I think these restrictions are bad no one is saying countries like France or modern Germany are likely candidates for Nazi governments.
All I am suggesting that people have hidden agendas and because its become politically incorrect to say certain things in public, they are very careful to keep those things from the public eye.
You suggest a lot more then that when you say people are like Hitler. If you didn't make that comment and just say something like "we should always be vigilant about our government and in defense of our rights then I would agree.
but I do believe that many conservatives have strong nationalistic feelings much like Hitler. Hitler believed to protect Germany it may be necessary to be the aggressor......apparently many conservatives believe the same thing. Do you disagree?
I would say its more patriotism then nationalism. The difference being that there is no overtone of racial superiority. But I'll admit that that the practical effect of extreme patriotism is little different from that of strong nationalism in many cases.
Hitler believed lots of things. Finding one aspect of similarity doesn't make for a good reason to compare a group of modern day Americans to Hitler. I do think that sometimes aggressive action is the best thing to do, but not most of the time. I would say that it should not be a common occurrence.
Remember, Hitler was seriously fukked up but conservative values are what shaped him
No hatred was what shaped him.
You say that only because you are quick to make the leap that I am calling Bush another Hitler.
I wasn't sure if you where calling Bush another Hitler or not but your calling any large number of conservatives or administration officials like Hitler is enough in my opinion to question your sense of proportion in this area.
Jerry Falwell and other far right, fundamentalist conservatives.
Well at least I got one name. I'm not a fan of Falwell but I don't think he resembles Hitler at all. Hitler was focused on nationalism and racial hatred, Falwell is focused on religion (if you want a negative comparison you could try the Ayatollahs in Iran but I still think that isn't accurate, just better then the Hitler comparison). Hitler supported violence against internal dissent or groups that he didn't like, Falwell does not.
I think its the height of hypocrisy to claim you are good and democratic, and then for years, support an evil dictator like Saddam........and then, even later claim its necessary to take him out.
We gave a lot more to Stalin (who was worse then Saddam) then we ever gave to Saddam. To claim you are good and then support someone who is bad (Stalin, Saddam, whoever) might have an element of hypocrisy but its often well intentioned (we didn't want Hitler to conquer Europe or Iran to conquer the Gulf). Claiming its necessary to take down someone you have previously supported is not necessarily even false let alone hypocritical.
Bush and the supporters behind him......the Perles, Wolfowitz, etc......see a more aggressive role for the US. Typically, aggressors tend to be bullies like Hitler.......they prey on weaker nations. That's why people see analogies between Bush's and Hitler's behavior.
The US isn't preying on weaker nations, and Perle and Wolfowitz have not to my knowledge advocated that it should do so.
Instead of condemning people for implying Bush is Hitler like, why not try to figure out why they are saying it? We were told repeatedly that Iraq was a threat to the US because it had WMD and links to al Qaeda. At that time, there was very little concern for the "poor, enslaved Iraqis". Six months later there is no WMD nor links to al Qaeda. Why are you not asking questions instead of being so concerned with negative comments re Bush? I would hope that we are Americans first, and liberals, conservatives, Dems and Reps. second.
If that is your reason for the Hitler comment its a real weak one. The links to terrorism where not strong enough to justify an invasion but they did exist. The WMD is known to have existed, its possible that Saddam destroyed it and then wiped out all records and evidence of the destruction and didn't make any effort to show that it was destroyed in order to prevent moves against him but it seems very unlikely. Whatever Bush's motives, freeing 24mil people from Saddam and removing a threat
to the biggest oil producing region of the world are both good things.
Tim |
