Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Political Fact Check: Obama is Hitler Posters

Political Fact Check: Obama is Hitler Posters

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On the Sunday morning talk shows, especially NBC's Meet the Press, there was a great deal of talk about the ongoing protests at health care town hall events. One of the issues repeatedly raised was the display of signs with images of President Obama as Hitler or comparing him to Hitler. To my surprise, the representatives of the political right who were generally sympathetic to the protesters largely failed to speak out and set the record straight on this issue.

One would hope that Dick Armey of FreedomWorks would know that grassroots protesters from groups his organization is allied with are not being sent out with these posters and that in many cases they are being advised not to pursue that particular line of rhetoric, but he failed to speak out to set the record straight and advocates of the health care plan keep using it to demonize protesters and attempt to discredit them as extremists.

The truth is quite a bit different. Grassroots conservatives may make up the bulk of the protest movement against Obamacare, but they are not alone. Some leftists who feel that proposed reforms are too moderate are also protesting. Many of them are followers of former Democratic presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche whose philosophy is a kind of neo-Marxism and includes a conspiratorial belief that President Obama is a eugenicist and support for fully socialized health care.

Although MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and other pundits repeatedly try to pin these Hitler posters on the grassroots protesters from the right, the truth is that they originate with and are being displayed by activists in the LaRouche movement and you can find the source image (PDF) they are using on the LaRouche website. In fact, if you look closely at the posters, they clearly display the LaRouche logo and web address at the bottom.

The objectives and concerns of the far-left LaRouche protesters and the larger body of conservative protesters are very different, and that difference ought to be obvious to politicians and media talkers. Their attempts to discredit the more mainstream protesters by associating them with the LaRouche crazies are transparently deceptive and only serve to alienate more citizens and further anger protesters who feel that the government and its media lap-dogs have declared war on the people.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • Clavos

    Very interesting!

    Looking forward to hearing our liberal friends’ reactions…

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Calling Lyndon LaRouche far left is not even close to accurate. He’s definitely far-out, but zero mainstream liberals would claim him, and few if any Daily Kos-style activists either.

    He is from Planet X. Or perhaps, like the Coneheads, “He comes from France.”

    And the SS/fascist/Nazi lettering images and comparisons were not limited to that one slick poster…lotsa handmade signs at lotsa rallies. And Limbaugh was willing to run with it, for whatever nutty reasons of his own.

    And Jonah Goldberg gave us a charming book, pre-ObamaCare debate, called “Liberal Fascism.” One description says it “attempts to link Mussolini, Hitler, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, Hillary Clinton and eugenics.”

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Correct, Handy. He’s no more a leftist than Fred Phelps – who’s also a Democrat.

  • BillFromDetroit

    This is pretty straight coverage of the LaRouche involvement and you are to be applauded for it. Americans need to wake up from the funk that they have been lulled into by the foreign financial interests that are the real enemy here calling for the Independent Medicare Advisory Committee, and seize back their country (while there is something left to seize) while they still can. My LaRouche friends are providing the wake up call with their organizing, such as that recognized here by Mr. Nalle. This is what journalism should be about – getting to the heart of the matter without the blinders imposed on us by the many enemies of America.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Was #4 the sort of ‘liberal friend’s reaction’ you were expecting, Clav?

    Or is it even better?

    :-)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It’s infinitely better. Mission accomplished.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    #4 clearly didn’t read the article very closely, but he does confirm the existence of LaRoucheBots.

    And Handy, LaRouche considers himself a Democrat, ran for president as a Democrat, was an avowed Marxist for most of his career and advocates mostly far-left policies. You may not like him, but you’re stuck with him.

    Dave

  • Ruvy

    Dave, your attempts to stick La Rouche on the left of the American chicken – which has no left wing anyway – are amusing.

    You would be more accurate to say that laRouche is an extremist – he is. In all the fifty years I lived in the States, I never heard anybody call LaRouche a leftist – even the Conservatives (yes, with a capital “c”) I knew. They called him a nut-case – some even agreed with his Jew-hatred. But they never called him a leftist.

    Considsering what kind of trash “the left” in America has turned into, I do not mind them being stuck with laRouche – but you are not going to get anywhere with that, just as Chris Rose will not get “faithist” adopted as a word in English, no matter how much he huffs or puffs.

  • Arch Conservative

    mmmm….

    Larouche? Are you kidding.

    He’s not even relevant enough to have his name mentioned once on BC never mind be discussed in a post and the ensuing comments.

    What’s the next article going to be about? Howard Stern’s health care reform proposal?

  • Bliffle

    Is that Thug Dave Nalle is shilling for the Obama-Hitler goons?

    Pretty clever propaganda, Dave, presenting it while pretending to condemn, even getting the picture posted.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    What happened to the picture? All I see is a red “X”.

  • Baronius

    There’s a perfect word to describe LaRouche’s politics. He believes in nationalism, public/private cooperation, and strong leadership; he demonizes opponents, and relies on secrecy and distrust. He’s a textbook case of a particular ideology. He’s just smart enough to accuse everyone (everyone!) of being a fascist first.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but LaRouche is self-defined as a Democrat and leftist and marxist and unionist. He’s one of yours. Stop trying to deny him.

    But the main point is that the LaRouche posters are not represenative of the main body of right-leaning protesters and misrepresenting them that way is a sleazy smear on the part of Pelosi and other Democrats and the media.

    Dave

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    But Dave, you’re self-defined as an independent and objective thinker and that isn’t correct either.

    People self-define themselves in all sorts of ways but it frequently has nothing to do with reality.

    Indeed, the USA and most of its citizens define themselves as freedom loving but it is in fact a very heavily regulated society.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I will admit to not knowing very much about LaRouche except that he appears to be a long-running unfunny joke and all-around wacko. So, inspired by Dave’s claims, I just immersed myself in the book-length Wikipedia entry on LaRouche.

    I recommend it to all the political junkies on here, not to prove any partisan point, but because the guy is bizarre enough to be fascinating.

    He did begin his ‘career’ in economics and politics as a Marxist, or more precisely, a Trotskyite. But by the mid-1960s he was estranged from the Communist Party, and by the 1970s his followers were using physical violence and intimidation against leftist groups often enough that Julian Bond, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others referred to the LaRouche organization as ‘fascists.’ The ADL has referred to him as a ‘little Hitler.’ Maybe that’s where he got the Obama poster idea.

    He is a convicted felon, having served 5 years of a 15-year sentence for mail fraud, 1989-1994. He ran for Congress and for the presidency while in prison!

    He has indeed run for president as a Democrat — not that the Democrats have wanted anything to do with him. He actually got enough votes to earn delegates in 1996 and 2000 — but the DNC refused to seat them because LaRouche is a convicted felon and because the DNC said his political beliefs are explicitly racist and anti-Semitic. LaRouche sued and lost.

    A comparison could be made to David Duke and the Republican Party. Duke and LaRouche are pariahs that no one wants to claim.

  • zingzing

    dave: “But the main point is that the LaRouche posters are not represenative of the main body of right-leaning protesters and misrepresenting them that way is a sleazy smear on the part of Pelosi and other Democrats and the media.”

    yeah, well, they do seem to have co-opted the posters. maybe it’s just the dumb ones.

  • Clavos

    Andy #11:

    What happened to the picture? All I see is a red “X”.

    It’s still there, must be your ad blocker’s fault.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    And of course, if LaRouche still considers himself a Democrat [or if he ever did — maybe he knew he could get more votes using a major party’s name], why is he targeting a Democratic president [one frequently if ridiculously called a Marxist] and Democratic members of Congress?

    When a [presumably] LaRouche-kyite person held up the sign at a John Dingell meeting, the room cheered. Apparently a significant number of non-LaRouche supporters liked the cheeky anti-Obama sentiment. Are they merely tolerating it, or have some of them picked up on the Hitler comparisons and repeated them?

    The AP as well as Huffington Post are running an amusing video of Barney Frank confronting someone holding one of these awful signs at a town hall.

    Dave understandably wants to draw a sharp distinction between the anti-tax/tea-bagger/libertarian ‘grassroots’ protesters and the lunatic rhetoric of LaRouche. But maybe some of it is crossing over?

    By the way, here is the Wikipedia bio of Larouche.

  • Bliffle

    That thug Dave Nalle just took this opportunity to shill for the rightwing by publishing the defamatory picture of Obama.

    The words and denunciation of La Rouche are just to cover the subterfuge.

    Dave is a practised propagandist, it’s hard to take his articles seriously.

    Lately he’s been using BC headlines to defame democrats, whom he hates though he won’t admit he’s a republican. He’s a leftover from the rightist contingent that thinks it expresses conservatism just by attacking liberals.

    This article is just a variation of that theme: you’ll get slapped in the face by that Obama/Hitler picture every day, just like his article headlines declaring his enemies are “thugs” and “shills”.

    Little wonder that BC is described more and more as a hard right blog site.

    How dumb.

  • Baronius

    Bliffle, are you kidding?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’re right as to your last observation, Bliffle. I was thinking of inviting some of the fine minds to participate in the dialogue now and then, but to tell the truth, it’s becoming more and more embarrassing.

    The right leaning of most of the contributors is not so much of a problem, but the obtuseness of thought is, lack of imagination, harping on the same old, long discredited, paradigms of thought, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

    Again, that’s why I rarely if ever engage anymore. Why bother?

  • http://www.fontcraft.com Dave Nalle


    A comparison could be made to David Duke and the Republican Party. Duke and LaRouche are pariahs that no one wants to claim.

    David Duke has also run for office recently as a Democrat.

    Baronius, sometimes it’s hard to tell if Bliffle is kidding or just insane. In this case I think he’s joking, though because he knows perfectly well that I’m a Republican. It even says it at the end of all my articles. In #19 he’s just engaging in his usual kind of snarky personal attack, discrediting himself yet again.

    As you know as well as I do, BC’s reputation is for leaning too far left politically, thereby alienating more conservative participants. This based, as I’ve been told, on the constant harassment of right-leaning writers by lefty commenters. thankfully most conservative and libertarian writers are used to harassment and can take a certain amount of it and stick around, while lefties tend to prefer an echo chamber environment like Kos or HuffPo.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    “As you know as well as I do, BC’s reputation is for leaning too far left politically, thereby alienating more conservative participants. This based, as I’ve been told, on the constant harassment of right-leaning writers by lefty commenters. thankfully most conservative and libertarian writers are used to harassment and can take a certain amount of it and stick around, while lefties tend to prefer an echo chamber environment like Kos or HuffPo.”

    oh for fuck’s sake. if you and yours are so alienated, why are you here? and if lefties prefer an echo chamber, why are we here to “constantly harass” you? the very fact that you would write that (given the circumstances) just proves how out of whack you are, as the very situation you describe disproves your point. sheesh…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I challenge you, Dave, to make a list both of regular contributors as well as commenters. I can but won’t bother.

    Just to give an example how many people are checking out: Cindy, Glenn (rare nowadays), Baritone (only on Culture now, rarely in Politics), Brunelleschi (remember him), Mark, Les Slate, I too am limiting my comments. (Ever wonder why?) The only ones you guys are loosing are those who have been banned for offensive postings.

    Quite an attrition, I’d say, for a predominantly Left-dominated site. But you go ahead and live in your dreamworld.

    Roger and out.

  • doug m

    Don’t give up the fight, Roger.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It’s not a matter of giving up, doug m – it just ain’t worth it. They’re not credible enough as opponents.

    Sorry for a misspell in #24.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dave: As you know as well as I do, BC’s reputation is for leaning too far left politically…

    zing: oh for fuck’s sake. if you and yours are so alienated, why are you here? Etc…

    Quick census by Doc Dread of the articles currently accessible from the BC Politics homepage:

    Right-leaning: 9
    Left-leaning: 4
    Nonpartisan or centrist: 7

    I note that most of the right-leaning articles were of course written by Dave, who whatever you think of his opinions and methods is an articulate and well-informed commentator. Yet he attracts plenty of dissenting voices from the left to dispute his arguments. Those voices would be elsewhere if left-leaners preferred an ‘echo chamber’, as he claims.

    As for the comments themselves, well, I did conduct a headcount of those worthy folks a year or so ago, and discovered that, among the regulars at least, the ideological balance was about even. I don’t see that it’s changed all that much.

    I’d say BC Politics is more right-leaning than left, but this is, as I say, principally down to Dave being as profilic as he is. How he finds time to make a living, have a family life, sample barbecue restaurants and order Liberty Republicans around, goodness only knows. :-)

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Not sure about Dave’s definition of “recently,” but earlier this year, Duke was forced out of the Czech Republic for promoting Nazism and currently resides in Austria. That’s pretty recent.

    Duke ran as a Democrat for the last time in March 1988, as a ‘Populist Independent’ in Nov 1988 and as a Republican 8 times between 1989 and 1999. 1988: beginning to seem awfully far away. I was actually young then.

    At any rate, what’s Dave’s point with this party-affiliation stuff? If LaRouche ran for office as a Democrat but was repudiated by the party, and if Duke ran for office as a Republican but was repudiated by the party, does any of that say anything bad about the two parties? Neither man represents the mainstream of either party, and for that we can be grateful.

    So repeating it, over and over, serves…what point exactly?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Apart from that, Dreadful, it’s more a matter of the same ol’ subject matter – harping on the Democrats. Both parties are equally to blame for the impasse we’re facing. We should be addressing the problems, think of solutions, etc.

    It’s the subject matter that’s boring. And that subject matter keeps on appearing and reappearing time and again, in the same or similar forms.

  • Baronius

    I don’t know that BC has a “reputation” for anything. I suspect that it mirrors the American political scene more than we realize.

    These days, BC is kinda boring. The Right has moved past its self-recrimination phase and is now itching for a fight, and the Left is a little bit off its stride and unsure why. That sounds just like national politics.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Jousting with Dave Nalle helps me clarify my own positions. The fact that he too often fights unfairly [very selective in the use of ‘facts’ to ‘prove’ he’s right, and very nearly never admitting he’s mistaken] just makes me more determined.

    The people who comment on Kos give me a headache even when I agree with them. Both there and on BC, the articles tend to be more thoughtful, the comments more bare-knuckled and shrill — and highly variable in quality. Nalle himself seems to think that different rules apply in the comments section, and he sometimes lets a nasty, vitriolic streak show.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I think Baronius is right in that BC tends to reflect the general tenor of the national debate – not much of a cut above the rest of the public. I was hoping for more, given we’re all articulate, thinking beings.

    And I guess you’re right, Handy. Even the articles which appear totally off base can be useful in enabling one to crystallize one’s own position and at times, even stimulate your own thinking. So I had better shut up.

  • Clavos

    Apart from that, Dreadful, it’s more a matter of the same ol’ subject matter – harping on the Democrats.

    And prior to January, it was “harping” on the Republicans.

    So what?

    It’s the subject matter that’s boring. And that subject matter keeps on appearing and reappearing time and again, in the same or similar forms.

    Yep.

    A case of SSDD.

    Here’s a far better State of the Blog analysis:

    The Right has moved past its self-recrimination phase and is now itching for a fight, and the Left is a little bit off its stride and unsure why. That sounds just like national politics.

  • Baronius

    Roger, I think we’re a pretty articulate bunch at BC, but we’re affected by the trends around us. For example, it’s always easier to be the party out of power, because you’re not responsible for anything, and being the underdog appeals to Americans (we have a strange love/hate relationship with our own might). That’s bound to affect the framework of the commenters.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com Dave Nalle

    Good comments. I had something to add, but Akismet ate it.

    I post on BC because I like to get opposing points of view. Like Handy it helps me clarify my own thinking.

    As anyone but the densest reader must have seen by now, I’m not a conventional right-winger, so I don’t automatically discount anything coming from the left. I do think that partisan Democrats have very little value in this world. Their party combines the moral bankruptcy of all politicians with an element of ideology which is pure evil. But as individuals not all Democrats are a lost cause. I think there’s room in American politics for an honest leftist like Evan Bayh or Eugene McCarthy or Aldai Stevenson, for example.

    I write what I write because I believe in it, but I understand that I may be challenged on those beliefs. I don’t have a problem with that, but I don’t have a lot of respect for those who can’t do the same (Chuck Adams).

    If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Correct, Clavos & Baronius. Good assessment of the state of national politics and how it reflects on this site.

    But what I’m itching for is not just a fight in the ordinary, political sense but a fight in the realm of ideas – ideas from both sides. The old Left-Right arguments are stale, they suffer from impoverished categories and concepts, archaic modes of thought.

    I find points of dispute within my own camp (like with Cindy, Mark or Les Slater) – and I’m speaking here loosely – more challenging and of greater interest that with the traditional conservative positions, more substantive and perhaps leading somewhere. No doubt the reason being is that we’re more or less in the same “emotional” bag so we can deal with the substantive, theoretical issues, whereas insofar as the Right is concerned, I feel the differences as regards the “empathic” quotient are too huge to overcome and they assert themselves to the detriment of any meaningful ideological exchange.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos-/ Christine

    WOW, Dave…and I thought I got slammed whenever I write political articles. It’s safer to stick to movie and book reviews here at BC, but then again how much fun is that? But I’m kind of new here, so we’ll see what happens. Keep up the good work, Dave!

    Can’t we all just get along? LOL

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Dave,

    I never complained about your postings, nor ever called you a thug or a shill. I just wished you, too, restrained from using epithets (a la Andy, e.g., as regards Handy) so we could try to maintain the semblance of an argument without the discussion deteriorating to the level of town-hall meetings.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Christine,

    Welcome to the club. But remember, I did defend you against unnecessary name-calling.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Hmm. Lyndon LaDouche is so Far Left that he borders on the most extreme of the Far Right.

    As far as the Hitler poster is concerned, I have no problem with it. It is an expression of free thought. This poster is far tamer than many posters experienced by Americans through the last 250 years. We’re so concerned about being politically correct that we’ve forgotten free speech is an American fundamental. Think about this. Imagine if affable Adolf were alive today. He’s be pissed off that his image was imposed on a black man with brown eyes. If you look at the poster in that respect, it’s kind of a slap at Hitler himself.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos-/ Christine

    Roger, I remember and appreciate it! A tough (but likable) group and hope I am up for the challenge!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    We’ll try to keep it fair and square, Christine. You have been christened.

    “An affable Hitler,” Silas. That’s a good one.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I figured that one would catch your eye, Roger. I mean this whole poster thing is ridiculous. Students of political history can surely find far worse caricatures from days gone by that make the Adolf Obama poster comedy.

    As far as Dave goes, he’s a peach. Actually he’s a gay man trapped in a straight man’s body. I’m sure this concept will invoke an interesting comment from Mr Nalle himself.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m not going there, Silas. It’s your baby.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Or is it beauty and the beast?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Uh oh, I feel a profundity coming from Roger. Hmm. Is that an Oscar Wilde reference?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Enough said.

    Let Clavos take over.

  • Dan

    I would choose Baronius as one of the more thoughtful and least antagonistic commenters here at BC. He has good precision and economy of words. I can’t remember ever seeing his comments deleted for personal attacks.

    Of course, I tend to agree with his politics, and I don’t drop in very often so perhaps my bias and lack of participation color my opinion.

    Still, I don’t think many of you mind the rough and tumble style of discourse. With a few exceptions, many of you seem to have amiable relationships in spite of it.

    The Obama as Hitler thing may well be an infiltration of sorts. But the tolerance of it by Republicans in general, (who used to be the adults) would seem to be more a reflection and adoption of a strategy that was perceived as effective when Bush was Hitler.

  • Lumpy

    I think this thread is a good example of the real dynamics of BC. Conservatives write fairly reasonable articles and then as we see here liberal commentors who lack the substance to write their own articles pile on them with insults, slurs and personal attacks. If I were called a liar and a propagandist just for expressing an opinion as often as this writer has been I’d tell the lot of you to fuck off and I’d leave.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I hope you don’t mean Handy, Lumpy. He’s usually very well informed, and if he calls Dave a propagandist, at least he does so on the basis of either a factual dispute or one dealing with interpretation.

    It is below the belt, somewhat, because to do so is to make a pronouncement on the person’s motives, and how do we really know? But then, Dave dishes is right back, and hopefully both get back to their sense.

    On the other hand, calling Handy a retard, like Andy just did, there is no excuse for that, no matter how much you disagree with the person’s views.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I think Lumpy may have been referring to Bliffle in this case, but whatever.

    Dave may not consider ‘propaganda’ an insult anyway. I use the term only when I think someone is promoting a view with selective evidence, ignoring counterexamples and demeaning the other side.

    There are usually at least two sides to every argument, and it should be possible to argue them without resorting to cheap shots. When I believe I see a cheap shot, I call it.

    That is, I think, what the comments section is for. Not for ‘personal attacks,’ which I try to avoid. Crying ‘propaganda’ may be just an opinion, and you may disagree with it; but it isn’t personal.

    And anyone who writes a strongly worded opinion piece, or a strongly worded comment, should be ready to back it up. With evidence, not highly selective ‘facts.’

    I certainly expect to be held to the same standards.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Especially that Dave himself admits at times that it’s all about winning.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Well, as Meryl sang in Mamma Mia! — The Winner Takes It All”.

  • zingzing

    lumpy: “I think this thread is a good example of the real dynamics of BC. Conservatives write fairly reasonable articles and then as we see here liberal commentors who lack the substance to write their own articles pile on them with insults, slurs and personal attacks.”

    of course, that just disproves your point…

    the idea, of course, is that everyone writes “fairly reasonable articles” (from their point of view), then everyone gathers around to kick the shit out of them. that’s the game. if you don’t like it, don’t play.

    only recently has this place been dominated (at least from the writers’ end) by right wingers. didn’t used to be that way. i’d write, but i’m much better as a reactionary tool. and i mean it the way you think i do. i know my place.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “the constant harassment of right-leaning writers by lefty commenters.”

    Translation: calling out their bullshit.

    “lefties tend to prefer an echo chamber environment”

    Some may have found outlets that pay, but please continue with the mind-reading tricks. What card am I thinking of?

    So Lumpy finds conservatives “write fairly reasonable articles”. Stop the presses!

    However it is rather ridiculous for someone who doesn’t write articles to call out people for not writing articles.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Lumpy: If I were called a liar and a propagandist just for expressing an opinion as often as this writer has been I’d tell the lot of you to fuck off and I’d leave.

    …And it’s the lefties who prefer an echo chamber??!?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Gotta like a guy that calls himself a tool and means it!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    To comment #27…Doc, I’d like to see your breakdown of who’s left, right and non partisan…I’m very curious…something tells me that your non-partisans are not everyone elses…

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    #57 I’ve been called a tool by people who meant it.

  • Baronius

    I’ve got an idea. Let’s make a poster of Mussolini with a Hitler mustache. Anyone complains about that, we ship him out of the country. Anyone cheers when we wave the poster, we lock him in an asylum. Any reporter talks about it, I don’t know, what’s the reporter’s equivalent of exile and being committed? I got it: MSNBC.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    MSNBC is the only place I know that only gets the FOX news channel on it’s cable system!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Andy,

    I broke the articles down not on the basis of who wrote them but by the tone of their argument. Most of them were fairly obvious: for example Dave’s ‘Democrats Send in the Thugs’ was a no-brainer, as was Victor Lana’s ‘Town Hall Meeting Etiquette’ satire.

    But one or two of Dave’s – for example the one about the ‘death panels’ – actually fell into my centrist/nonpartisan category.

    Roger stand on the left side of the aisle, but he’s usually as harshly critical of the Obama administration as he is of the GOP, and his latest article is no exception, so I classified it as nonpartisan.

    Then there’s Philip Harris, who identifies himself as a Republican but whose articles are left-of-centre in theme.

    Ruvy’s views don’t fit neatly into any ideological pocket, and his latest piece was more of a news item anyway and didn’t take a political position.

    SJ Reidhead was another tricky one. She writes primarily about internal GOP issues, so her latest article isn’t taking a political stance as such. However, since her Republicanism is what drives her to write here at all, I put this one in the right-leaning column.

    I realize that’s not every article, but I hope I’ve explained my rationale and convinced you that I tried to be as fair and objective as I could.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com Dave Nalle

    I think Dr. D. illustrates something important here, namely that most of our writers aren’t all that easy to pigeonhole. We’re diverse and none of us is that dogmatic. That’s what makes BC better for the thinking reader than a more ideologically unified site. And even if somehow we scared off all of the more weak-willed lefties, we would STILL have a better pool of writers with more diverse perspectives than any site dedicated to the traditional right or left.

    So there.

    Dave

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Actually Doc, you did a fine job of explaining yourself…thanks for the time…

    Next I think maybe we should try to figure out where the commenters/tormentors lean…

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    If Baronius can explain to the rest of us what he actually meant in #60, perhaps we would be able to respond.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    As I mentioned, Andy, there was a fairly even ideological spread last time I looked at the regular denizens a while back.

    The roll call may have changed a bit, but I doubt the spectrum has much. If I have time over the weekend I’ll do a little census.

    [Cue for everybody to start expressing views diametrically opposite to their usual ones just to annoy me]

    :-D

  • Baronius

    Handy, if you react strongly to Bush=Hitler or Obama=Hitler, pro or anti, then maybe you’re doing it out of ideology or maybe just to counterattack the other side. It amuses me to think of people trying to decide how to react to Mussolini=Hitler. I can picture complete nutjobs like Olbermann seeing a Mussolini=Hitler poster and blaming racist Republicans.

  • Baronius

    “[Cue for everybody to start expressing views diametrically opposite to their usual ones just to annoy me]”

    That’s easy, Dread. We just have to select the right issues. I’ll talk about the issues on which I agree with the Democrats.

    OK, now I see a flaw in my plan.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Here’s an idea. Let’s take the mustache off a poster of Hitler and see who he most looks like.

    This game’s fun!

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Baronius, #67: Sorry I asked.

    Comparing any current mainstream US politician to Hitler is offensive and unfunny. Nazi/Hitler comparisons are nearly always a bad idea in a contemporary context.

    Mussolini, a long dead dictator who could reasonably be compared to Hitler, is not relevant to these posters [created by a wack job] or to the current president of the United States in the least.

    If you intend this as humor, you are vastly wide of the mark. If you think you are making some kind of clever point about overwrought liberals, you need to try again.

    Or better still, don’t.

  • zingzing

    “Nazi/Hitler comparisons are nearly always a bad idea in a contemporary context.”

    except if they start rounding up the jews and invading poland. or canada.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Comparing any current mainstream US politician to Hitler is offensive and unfunny. Nazi/Hitler comparisons are nearly always a bad idea in a contemporary context.

    Actually, I’d say comparing LaRouche himself to Hitler isn’t far off the mark.

    If you intend this as humor, you are vastly wide of the mark. If you think you are making some kind of clever point about overwrought liberals, you need to try again.

    Or better still, don’t.

    Because Handy will be making that point for you by object example.

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Maybe, Dave, and many have made the comparison, but LaRouche ain’t mainstream anything. He’s more akin to a cult leader.

    I assume the woman asking Barney Frank in the most widely shown video clip of the week why he supports “Nazi healthcare” is from the Planet LaRouche.

    And btw, in comparison to much of the recent overheated healthcare rhetoric, here and elsewhere, I am practically an oasis of Zen calm.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “And even if somehow we scared off all of the more weak-willed lefties”

    what about the weak-willed righties who split?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Here’s an idea. Let’s take the mustache off a poster of Hitler and see who he most looks like.

    Calvin Coolidge

  • Dan

    What planet was it on where Barney Frank said to Bush administration regulators oversight attempts:

    “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis, The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

    That would have been a good comeback from that hot LaRouche girl.

    Perhaps she did say that. I could’nt read her lips after her microphone was cut.

  • zingzing

    “that hot LaRouche girl.”

    ha. i was thinking she was kinda cute for such an ignoramus. stupid is stupid, but cute is cute.

  • Clavos

    If they’re cute, stupid is better — they won’t want to talk afterward.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    exits the thread, trying not to touch anything on the way out…

  • zingzing

    that’s the dream we all dream of. the world series of love.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Perhaps she did say that. I could’nt read her lips after her microphone was cut.

    She probably said something about the eevil joos.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    what about the weak-willed righties who split?

    Fuck ‘em?

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Re: Dan, #76, grasping at straws:

    Barney Frank said that in Sept 2003, and at the time Fannie and Freddie were not in crisis, although they had just been through an accounting scandal.

    And the Republicans at the time controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, so whatever Frank said, he had no power to derail regulation.

    The House and Senate passed different versions of the proposed regulation in 2005, two years later [fast work fellas!], but the two bills were never reconciled.

    I don’t think you can pin that on Barney.

    The regulation, even if it had passed, would not have stopped the worst abuses at Freddie and Fannie, which involved high-risk derivatives trading — which they did in imitation of investment banks [successfully raking in millions via derivatives], in order to keep their stock prices high.

    The housing bubble and the billions it made for executives at investment banks and at Fannie and Freddie were just getting revved up in fall 2003.

    That disaster in the making had many fathers, and many warnings went unheeded. Trying to blame it on one person, or accusing one person among hundreds, or thousands, of being insufficiently worried or prescient about what was then a potential future crisis, is just partisan tunnel vision.

  • Baronius

    Handy, tunnel vision still lets you see the guy in the middle, and that was Frank.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    How? How was he in the middle?

    If passing Fannie/Freddie regulation was so important in 2003, why couldn’t the GOP get it done?

  • Dan

    “Barney Frank said that in Sept 2003, and at the time Fannie and Freddie were not in crisis, although they had just been through an accounting scandal.”

    Yes of course, manipulating accounting proceedures to mislead investors, and a grotesque escalation in outstanding debt to 1.5 trillion, (that’s fifteen hundred billion) is positively nothing to be concerned about. What were those silly Republicans thinking? Probably trying to cheat poor people out of affordable housing.

    Frank spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the two mortgage giants that were at the epicenter of the financial crisis.

    Even President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank, who’s boyfriend was a top executive for seven years at Fannie. (not to be confused with the boyfriend who ran a prostitution ring from Franks house, which, on planet Barney, Frank had no responsibility for either).

    Clinton, in a rare moment of atypical honesty said “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”

    It’s a curious standard of blame when Republicans are responsible for not stopping Democrats from doing what Democrats do.

    I suppose that when Social Security tanks Bush can be blamed for not being able to get his SS reforms through the Democrat gauntlet.

    Zing Zing is right, the LaRouche girl is cute, not hot. I mispoke. Although perhaps not an ignoramous. Maybe just a little youthful idealism.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The Republican Senate and the Republican House passed incompatible regulation bills in 2005. They were unable to reconcile them even by the end of 2006, three years after the effort started.

    Somehow you attribute this to one Democrat, when the Dems were a minority in the House from 1995 through 2006, unable to control legislation [unlike in the Senate, where the minority party can slow or stop legislation more readily].

    But I’ll let Mr. Frank, considerably smarter and wittier than Dan or myself, defend his own honor:

    “Apparently those Republicans parroting these right-wing talking points believe that I had some heretofore undisclosed power over first Newt Gingrich and then Tom DeLay, which allowed me to keep them from passing legislation they wanted to pass.

    If that had been true, I would have used that power to block the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the House, the war in Iraq, large tax cuts for the very wealthy, the intrusion into the sad case of Terri Schiavo, and appropriations bills that badly underfunded important social priorities.”

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    One other thing: Frank introduced his own Fannie/Freddie reform bill when the Dems took over in 2007. It passed the House in May but was never taken up by the Senate. Some of the provisions were added to a different bill that was signed by Bush in July 2008 — merely 5 years after reform had been proposed — and apparently too late to stop the deluge.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    exits the thread, trying not to touch anything on the way out…

    You touched me, Cindy.

  • Dan

    “Somehow you attribute this to one Democrat…”

    Did not. I only quoted Franks other worldly denial of a crisis at a crucial point in the making of disaster.

    There were other players involved, most Democrats. Oh, and some “non-partisan” players like ACORN. The entire fiasco is testament to the destructive power of warped social engineering schemes conceived of and perpetrated by entrenched liberal bureaucrats.

    Of which the old and increasingly discredited liberal news media is derelict in their reportage.

    The hearings for these regulatory proceedings are indelibly video recorded for posterity. It’s not like the evidence can be stuffed in Sandy Bergers socks.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    You posted: “BC’s reputation is for leaning too far left politically, thereby alienating more conservative participants.”

    Never mind that – as Roger pointed out – conservatives are posting at least (and probably more) frequently than the liberals.

    And your articles include:
    “Democrats are sending in the shills”

    Never mind the army of HMO/Big Pharma lobbyists, the imported neo-con attack dogs showing up at town hall meetings pretending to be local.

    “Democrats are sending in the thugs”

    Have any liberals shown up at town hall meetings with guns? No, that seems to be the sole province of conservatives.

    “Will Obamacare sentence grandma to death?”

    Never mind that private health care companies have been rationing health care for decades – it’s okay if they sentence grandma to death, but if we listen to the neo-cons we must assume that the oh-so-evil government will do it to a far greater extent.

    Dave, I don’t post so much anymore because you and most of the other conservatives here have made it plain that you will ignore reality, that you will (falsely) accuse liberals of doing what the neo-cons have been doing for years…

    …and it’s like I pointed out before – to the conservatives, it really is all about power, about doing whatever it takes to win, and that the ends justify the means.

    But I feel quite certain that when it comes to human nature, in the bell-curve distribution of peoples’ degree of desire for power for power’s sake, the greater one’s desire for personal power, the further to the right one’s political leanings will be…and the lesser one’s desire for personal power, the further to the left one’s political leanings will be.

    You’ll vehemently disagree with that, I know. You’ll call it naive and perhaps to (wrongly) point out communist dictatorships as proof against, at which point I’d show you proof that such communist dictatorships are (except when it comes to religion and a few social services) more often far-right than far-left.

    Personal power is far more important to you and Clavos and the other conservatives on BC…and far less important to Roger, myself, Cindy, and the other liberals. Even a cursory examination of our writings should show you that.

    But I’ve got to leave for now – be back in a few weeks if my livelihood permits.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Never mind the army of HMO/Big Pharma lobbyists, the imported neo-con attack dogs showing up at town hall meetings pretending to be local.

    Except that there is ZERO evidence of any of this actually happening. It’s entirely fabricated by the media and the left, while the evidence of uniformed SEIU and ACORN thugs is abundant.

    “Democrats are sending in the thugs”

    Have any liberals shown up at town hall meetings with guns? No, that seems to be the sole province of conservatives.

    And didn’t happen until AFTER conservative protesters were physically assaulted by union thugs.

    “Will Obamacare sentence grandma to death?”

    Never mind that private health care companies have been rationing health care for decades – it’s okay if they sentence grandma to death, but if we listen to the neo-cons we must assume that the oh-so-evil government will do it to a far greater extent.

    You might want to READ this article. It concludes that Obamacare does not, in fact, include death panels.

    Dave, I don’t post so much anymore because you and most of the other conservatives here have made it plain that you will ignore reality, that you will (falsely) accuse liberals of doing what the neo-cons have been doing for years…

    Sorry, that’s just partisan bullshit. Find a better excuse.

    …and it’s like I pointed out before – to the conservatives, it really is all about power, about doing whatever it takes to win, and that the ends justify the means.

    Sorry, that’s another cop out. That is a trait shared in common by the politically ambitious on both sides of the aisle.

    But I feel quite certain that when it comes to human nature, in the bell-curve distribution of peoples’ degree of desire for power for power’s sake, the greater one’s desire for personal power, the further to the right one’s political leanings will be…and the lesser one’s desire for personal power, the further to the left one’s political leanings will be.

    I’d love to see some data confirming this, because everything I’ve seen suggests that the desire for power has no relationship to expressed ideology. Notice I didn’t go partisan on this issue as you did. I don’t excuse the power-mad on the right or dismiss them as not existing, but you seem to be wearing blinders when it comes to your coreligionists and their love of power.

    Personal power is far more important to you and Clavos and the other conservatives on BC…and far less important to Roger, myself, Cindy, and the other liberals. Even a cursory examination of our writings should show you that.

    You sound like you haven’t read anything Clavos or I or others have ever written. We’re not concerned about political power. We’re concerned about principles and truth — essential rights and protecting people from abusive government. You really are shockingly clueless.

    Dave

    But I’ve got to leave for now – be back in a few weeks if my livelihood permits.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    #90, Dan:

    I’ve said all I need to say about the specifics of this, but I do note that Dan responds to only one line of a detailed rebuttal, and still blames only Dems, liberals, Acorn, and the media…when it was the GOP-controlled government that failed to act. He doesn’t even acknowledge, much less respond to that central fact.

    This boilerplate ‘argument’ turns up all too frequently around here and elsewhere. It runs, more or less: “Acorn, Barney Frank, Acorn, liberal media bias, Acorn, damn Democrats, Acorn. So there! Nyah-nyah! Proved it!”

    I guess I should just laugh, because that’s all this deserves.

  • Dan

    Handyguy, I’m content with my say on the specifics of the thing as well. The rest of your “detailed rebuttal” appears to be a couple of paragraphs of Barney babble.

    It does seem instructive to note the chronological development of the snit you are engaged in, and how it is somewhat typical of discussions between Conservatives and liberals here at BC:

    1) (subject matter): Barney attacks cute LaRouche girl with hitlerbama sign questioning her planetary perspective.

    2) Dan suggests snappy retort for cute LaRouche girl with quote from Barney engaged in false, strident testimony to thwart regulators from addressing the result of liberal corruption in government sponsered mortgage lenders, thus emphasizing the uncertainty of Barney’s own planetary orientation. (possibly Uranus)

    3) Handyguy is then piqued to argue against the apparent assumption that claim has been made for Barney to be the sole, and exclusive party responsible for the collapse of government sponsered mortgage giants, and ensuing financial crisis.

    4) Handyguy rants on about “boilerplate ‘argument'”, “Acorn, Barney Frank, Acorn, liberal media bias, Acorn, damn Democrats, Acorn. So there! Nyah-nyah! Proved it!”

    5) Handyguy contemplates laughing.

    6) Dan is now laughing.

    7) Everybody happy!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I’m crying…

  • Diningroomtable

    I hear that Frank is particularly bigoted when it comes to oak.

  • Kevoh

    all I heard for YEARS was Bush was hitler, no outrage from anyone. Now the shoes on the other foot and listen to them whine and cry.

  • Diningroomtable

    Obama is Hitler. Just look at his long form birth certificate.

  • http://delibernation.com/blog/3 Silas Kain

    Today is the 234th anniversary of Britain’s King George III proclaiming the American colonies in a state of “open and avowed rebellion.” The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  • http://nitpickingnightdragon.blogspot.com Mark Edward Manning

    Of course those posters come from the far Left. Obama hasn’t turned out to be quite the messiah of their dreams and they don’t think he will be, so … presto! Obama is Hitler — it’s just typical of the way the far Left think.

    I think they also have a slogan with these posters: “I’ve changed my mind” or something like that!

  • zingzing

    “it’s just typical of the way the far Left think.”

    yeah, i agree. right now, i’m disappointed that the sun is creating so much heat. the sun is hitler. i’m also disappointed in my fan for not generating enough airflow throughout my room. hitler. there’s a bottle of water on my desk that has gone warm. whippin out me sharpie and drawing a little mustache on it. i was really enjoying this book, but it’s too short. the too-short book is a little adolf. my coffee was a little weak this morning. just think of what it would do to the jews. my razor blade is getting a bit dull. put that fucker on trial at nurermburg.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    zing, when you are on target you are indispensable. rotflmao

  • zingzing

    well, with mark, it’s kinda like peeing into the atlantic… can’t really miss…

    (by which i mean, mark is an extremely large toilet.)

  • http://www.assemblagist.org Val MacEwan

    Stephen Colbert nailed the farce last week. See last week’s recap.

    Friday, August 21, 2009
    Recap – Week of 8/17/09
    Stephen compares Obama to Hitler, previews Archie’s upcoming wedding and defends his constitutional right to be irrational.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Afterbirthers Demand To See Obama’s Placenta

    This is the best place I could think of to put this. :-)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Can this really be true?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Check this out, Cindy:

    It’s all over the world.

  • Clavos

    @ 106,

    Um, Roger, it’s The Onion.

    @ 107,

    She should have known better than to do that in Bucharest.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I was kidding. We were getting it weekly, I believe it’s a Berkeley publication. Some stuff is really hilarious.

    All Romanians are an odd breed – I think they’re trying too hard to pass for Italians or French. There I go with my stereotypes.

    One should think however that Eastern Europe was approaching the ideals of an open society, but I guess not. In a sense, some of the ethnic prejudices and biases are more deeply entrenched there than in the West proper.

  • zingzing

    roger: “I believe it’s a Berkeley publication.”

    if you’re referring to the college/town, you’re not quite there. it’s from wisconsin (at madison, but wisconsin, nonetheless). but now it’s pretty much a nationwide thing. offices all over. based out of chicago, i believe.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Wow, I could have sworn it was out of Berkeley. They must have a heckuva distribution system.