Unless her name is “Terry Schiavo” …
That controversy was an unsettling one: the issue was what to do about a woman who had no medically realistic prospects for recovery, was consuming expensive healthcare dollars, and had left no reliable instructions on what her wishes would be in that situation, and a lot of people were very uncomfortable with either option, continuing to pay for her care or depriving her of nourishment. Public opinion at the time was hardly unanimous on what should be done (indeed, even some high-profile left-wingers sided with those who opposed removing Schiavo’s feeding tube). The conventional wisdom in the pundit class was that the damage done was all to one side – that the flap revealed the GOP to be in the thrall of religious extremists. I don’t doubt that some such damage was indeed done. But little attention was paid to the fact that the Right vs Left narrative of the Schiavo episode – one willingly stoked by Democrats eager to capitalize on precisely the “Religious Right overreach” angle – painted the Left as the advocates of ‘pulling the plug’ on Terri Schiavo. Another anecdote had been added to the public’s collective memory of what the two sides stand for – an anecdote, I should add, that is consistent with other pieces of the puzzle, as the Left has clashed with the same pro-lifers again and again on abortion, assisted suicide, and the destruction of embryos for stem cell research. Sarah Palin’s invocation of her Down’s Syndrome son Trig is another flashpoint: it is the Left that insists that it is appropriate to abort a child when prenatal testing reveals such a condition, and it was from the Left that we heard crude jibes suggesting that Palin should have done just that. A coherent pattern emerges, forms itself and takes root in the public’s mind.
An excellent read.
h/t Ben D.
bleet – don’t be juvenile. Pelosi specifically said that protesters were ‘carrying swastikas and symbols like that’ to Town Hall meetings.
Swastikas, in case you are unaware, were the official symbol or emblam of the Nazi party. Therefore, Pelosi WAS calling these people Nazis. She most certainly did not claim that the people were describing Obama and the Democrats as setting up a totalitarian health system!! She described only the protesters as Nazis, with swastikas, as Astroturf, and as ‘unAmerican’.
There is absolutely no basis for your claim that the protesters were self-defining THEMSELVES as extremists, as Nazis, – what a ridiculous idea you are promoting – they were defining the socialist agenda of Obama, as akin to the totalitarian socialism of the Third Reich.
As for Pelosi objecting to that – that’s her problem. It’s a legitimate opinion – to consider that Obama’s Health Care is totalitarian. For her to denigrate the concerns of ordinary Americans about the authoritarian agenda of the Democrats is reprehensible. That includes both her attempt to smear their complaints by painting the protesters as Nazis and as ‘unAmerican’ and as ‘Astroturf’.
the thing that stands out in my recollection of the shiavo case is that she did NOT have legal representation exclusively for HER interests, whatever that would eventually have been deemed. the gaggle of lawyers were invariably allies of one side or the other, ‘appointed by party-hearty hubbie’, etc etc. none of them appointed by the court to pursue exclusively terri shiavo’s supposed/probable/whatever wishes.
it was always in relation to *someone else’s* atty’s views.
quality-of-life vs actually-having-life down the road?
look
to
Holland
for
a
glimpse
of
THAT
slippery
‘road’.
The next question – How many promises has Obamba keep since he has illigally taken power in the US?
“Won’t ‘Pull The Plug On Grandma’”
You know he meant “his” grandma in Kenya!
Y2Kate is at it again!
ET
You seem to have misunderstood the import of my post.
I did not, as you say, “claim that the protestors were self-defining THEMSELVES as extremists, as Nazis”, nor would I have any reason to promote such a, as you say, “ridiculous idea”.
Looking at my post again, it seems to me I expresed myself pretty clearly, so I’m not sure how you got it so wrong.
I said that “in referencing Nazism in their criticisms of the health care reform, (they) were revealing themselves to be a bit, shall we say, extreme.”
Nowhere do I make the claim that the protestors were “self-defining THEMSELVES” (who else would they be ‘self-defining’, BTW?) as Nazis, as you claim I said. I wonder why you would make such an untrue and easily disprovable claim?
I stated that in referencing Nazism in their criticisms of health care reform they were revealing themselves as extreme. Perhaps what defines extremism is subjective, but most people would define showing up to a health care debate with swastikas is a bit extreme – as well as giving people the chance to invoke Godwin’s Law!
Pelosi’s comments were as follows:
PELOSI: I think they’re Astroturf; you be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.
This was in response to an interviewer asking whether she felt the protestors were legitmate grassroots opposition or Astroturf. She backed up her position that they were Astroturf by citing the fact that some were carrying swastikas; her point was that legitimate opposition, or people interested in debate, generally don’t show up with swastika-laden signs demonizing the other side as Nazis.
Her remark doesn’t make any sense otherwise. Since you don’t deny that people were carrying swastikas, you are following the lead of right-wing pundits such as Bill O’Reilly in disingeuously interpreting her remark as saying “Pelosi WAS calling these people Nazis!”
It is the same sort of disingenuous re-framing at work when right-wing pundits repeatedly state that Pelosi has painted, as you claim, the protestors as “unAmerican”. The Pelosi/Hoyer op-ed piece merely said: “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.” Don’t you agree that stifling debate is unAmerican, that debate and dissent are American? What’s your beef with that statement?
Yet this is twisted by you and others to state that Pelosi called the protestors unAmerican. There seems to be a pattern of misrepresentation here on your part and on others’ that, taken altogether, might make one doubt the veracity of other things you might say.
So: my question remains the same: have you any examples of liberals characterizing the protestors as ‘nazi’? And kindly answer without ad hominem and unearned condescension this time; as you likely know, they’re generally evidence of a weak argument.
bleet – no, if someone defines a policy as similar to that of the Third Reich, this doesn’t mean that they, themselves, are ‘extremists’, aka, Nazis. It means that they consider the policies of the Obama regime..to be extreme, to be totalitarian, to be similar to that of the Third Reich.
Furthermore, to state that IF one defines the Obama regime’s policies as akin to that of the Third Reich, THEN this also means that one is an ‘astroturf’ or ‘programmed’ and not legitimate protestor, not ‘regular people’ – is a totally invalid correlation. You can’t, logically, make the connection between the two metaphors.
By doing so, Pelosi essentially stated that IF you claim that Obama’s Policy is totalitarian, THEN, your claim has no legitimacy. That’s quite an offensive declaration on her part. As she said, ‘drowning out opposing views is unAmerican’ and declaring that your perspective has no legitimacy sure fits the action of ‘drowning out’.
You don’t have to shout over someone’s voice to drown out their voice; you can do it by declaring them ‘extremist’, ‘racist’, thug, mob, and anti-American.
If I, for example, come to the conclusion, after learning about the Health Bill, that it is essentially an authoritarian and even totalitarian agenda, this is my opinion – and I have the right to declare it. Not according to Pelosi et al.
I don’t use ad hominem, so don’t try to pin that on me. And I’m not going to repeat my point about the left characterizing the protesters as Nazis. I explained that already. They did do exactly that.
Pelosi did NOT support their right to dissent and do what they were doing – comparing the Obama regime to a totalitarian regime. Instead, she objected to their DISSENT, and complained about their Nazi-Symbolic signs – thereby defining THEM as Nazi sympathizers. Got it?
ET:
Report for re-education at:
thepeoplescube.com
ET
Yes; it’s quite obvious that if someone defines a policy as similar to that of a regime which murdered millions upon millions of people, they consider that policy to be extreme.
Whether one considers a person who makes such a definition to be extreme is, as I pointed out, a subjective judgement. But it seems to me there can’t be much arguement that such a statement in and of itself is rather extreme. And I don’t have much doubt that the accusers themselves know it to be extreme – to compare a sitting gov’t. to one of the most evil regimes of the twentieth century – that’s exactly the ‘extrme’ effect they were going for.
If you do not hold such a viewpoint to be extreme, you must have some evidence that it is reasonable and moderate. So: where are Obama’s death camps, where are the millions of people he has slaughtered which justify his comparison to Hitler, and thus makes such a comparison moderate – i.e., not extreme?
Pelosi’s characterization of the protestors as astroturf were buttressed by her noting the swatikas brought to the meetings in that the meetings were meant to be discussions. One does not begin a discussion by asserting that the other side is Hitler – that merely shows a person isn’t interested in discussion from the outset, and therefore isn’t legtimately entering into a debate – but rather only trying to drown out the other side.
You began you first post addressing me in this thread as “juvenile”. That’s ad hominem. You followed this up with the smart-aleck “Swastikas, in case you aren’t aware, were the offical emblem or symbol of the Nazi party.”
That sort of ad hominem stuff, and your subsequent dishonest denial of it, really doesn’t add to the peruasiveness of your arguments.
Further, it simply isn’t true that you’ve “already explained” your point about the left chracterizing the protesters as Nazis. I asked for a concrete example and you gave me a disingenuous misrepresentation, as is documented on this thread.
You seem to feel that the more times, and the more emphatically, you repeat a falsehood the more true it becomes. That simply doen’t hold water – no matter how much you erratically CAPITALIZE the WORDS in your POST.
“So: where are Obama’s death camps, where are the millions of people he has slaughtered which justify his comparison to Hitler”
That statement is exactly why you will never be considered a visionary.
Nor will your comments or opinions be taken seriously.
Enjoy the breadline.
Most of you commenting on the Terry Schiavo case probably never took the time to read through the voluminous trial transcripts that deal with this case. To make an informed opinion, try reading over here: http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo.
You will probably find out that Terry’s parents were not and never paid for her care. It was a religious organization that was paying for her care. Her husband exhausted the award settlement on trying to find her specialized care, and then good hospital care.
Terry was awarded independent guardians who arranged for examinations and represented her in court over the 12 or 15 years that she was in a vegetative state. All of these specialists agreed that her brain was basically sludge and that only her stem was keeping her “alive”.
I think once you read the real evidence, you will see that her parents demonized her husband (one who they professed to love dearly when Terry was still functional)over money and that the right choice was made on her behalf.
“the right choice was made on her behalf.”
See, these are the guys who feel perfectly comfortable pronouncing another human being unfit to live.
Didn’t Pelosi lose the whole health care debate due to Godwin’s Law last week? Why are we still talking about it.
bleet – to define a COMMENT or argument as ‘juvenile’ is an opinion about the comment. It’s not ‘ad hominem’. Ad hominem means to divert the argument from the issue to the person. And what was ‘smart-aleck’ about my definition of the swastika as the official symbol of the Nazi Party?
Some of the people who object to Obama’s Health Care Plan define it as totalitarian, this is a legitimate opinion. Their opinions aren’t extreme; they consider that Obama’s Health Care Plan is extremist. The fact that you don’t understand this – is your problem.
Again, their viewpoint isn’t extreme – despite your constantly saying that it is! What these people consider extreme is Obama’s Health Care Plan!
To visualize their conclusion by comparing it to a fascist regime’s plan, is entirely legitimate. You can verbally say: I consider your Health Care Plan akin to the totalitarian plans of fascist regimes such as that of Nazi Germany. Or, you can visually hold up a sign with Nazi symbols or Obama with a Hitler moustache..that provides the same meaning.
And -that’s a juvenile comment – your comment about the death camps. To argue that UNLESS a regime has death camps, THEN it cannot be compared to a totalitarian regime – is nonsense.
There is no correlation between defining protesters as ‘astroturf’ – which means that they have no legitimacy and aren’t there on their own but are brought in by political manipulators – AND – further insulting those people by suggesting that they were allied to a radical party, the Nazi Party. How can the two be linked?
Yes, Pelosi was quite wrong to define the ‘other side’ (the protestors) as Nazis and as ‘Astroturf’. That clearly showed that she was unwilling to accept anything they said as having any legitimacy.
I think once you read the real evidence, you will see that her parents demonized her husband (one who they professed to love dearly when Terry was still functional)over money and that the right choice was made on her behalf.
I’ll remember that the next time I see starving kids from Africa on television. Somewhere, someone made “the right choice” on their behalf.
Food and hydration are not extraordinary life-saving measures and should not be denied anyone.
And, frankly, Michael Schiavo lost all rights and responsibilities as a husband when he had an affair and fathered children with another woman while is wife was in serious medical need.
All “the right choice” did was give Michael Schiavo the freedom to be rid of a burdensome wife that he so deeply desired.
If the health reform bills pass without a whimper by American ThanksGiving, I predict the pitchforks won’t come out until they start running out of them green crackers…
Anyone care to quote what Charlton Heston said at the end of his un-girdled one piece body suit B-movie classic?
ET, you’re in a battle of wits with an unarmed man… er, troll.
As I recall the signs to which the honorable Ms. Pelosi referred were actually swastikas with red circles around and a line through. Meaning “no Nazis”. Not “we’re Nazis!” There’s pictures of them out there, if anyone cares to surf them up.
Ms. Pelosi knows this. She was there, after all. Therefore her comments in the matter are, shall we say, suspect?
As to the actual National Socialist influence on the healthcare debate, an examination of the proposed system will reveal that it is virtually identical to that implemented by the Hitler regime shortly after he was first elected back in the day.
Kind of like the 1968 Gun Control Act was a word-for-word copy of Hitler’s gun control act. It to was written by a Democrat.
Besides, bleetyweety, the Dems just nationalized the banks and the car companies. Which is classic Fascism. What exactly is it that you’re objecting to when we call the fascists? They -are- fascists.
BTW, in case you’re going to complain that there’s no concentration camps in America, they’re working on that right now:
http://www.sunjournal.com/node/105339/
“PARIS — Oxford Hills Comprehensive High School will be the site of a National Guard riot control drill Thursday morning to prepare in the event of a panic over distribution of serum to treat the swine flu.”
“The school on Route 26 at the Paris-Norway town line has been designated by state officials as a distribution site for the H1N1 flu vaccine. The drill is to prepare for a worst-case scenario should the serum have to be transported from Augusta and people rush to get it.”
“Plans were developed in April to have vials of serum sent from the federal government to Augusta, Parker said. From Augusta, the supplies will be transported to designated distribution centers.”
“During the April conference, concerns were raised about a possible out-of-control rush on the serum, Parker said. Because of that concern, Gov. John Baldacci and Gen. John Libby, adjutant general of the Maine National Guard, agreed that a plan should be devised to quell such a disturbance.”
Then there’s this gem here:
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/40662prs20090810.html?s_src=RSS
“Since 2000, it has been the policy of the federal government not to use such technology. But the OMB is now seeking to change that policy and is considering the use of cookies for tracking web visitors across multiple sessions and storing their unique preferences and surfing habits. Though this is a major shift in policy, the announcement of this program consists of only a single page from the federal register that contains almost no detail.”
Interesting, yes? Kind of Orwellian, one might say.
ET
Yes, Et, to call another person ‘juvenile’ isn’t an ad hominem. You aren’t diverting attention from the issue to a person at all by calling
me ‘juvenile’. In fact, by calling me ‘juvenile’ you aren’t really calling me juvenile, you’re really calling my argument juvenile. Got you. Whatever you say.
No, ET, to compare Obama and his government
to the Third Reich, one of the most murderous governments in history, isn’t extreme. It’s perfectly moderate and reasonable.
I understand: you – and Phantom – consider the present U.S. government the equivalent of the Third Reich. And you consider Obama the equivalent of Hitler. And you feel these are perfectly resonable and moderate opinions.
So – what now, guys?
Economic definition of fascism, sorry for the extended quote, but I think bleet needs a little education on the meaning of economic terms.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Sounds a lot like Obama, if you ask me. But noticing that is apparently a thought crime.
What now, bleety? Here’s what: Hate groups threating the President!!!
abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8324481&page=1
“Experts say a sharp growth in so-called militia groups that helped spawn a wave of domestic terrorism in the 1990s – and are now using YouTube, rock music and the Internet to recruit members and spread hate and fear – shouldn’t be ignored.”
“It’s certainly a scary time,” said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, now an ABC News consultant. Garrett said the Secret Service “cannot afford to pass on anyone,” and he believes “they really do fear that something could happen to [Obama].”
“Garrett said statements like one recently made by controversial radio host Rush Limbaugh comparing a logo for the White House plan to a Nazi symbol “legitimizes people who are on the edge to go do something or say something.”
Yes bleety, those scary militias are using Rush Limbaugh and rock music to endanger our beloved president! Be afraid, be very afraid.
Next shot out of the box will be gun control, bleety. To control the “threat” of the scaaaaaary militias. I also expect to see a law forcing Rush Limbaugh either off the air or into jail before November 2010.
So I guess we shall see, shan’t we?
BTW, I do not consider Obama the equivalent of Hitler. Their purpose and methods are very similar, its just that Barry sucks at it. Obama is a thin shadow of Hitler. A copy xeroxed one too many times.
First, yes many Americans pay into Medicare, as well as Social Security. The combined total of the two is referred to as the Payroll Tax and is considered separate from the Income Tax. Low income people are “refunded” the Payroll Tax (and pay no Income Tax), in a giveaway referred to as the Earned Income Tax Credit, so low income people do not pay into Social Security, nor Medicare.
@ Aizlynne, you make an interesting point that just slightly misses the mark; Schiavo’s bills were being covered by a church, as you say, but that merely should have exempted her case from this discussion. Anyone that cared to was allowed to donate to her care. What Michael Schiavo did was in no way about the money. What got lost in the discussion when this became a national issue, was Michael Schiavo’s years-long battle to have his former wife deprived of further care. It can now never be proven, which is the point, but at the local level, Michael Schiavo was the prime suspect for having put Terry Schiavo in that hospital bed, in the first place. In the 15 years that this was a local issue, none of his claims as to the attack that led to her condition were ever borne out by the evidence. I count myself as at least one amongst perhaps many that rooted for her parents, as perhaps with time the evidence could have been developed for indicting Michael Schiavo with attempted murder (and, now, murder).