"Savage Nation"

[anonemouse 1]

so then....give up, give in, quit....you're going to lose anyway....is that what you mean?

Again, no, it's not, and I never implied that. What I AM saying is that the Jews fighting back as a group would not have made a damn bit of difference in the Holocaust. Hitler was focused on exterminating them, and he would have done it even if they had fought back. I am NOT saying that people should just give up and die without a protest.

I am saying that it is incredibly naive (not to mention, counter to everything history has taught us) to think that the Jews fighting back would have prevented the Holocaust from happening. It's also incredibly offensive to effectively place the blame of the Holocaust on the folks that didn't fight (or weren't successful at fighting).

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

re: "It's also incredibly offensive to effectively place the blame of the Holocaust on the folks that didn't fight (or weren't successful at fighting)."

So maybe now I understand your point.

The way I interpret that little bit he uses, is that by refusing to stand up for their rights in the first place, they lost the opportunity to stand up for their rights in the second place...and the third, etc....

I believe what he is blaming, is the denial of what was happening and the refusal in the face of all the warning signs of that impending doom, to move to action while they still could. It was so humongous it was overlooked by too many too long until it was too late.

Whether that is what he means or not, I don't see how what exactly makes his statements 'hate filled pieces of scum'.....

Because you might have the intelligence and knowledge of history to see that he might mean "that by refusing to stand up for their rights in the first place, they lost the opportunity to stand up for their rights in the second place...and the third, etc...." doesn't mean that others will take it that way.

He is catering to antisemetic hatred.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

re: "He is catering to antisemetic hatred.

...nor others as you see it....

Hell, it's a RADIO show.....

Which has the power of multiplying the hatred of one person and re-enforcing the hatred in millions.

[anonemouse 1]

re: "It's also incredibly offensive to effectively place the blame of the Holocaust on the folks that didn't fight (or weren't successful at fighting)."

So maybe now I understand your point.

The way I interpret that little bit he uses, is that by refusing to stand up for their rights in the first place, they lost the opportunity to stand up for their rights in the second place...and the third, etc....

I believe what he is blaming, is the denial of what was happening and the refusal in the face of all the warning signs of that impending doom, to move to action while they still could. It was so humongous it was overlooked by too many too long until it was too late.

Whether that is what he means or not, I don't see how what exactly makes his statements 'hate filled pieces of scum'.....

See, I don't see it as that. Instead of placing the blame for the Holocaust squarely where it belongs, with Hitler and the Nazis, he is essentially blaming the victims. To me, it doesn't matter that they may or may not have stood up for their rights. People have a responsibility to society to protect the weakest members, whether or not they were made weaker by their own doing. Instead of ranting about how people not standing up for their rights got themselves killed, he should be trying to figure out a way to keep the same situation from happening, to keep the people that would take away those rights from coming into power. That's a responsibility of the society as a whole, not just the groups that would be most adversely affected.

And let's not forget that the people he is preaching to are the ones with the least to fear. In fact, I would argue that they are the group to be feared when it comes to stripping the rights of certain groups away.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

See, I don't see it as that. Instead of placing the blame for the Holocaust squarely where it belongs, with Hitler and the Nazis, he is essentially blaming the victims. To me, it doesn't matter that they may or may not have stood up for their rights. People have a responsibility to society to protect the weakest members, whether or not they were made weaker by their own doing. Instead of ranting about how people not standing up for their rights got themselves killed, he should be trying to figure out a way to keep the same situation from happening, to keep the people that would take away those rights from coming into power. That's a responsibility of the society as a whole, not just the groups that would be most adversely affected.

And let's not forget that the people he is preaching to are the ones with the least to fear. In fact, I would argue that they are the group to be feared when it comes to stripping the rights of certain groups away.

:amen: :kev:

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Jack, your dictionary learning is wonderful and I complement you on your research and intellect, however the appeal to the intellectually weakest, but vocal and belligerent groups by people like Michael Savage and Ann Coulter is strong and their power is magnified by being seen as an authority figure on mass media, plus the mass media itself magnifies both their powers and reach.

You may be able to split the hairs, but to too many only a blunt object will do.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Thanks for recognizing my Secret Power of Hair-Splitting...

Do you apply similar concern for advocates of the nonsense spewed by the likes of Bill Maher and Al Franken?

Which groups do Bill Maher and Al Franken attack?

Bill Maher says "all religion is stupid", so he doesn't single out Jews, Christians or Muslims" for fighting over the alleged teachings of their holy books.

Both Maher and Franken come down on Neo-Cons, but they explain nuance, something that members of the right usually overlook. The listeners and followers of Savage and Coulter tend to be more violent and vulgar IMHO than the listeners of Maher and Franken. I have spoken to advocates of Savage and Coulter, and they are glad they have their NRA membership and their guns for the coming (violent) revolution in which they will "take back our country from the Liberals and Liberal media".

The Liberals want to take back the country from the Neo-Con's and Christian Fundamentalists by the ballot box and by education.

Both sides want their agenda to win. But there is a difference in the reasoning and the methods.

[BJean 16]

Jack: re: "and the huge group of those who have no interest in who they are and what they may say..."

Poppycock. If there was truly a HUGE group who had no interest in them or what they say, they wouldn't have such a public forum in which to speak. This is a capitalistic society baby, and whoever pulls in the money is who gets to be heard. So I'm guessing by their exposure, they're pretty darned popular so the corporate bigwigs put them on the air and the companies are willing to endorse them by spending lots of money on advertisements right before, during and right after their shows. The fact that there are so many people who want to hear them and who do tune in, is significant indeed.

If fact if people weren't being influenced by the right wing media, people in this country would be rising up en masse to oust this president and his pack of war mongers.

[mousecrazy 2]

He is definitely not politically correct; like Jack said perfectly, at times he cuts through the fog and at times he raves. I have thought him both brilliant and "way out there", depending on his mood and topic. I have read a couple of his books.

People like Bill Maher offend me greatly; but he definitely has his supporters and fans. Rosie O'Donnell, though not in his league, says things every week that make me very angry, but she has her fans. To each, his own. I would deem Maher's and O'Donnell's speech as "spewing hatred"...others say the same of Savage and Coulter. I like Coulter; I saw her speak in person, and stood in line to get her autograph.

Point: your way isn't the only way. One person's hate speech is another's "hey, good point."

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

He is definitely not politically correct; like Jack said perfectly, at times he cuts through the fog and at times he raves. I have thought him both brilliant and "way out there", depending on his mood and topic. I have read a couple of his books.

People like Bill Maher offend me greatly; but he definitely has his supporters and fans. Rosie O'Donnell, though not in his league, says things every week that make me very angry, but she has her fans. To each, his own. I would deem Maher's and O'Donnell's speech as "spewing hatred"...others say the same of Savage and Coulter. I like Coulter; I saw her speak in person, and stood in line to get her autograph.

Point: your way isn't the only way. One person's hate speech is another's "hey, good point."

I think you miss one important distinction.

Ann Coulter, for example would have me executed for what I have written at "Lap Band Talk". Bill Maher would disagree with much of what you write, but would not want to be punished.

Ann Coulter, wants Democrats in Congress executed for what they have said, written and how they have voted in Congress, while Bill Maher would disagree with much of what BuSh and the Republicans do, but he would not want anything to happen to them except to lose their jobs as representatives.

[marjon9 6]

He is definitely not politically correct; like Jack said perfectly, at times he cuts through the fog and at times he raves. I have thought him both brilliant and "way out there", depending on his mood and topic. I have read a couple of his books.

People like Bill Maher offend me greatly; but he definitely has his supporters and fans. Rosie O'Donnell, though not in his league, says things every week that make me very angry, but she has her fans. To each, his own. I would deem Maher's and O'Donnell's speech as "spewing hatred"...others say the same of Savage and Coulter. I like Coulter; I saw her speak in person, and stood in line to get her autograph.

Point: your way isn't the only way. One person's hate speech is another's "hey, good point."

I agree with this completely. I welcome all ideas into the "marketplace," so to speak. I expect that people I agree with (the commie liberals) will ultimately win out, because in the final analysis I believe that good will win out over evil (just kidding). But I say let's hear from everyone, and let the chips fall where they may.

The one thing I can say is, it is nice to have things swinging just a little bit in the "correct" direction for a change. After so many years of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., it does look like the pendulum is swinging a bit the other way. It's such a relief, I can't tell you.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

One more thing, Bill Maher is a comedian, says he is a comedian and doesn't claim to be a commentator or journalist. Neither Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity nor Bill O'Reilly claim that they are comedians and in fact they claim to be commentators on the news or journalists. Both commentators on the news and journalists are supposed to be objective, but none of them are. Even Bill O'Reilly admitted on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago that Rush Limbaugh is not a journalist, though Rush thinks he is one.

Karl Rove and Cheney on the other hand are not only "not comedians”, but they have the power to harm people by more than innuendo or jokes. They have immense governmental powers and they are involved with increasing those powers beyond what our "Founding Fathers" ever envisioned.

So while Bill Maher may offend you and while he may say some things which you find tasteless, he is a satirist mocking the present situation. The present situation that Cheney and Rove have helped bring about through their actions as officials and that Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly have helped bring about by pretending to give the news and distorting the facts.

[BJean 16]

TOM: I agree completely with your last post. The point you made is exactly why you can't compare Hannity, Limbaugh, Colter, Savage, and their ilk to people like Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher, for heaven's sakes! The interesting thing is that so many people today are finding more truth in some left wing comedians' lines about the news than they do in the "real news" reports from the extreme right wing.

[marjon9 6]

I agree with TOM's post too, except for one point. I actually would describe Rove and Cheney as "comedians."

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I agree with TOM's post too, except for one point. I actually would describe Rove and Cheney as "comedians."

Laugh so hard you die comedians.:mad::girl_hug: