Fred Thompson for Poker?

[dorethawsp]

Not that I agree with the "christnazi" reference, but are you guys as outraged with Rush Limbaugh when he throws out the "femi-nazi" reference or do you chuckle? C'mon be honest.

[TheRedRocket]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that I agree with the "christnazi" reference, but are you guys as outraged with Rush Limbaugh when he throws out the "femi-nazi" reference or do you chuckle? C'mon be honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't listen to RL but it would be the same thing. Still I think your point is a good one

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that I agree with the "christnazi" reference, but are you guys as outraged with Rush Limbaugh when he throws out the "femi-nazi" reference or do you chuckle? C'mon be honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a previous listener to Rush I can tell you that having to listen to all of the air time wasted on Rush explaining the diference between all women, feminists, and femi-nazis, leads me to on the one hand agree with you only to a point.

The juxtiposition of those two words christ and Nazi just isn't one I'd try nor recomend. As someone who has worked in the trenches of republican politics I can tell you I've worked with people who the term had an apt and almost the same conotation Rush used in the femi-nazi example. It doesn't have the same basis of foundation and not worth the effort of offending more than anything you might gain from attempting to paint the picture you are attempting to foster.


D$D

[dorethawsp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not that I agree with the "christnazi" reference, but are you guys as outraged with Rush Limbaugh when he throws out the "femi-nazi" reference or do you chuckle? C'mon be honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a previous listener to Rush I can tell you that having to listen to all of the air time wasted on Rush explaining the diference between all women, feminists, and femi-nazis, leads me to on the one hand agree with you only to a point.

The juxtiposition of those two words christ and Nazi just isn't one I'd try nor recomend. As someone who has worked in the trenches of republican politics I can tell you I've worked with people who the term had an apt and almost the same conotation Rush used in the femi-nazi example. It doesn't have the same basis of foundation and not worth the effort of offending more than anything you might gain from attempting to paint the picture you are attempting to foster.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Because you like right wing Christians, but don't like feminists.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not that I agree with the "christnazi" reference, but are you guys as outraged with Rush Limbaugh when he throws out the "femi-nazi" reference or do you chuckle? C'mon be honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a previous listener to Rush I can tell you that having to listen to all of the air time wasted on Rush explaining the diference between all women, feminists, and femi-nazis, leads me to on the one hand agree with you only to a point.

The juxtiposition of those two words christ and Nazi just isn't one I'd try nor recomend. As someone who has worked in the trenches of republican politics I can tell you I've worked with people who the term had an apt and almost the same conotation Rush used in the femi-nazi example. It doesn't have the same basis of foundation and not worth the effort of offending more than anything you might gain from attempting to paint the picture you are attempting to foster.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Because you like right wing Christians, but don't like feminists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong! You missed my point entirely. I have no more love or affection for extreme radicals of any stripe. Rush wasted way too much time, IMO, going over and over his distinctions to make the thing worth the joke/point.

I'm a self described "Jesuit trained agnostic." [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]


D$D

[dorethawsp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no more love or affection for extreme radicals of any stripe.



[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you don't. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Skallagrim]

I like legisluker's rants. amd I understand his use of the wording "christanazi."

Intellectually, I find it unfortunate that political correctness demands that you never compare a group's TACTICS with nazi tactics unless you can also substantiate that said group also supports genocide. The tactics of FOF and their ilk are very simlar to that of the nazis and to ignore that fact is to let them off lighter than is correct.

As to using the word "christanazi" as part of our public outreach, however, I agree with most of the previous posters: It hurts more than it gains.

But here on 2+2, I say let Legislurker go for it. FOF doesn't read these boards for advice, and cannot use legislurker's posts to attack the work engineer would have us (rightly) do anyway. He is, after all, just one poster.

Say what you feel here legislurker. But understand that it is not the language we want to use to affect public opinion because it does, as others have stated, give our opponents something to attack, where as respectful argument keeps them on the defensive.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
the reason using fascists or Nazis is ridiculous and indefensible is because these people worked within the framework on the current government to get a law passed similar to laws which outlaw dog fighting, using illicit drugs or prostitution. Are people who support these laws fascists or Nazis as well? Most reasonable people would say no, and using the term in the way legislurker while again being incorrect is also apt to turn many reasonable people off who might otherwise be supportive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Passing fascist laws via democracy is done all the time. Tyranny of the majority is well-documented. Slavery existed under the Constitution. The McCarthy communist witchhunts were conducted under law. The internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was legal as well.

Prohibition was legal and constitutional, due to passage of a constitutional amendment authorizing it. This didn't make it right, nor did it make Prohibitionists less fascist.

Finally, Hitler and the Nazis rose to power under democracy, within the framework of the Weimar Republic.

So, it's certainly possible to pass oppressive laws within our framework of laws. Reread the definition of "Nazi" (common usage) I posted -- the poker prohibitionists certainly fit that definition.

Anyway, I understand some prefer we don't use the term "ChristNazi", and I won't...not that I have a personal problem with it, but out of deference to those who don't like it (and despite the fact that these folks have not asked nicely; rather, they ordered others to not use it), I'll not use it. However, I can't think of a group that should be offended by me calling Dobson a "fascist".

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
I like legisluker's rants. amd I understand his use of the wording "christanazi."

Intellectually, I find it unfortunate that political correctness demands that you never compare a group's TACTICS with nazi tactics unless you can also substantiate that said group also supports genocide. The tactics of FOF and their ilk are very simlar to that of the nazis and to ignore that fact is to let them off lighter than is correct.

As to using the word "christanazi" as part of our public outreach, however, I agree with most of the previous posters: It hurts more than it gains.

But here on 2+2, I say let Legislurker go for it. FOF doesn't read these boards for advice, and cannot use legislurker's posts to attack the work engineer would have us (rightly) do anyway. He is, after all, just one poster.

Say what you feel here legislurker. But understand that it is not the language we want to use to affect public opinion because it does, as others have stated, give our opponents something to attack, where as respectful argument keeps them on the defensive.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I don't think genocide is a requirement, or espousing it, to be a Nazi. Their rise was, unlike Stalin or Mussolini, almost entirely bloodless. They didn't kill each other internally until the end. The Camps weren't public. They appealed to a group of people out of power and who felt outsiders, and frankly, were kinda dumb. German workers and peasants. Draw your paralells if you so desire.
They considered public opinion and how to affect it. They were the first 20th century sophisticated party. Nazi to me
has an element of ruthless, but more so one of insidious deception. Buzzwords and slogans. A gradual crushing of dissent and disagreement with propaganda, unquestioned loyalty, and demonizing bogeymen(Communistis, Poles, Jews, Roma, etc). If you look at FoF that is how they operate.
Gays are their bogeymen, and apparently now gamblers. God knows they constantly turn out books, fluff schools, tv shows, albums, and anything else to make a dollar. They REQUIRE action from the Republicans they back. My God they lined up every Senator they could to amend the Constitution over queers. Maybe 10 of them really believed in it, the rest feared him. God's law as defined BY THEM is what should be law. If you read and care about history, you know America is vulnerable to waves of pseudo-religious political
revivals. I think they are a threat, a fascist threat, and one to take seriously. If you want a better term for them, sit down for a couple hours and think one up. Snappy, snazzy, and maddening. I have no shame about plagiarizing.

[JPFisher55]

They are religious fanatics like the Taliban. If not for the US constitution and our system of laws, they would attempt to operate the same way. So far, they have not operated like Al Queda. Well except for the bombing in Oklahoma City.
So call them what you like, they are religious extremist, like all the Muslim extremists. I wish they were not part of the Republican Party. And I will not vote for another Republican until they are no longer a factor in the Republican Party.