« Everything I Know About Real Estate I Learned From Watching Caddyshack | Main | Style and Substance »

I Wish It Were Hyperbole

I Wish It Were Hyperbole

October 14, 2009 | Permalink


Yes, because The Left are systematically placing The Right and supporters of The Right into concentration camps and various ghettos in a thought-out plan to eventually eradicate them all into nothing but ashes and reinstate the glory of America.

Damn, The Left are doing a good job covering it all up. No wonder we haven't heard about this on the news, the liberal media is doing one heckuva job.

Posted by: Yaanu | Oct 14, 2009 7:06:34 PM

1930's, not 1940's. You're an idiot, Yaanu.

Posted by: Tom McMahon | Oct 14, 2009 7:42:12 PM


Posted by: Rob | Oct 14, 2009 8:41:53 PM

Tom, he's likely worse than an idiot.

Your thought provoking obviously over burdens him.

Posted by: john galt | Oct 14, 2009 8:59:36 PM

Great post, Tom. Thanks.

Posted by: Bruce Oksol | Oct 14, 2009 10:07:43 PM

Simply and utterly ridiculous Tom.

Posted by: Robert | Oct 14, 2009 10:39:40 PM

Robert is clearly neither on the right nor really paying attention.

Fortunately, the fall of the god-king Obama is already turning the country towards sanity. Let's hope that our next Reagan is ready in the wings, whoever he may be.

Posted by: Sparticus | Oct 15, 2009 1:40:17 AM

You Godwinated. You automatically lose.

Posted by: Rob | Oct 15, 2009 3:50:32 AM

sigh You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Posted by: [the first] Rob | Oct 15, 2009 4:34:21 AM

it's fine to feel threatened, but comparing the wholesale slaughter of over 6,000,000 human souls to the dubious claim that conservatives can't get jobs as professors or TV anchors is patently ridiculous.

"The politics of NFL teams lean Republican": http://outsports.com/jocktalkblog/2009/10/14/the-politics-of-nfl-teams-lean-republican/

Conservatives can't be news anchors? So you've never watched FOX News, then?

As for people in show business, when, exactly, did one of the greatest ever (Clint Eastwood) leave the industry?

And books? Really? You go down that road? Here, at the dawn of Sarah Palin's new memoir?

But this is, of course, completely outside the actual facts of the case. Even if you believed that your hyperbole was completely true, aren't those just market forces driving out conservative agendas? Cry foul when the market does it to you, but call it "freedom" when it does so to a liberal point of view?

I completely understand the feeling you have of being outside, of being neglected. Trust me: I lived through the Bush administration.

Posted by: Stephen | Oct 15, 2009 9:41:10 AM

Sorry, but those 6,000,000 souls weren't extinguished in the 1930's. Gotta pay attention to the details, Stephen.

Posted by: Tom McMahon | Oct 15, 2009 10:06:04 AM

Tom, the line you're drawing points at the 40s, and you know that.

But let's just look at the 30s, shall we? How many conservative businesses have had their windows shattered in 2009 by liberal gangs? How many conservatives must wear patches to show their status in 2009? How many conservatives are placed in national registries as enemies of the state? How many civil liberties have been shut down by the government in 2009? Name them. Who is our dictator presently? If you say Obama, then why is it so hard for him to advance an agenda? Who is our Ernst Rohm and our Gregor Strasser? How many people are a member of the U.S. 2009 Sturmabteilung (SA)? At what point did the world boycott our 2009 Olympic games? Tell me, when did the Night of the Long Knives occur here in America 2009? Who declared the American Tausendjähriges Reich (Thousand Years' Empire)? And when in 2009 did we dictate our methodology of Lebensraum? Who declared the need for it? I also must've missed the 2009 coup d'etat--could you link the article that points at that particularly bloody exchange? Also, have the studies of eugenics in 2009 America born any fruit? Honestly, I can't even remember them happening. Link, please?

Meanwhile, why limit yourself to just one group to be oppressed? The Nazis certainly didn't, and made no qualms about it. Gypsies, homosexuals, the mixed-raced.

You know where you're pointing to in this image.

You're in the minority. It sucks, but you are in no way being oppressed ANYWHERE NEAR where the Jews were in the 1930s in Germany. Your voices are heard, loud and clear, and you are obviously having a very strong effect on policy here in America. If you don't believe that, you really aren't paying attention.

And as a man who has several conservative friends and family members, the *moment* the government acts in the way you're implying, I'll be the first one to stand with you. Until that point, quit with the Nazi references. It cheapens the millions of deaths in the 30s and 40s, and it cheapens your movement today.

Posted by: Stephen | Oct 15, 2009 10:22:58 AM

But Stephen, we live in a land and in an age where we pride ourselves on our tolerance and diversity. For everybody except the conservatives. Who are nbow 2nd-class citizens.

Posted by: Tom McMahon | Oct 15, 2009 10:49:40 AM

No, Tom, you're not. You're just not second-class citizens.

Want to talk to a second-class citizen and compare notes? Find a homeless man. Or a gay man (hey, I'm one of those!). Or a women. Or a poor person. Or an American Muslim. Or a vegetarian.

Conservatives have wealth, power, cable channels, governmental representation, friends, family. You can marry, vote, buy a car, buy a gun, worship in any way you want. You are not only tolerated, but considered THE ONLY OTHER voting bloc in this country.

I'm still waiting on you to actually point out tangible reasons you are being disenfranchised, BEYOND the fact that, as a minority voting bloc, you have fewer representatives in government. Majority/minority voting blocs have existed in this country since the beginning, and just because you're out of power now does not mean you have to cry foul and let slip the dogs of war. Your side lost A LOT of power in 2006 and 2008. That's not the fault of a liberal oppression. That's the fault of your beliefs falling out of fashion. They'll come back, as they always do.

But, really, address my points, if you can, rather than belching out yet another talking point from Glenn Beck. Go ahead.

I'll wait.

Posted by: Stephen | Oct 15, 2009 10:56:10 AM

Tom, entering into a debate with Stephen, or any other moonbat for that matter, is like having an objective discussion with Michael Moore on the merits of capitalism. It just ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Randy | Oct 15, 2009 12:17:16 PM

Nice, Randy. I offer actual questions trying to understand his side of the argument, and you call me a "moonbat."

You're a class act.

Posted by: Stephen | Oct 15, 2009 12:26:49 PM

Hey, some folks can't handle the truth. But no matter.

Stephen "will be the first one to stand with you", but is silent about all the hate and slurs directed toward conservatives in general and Rush Limbaugh in particular. Tolerant Liberals are kinda like "the Good Germans" must have been: they exist in theory, but darned if I can point to one.

And to Rob, a few comments up. A new law went into effect October 1. Now the first person to mention Godwin loses. Try to keep up with the times. OK?

Posted by: Tom McMahon | Oct 15, 2009 1:51:16 PM

Sorry, Tom, that your life has been so very damaged by the tussle over Rush Limbaugh trying to buy an NFL team. As a multimillionaire media mogul yourself, I can understand how difficult a situation you're in.

Me, I don't give a flying fuck about Limbaugh. He's a shock jock on the radio, just like so many liberals on the other side. I don't listen to them because if I wanted to get angry and start to hate something, I can base it on my own ideas.

And Limbaugh's a big boy. When he came out and said he wanted the President of the United States to fail (and, by proxy, the United States), he defended his position. He can defend himself here, too. I know a lot of the garbage slung at him is untrue. What would you have me do? We don't have big Evil Liberal meetings where we decide who to attack next.

That's Rupert Murdoch's realm, not mine.

As for hate and slurs... Take a look at all the signs at the 9/12 protests. Look at them closely. Tell me you don't see hate and invective. Tell me you don't see a group of people frothing at the fucking mouth to lynch someone.

I am not hating. I don't have the energy to hate someone just because they believe things different than what I believe. As an atheist, trust me, I have more than enough invective thrown my way to keep me busy.

So spare me the crucifix action here. Hop off the cross, we need the wood. Tell me, when I was branded as a terrorist because I didn't support the Iraqi Invasion back in 2003, where was the outrage from the "compassionate conservatives"?

And where are those same commentators, who claimed that when a nation is at war, you don't undermine the authority of the President with your protests? Oh, right, since their guy isn't in office anymore, they have switched sides entirely.

But, again, thank you for IGNORING all of my questions. You drew the correlation between 1930s Germany and today. I asked for ANY evidence of this being the case, and I am lambasted as one of the "Good Germans" or, worse yet, a "moonbat."

Here I am, desperately trying to foster a conversation, and it's personal attack after personal attack. And you wonder why some on the left are disinclined to listen to you at all.

But, go ahead, ignore me again. I'll continue to fight for your right to have your opinions, regardless.

Posted by: Stephen | Oct 15, 2009 2:49:15 PM

Stephen, in one breath you accuse me of belching out yet another talking point from Glenn Beck, and in the next you say you desperately want to have a conversation.

And no, I didn't see the "hate" from the 9/12 Tea Party protesters. But I'm sure some liberal is already working on a documentary depicting them as rats coming up out of the sewers, tho.

Posted by: Tom McMahon | Oct 15, 2009 3:06:27 PM

Stephen, please, stop the hate.

Posted by: Rick | Oct 15, 2009 3:24:31 PM

Stephen's quote:
"Take a look at all the signs at the 9/12 protests. Look at them closely. Tell me you don't see hate and invective. Tell me you don't see a group of people frothing at the fucking mouth to lynch someone."

Stephen, you must be completely delusional to see those things. Actually, it must be wishful thinking. That is the only way you can justify your view of the right (seeing things that are not there).

Posted by: Rick | Oct 15, 2009 3:36:34 PM

Tom, I have a young daughter. Years ago she noted the difference between Republicans and Democrats (her words, her distinction, not mine): Republicans are optimists; Democrats are pessimists. I prefer your designation, "the left," and "the right."

I'm afraid to talk about my conservative views at school due to the "hate" that I will engender. It is very interesting. The "right" talk quietly, afraid to instigate hateful comments; the "left" apparently love the agitation.

And your 1930's is very prescient. Folks are missing the point. At some point, "breaking windows" can lead to much more serious consequences, as we saw when the 1930's moved into the 1940's.

Keep up your posts. I am a faithful reader.

Posted by: Bruce Oksol | Oct 15, 2009 7:03:15 PM

I've got a better analogy: The Left is treating the Right the way 1920s Nazis were treating the Jews.

Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger | Oct 15, 2009 9:04:02 PM

Oh, c'mon.
That's akin to PETA's claim of an animal holocaust.

It's insulting to Jews and average intelligence.

Posted by: radmila | Oct 16, 2009 7:31:50 AM

Godwin's law. Look it up.

Posted by: Tome | Oct 16, 2009 8:55:06 AM

Tome, evidently you're the guy Ron White was thinking of when he said "You can't fix stupid"

Posted by: Tom McMahon | Oct 16, 2009 9:47:14 AM

Bad analogy. The current right-wing doesn't have the smarts or heart of the German Jews.

Posted by: Don | Oct 16, 2009 1:19:56 PM

The issue Tom is pointing out is that the day Rush Limbaugh (who was approached by a consortium to participate in a purchase, not the other way around) was blackballed from buying into an NFL team was "the day the demonization of conservatism achieved not consensus, but normalcy."

This is not out of the blue, of course. People like Keith Olbermann have been tearing into conservatives with vitriolic invective--and no consequences--for ages. Take, for instance, the vile things he said about Michelle Malkin:
"total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

Not a peep about this being "divisive" or "inappropriate." However, let a conservative say a negative, yet true, thing about any designated minority group, and see that person lose friends, reputation, even jobs--for stating the truth!

Leftists--present, past, and future--are evil, hateful persecutors.

Posted by: Sparticus | Oct 16, 2009 10:36:26 PM

Here at, shall we say, Global Mega-Corp (hi Tom), I have a colleague (somewhat higher in the food chain than myself) who for most of the Bush administration had proudly on display behind his desk a magazine cover portraying GWB as Alfred E. Neuman. I have a similar one. It's on my wall at home. He, I, and you, all know it would be a gratuitous risk to my "career path" to put it behind my desk at work, however much I'd like to. In meetings derogatory references to Fox News are made with no such concern. "The stimulus" is spoken of in glowing terms. Why? This is a white-collar environment in the most conservative county in Wisconsin. There is NO WAY this workplace has a liberal consensus, yet liberalism may be expressed openly and opposing views only guardedly. No this isn't the 1940s, but the 1930s weren't the 1940s either. Poo-poo if you will, but I don't care to hear it if the words "chilling effect" have ever passed your lips.

Posted by: Chilled to the Bone | Oct 17, 2009 10:49:00 AM

Seems like every time a liberal wants to make a claim that his right to free speech is being infringed, all he's got to do is say "Fox News" and all the rest of the liberals nod their heads sagely. I have a lot of trouble feeling any sympathy for the plight of liberals when clearly that is the only source of conservative invective that even the "oppressed" can identify. Meanwhile, conservatives respond by saying "Fox? How about MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Herald, Chicago Sun-Times, Newsweek, Time, USA Today..."

I'm getting so tired of hearing that liberal voices are suppressed, and that they cannot feel safe about expressing their "dissident" views. The loudest voices out there are liberal and have been for years. That didn't change during the Bush administration, yet somehow the liberals are now making the claim that after eight years of fascism they are finally allowed a voice, and if conservatives get some of their rights stepped on, hey, it's just payback.

Hitler succeeded in his bigoted attacks because throughout the 1930's he told the German people that their lives were bad because of Jews. Now we have a Democratic party and liberal media who are telling the American people that their lives are bad because of Conservatives. People like Stephen have been ready to believe that for quite some time.

Godwin's Law refers to the use of hyperbole in the invocation of Hitler for any minor argument on the internet. However, a fair comparison between the actions of two political machines, one modern and one of the 1930's, ought not to be brushed off as Godwinizing. The left's suppressive actions are remarkably similar to the suppressive activities of the Nazi party in the 1930's. If we can't rationally look at the dangers of those activities, then we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Posted by: Peter | Oct 17, 2009 3:31:01 PM

One possible analogy is McCarthyism of the 1950s. We have people shouting from the rooftops they're afraid to speak above a whisper.

Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger | Oct 17, 2009 7:04:48 PM

However, a fair comparison between the actions of two political machines, one modern and one of the 1930's, ought not to be brushed off as Godwinizing.

You're right. And we're still waiting for that fair comparison. Instead, I have seen nowt but witless hyperbole.

Posted by: Rob | Oct 17, 2009 10:43:02 PM

When Expelliarmus or Sectumsempra aren't sufficient, try Expecto Patronum. If "racist" and "Godwin" don't do the trick, use "McCarthy".

Posted by: Harry | Oct 18, 2009 12:05:36 PM

Mark Steyn writes an excellent column addressing this issue. Perhaps Stephen would see the light if he read it with objective glasses?


Posted by: Randy | Oct 19, 2009 9:29:58 AM

> Let's hope that our next Reagan is ready in the wings, whoever he may be.

I'd bet on "she", but I could see Jindal, too. Or the governor of Mississippi(?) who handled Katrina so much better than the idiots on the other side of the state line...

> sigh You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

I think this is more the Dorothy Parker variance:

"You can lead a whore to culture, but you cannot make her think."

> Tom, the line you're drawing points at the 40s, and you know that.

Yes, and the demarcation you're making is that "It's not 'B' yet, so 'A' is irrelevant"

And you go an rattle off a whole host of exceptions.

The Obama admin has made serious efforts to classify Fox as not "news" but "opinion" (yeah, that never crops up on ABC, CBS, NBS, or CNN... nawwwww).

So what happens to Fox when they ram through the Fairness Doctrine once again? Bloop. Gone.

Clint Eastwood isn't long for this earth. And Ron Silver is already gone. That leaves Gary Sinise. If there was only ONE black actor in all of Hollywood, would you consider that A Good Thing?

As far as books go, you have to make it to the best seller list, and then you might get reviewed and interviewed. If you're a libtard, I believe you can make it to #137 on the "best books about dogs" list and get onto Good Morning America, as well as a 3-column blurb in the NYT Review of Books...

> Perhaps Stephen would see the light if he read it with objective glasses?

Nahhhh, Stephen's political astigmatism is 20-2000, it could only be corrected by major surgery... or self-trepanning.

Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Oct 23, 2009 6:41:42 AM

> That's not the fault of a liberal oppression. That's the fault of your beliefs falling out of fashion.

Cluelessness on your part.

I speak for myself, and I think I can speak for most conservatives -- "my side" hasn't been "in power" for at least 10-odd years. Thanks to the Dems steady, inexorable march off the road and into the fields on the OTHER SIDE of "left field", the GOP has taken it upon themselves to try and occupy the middle, abandoning, utterly and completely, all efforts to support conservative principles. This is why Bush supported so many libtard policies, ideas, and actions in office (the pissing and moaning was because
a) It was the eeeevil Bush doing it, which meant that it didn't matter*)
b) It wasn't as brainlessly extreme as the left wanted).
You might notice that the deficit expanded massively under Bush? That's not a conservative action.
You might notice how Social Security did not get even touched under Bush, despite having the needed majority to pass anything they wanted? That's not a conservative action.

You confuse the "GOP" with "Conservatives". They are no longer the same, and this is particularly obvious when you go looking for how many time the GOP is supporting obvious RINOs over truly conservative challengers -- even those who are getting good poll results. (Hint: if he's getting good poll results withoutGOP support, it's not because the majority want the RINO)

In other words -- the ideas are not out of fashion. The GOP is out of fashion. They are not the same by any means.

And, I'm sorry, I have a major problem with the constant attempts to marginalize legitimate opposition.

When you openly repeat blatant lies about someone just to cause them trouble, and then, instead of apologizing for said lies in a visible forum, just mention in passing that you "may have been" wrong (not having done ANY investigation of the allegations in the first place, though that is inarguably your job, it's not wrong for the subject of your shoddy reporting, and people around them who can see the same being done to them, to be offended and upset.

ABC, CBS, CNN, WaPo, the NYT -- and many others -- owe Rush a BIG FAT FUCKING APOLOGY. A very, very visible one. They should be ashamed of themselves. They repeated outright lies, uninvestigated and unsourced, in the age of the internet.

And I say that as someone who pays next to NO attention to Rush. I'm neither a supporter nor a listener. But it's clear to me that the media, by repeating the blatantly unfounded "Racist!" claims (not a single one has been shown to actually be justified by anything Rush has ever publicly said, despite the fact that every word he's said since becoming the top conservative pundit has been recorded by The Left)

And now Obama is attempting to do the same with Fox News -- again, I'm not a fan. I pay it little attention directly. But when it gets denigrated as a "propaganda arm" from an admin which has OPENLY declared how easily they manipulated the other media during the presidential campaign, I'm not impressed. Is it a "propaganda arm"? Not worth debating -- because even if it were, it's clearly NOT one which is controlled by Obama and The Left, so that's A Real Good Thing

* That's pretty much the response I got when I pointed out that the "heartless and self-serving Bush" provided more relief aid to Africa than the entire rest of the planet EVER had, in summary total throughout history. "It's Bush, it's not REAAAAL aid." And we're not talking arguing about who it went to and how it was spent. They did not care. It was Bush, so by definition it didn't matter.

Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Oct 23, 2009 7:05:53 AM

Oh, and here's some more "Hyperbole" for you:

It’s come to this: White House tries to bar Fox News from interviewing pay czar

Decide for yourself what the most disgraceful aspect of this is. Was it the fact that Gibbs told Jake Tapper explicitly on Monday that the White House wouldn’t try to dictate to the press pool who should and shouldn’t be included — before doing precisely that? Was it Anita Dunn going out of her way to say she respects Major Garrett as a fair reporter — before the administration decided he didn’t deserve a crack here at Feinberg? Or was it the repeated insistence by Dunn and Axelrod that of course the administration will make its officials available to Fox — before pulling the plug today?


If Bush had done anything like this to a Times reporter or to a CNN interviewer, it would be The End Of All Humankind from the level of wailing, gnashing, and caterwauling that followed.

'Nuff said.

Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Oct 24, 2009 10:55:50 AM

"I Wish It Were Hyperbole"

It is hyperbole, period.

It doesn't even compare to 1930s Germany, in any sense. If you think otherwise, you'll have to come up with a much more thorough case.

I hope you find it within you, at least on some level, to feel embarrassed about your colossal self-pity.

Posted by: minordomo | Oct 24, 2009 12:07:00 PM

"Oh, and here's some more "Hyperbole" for you:"

Which predictably enough is a ridiculous exaggeration: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/wh-were-happy-to-exclude-fox-but-didnt-yesterday-with-feinberg-interview.php

Posted by: minordomo | Oct 24, 2009 12:23:20 PM

>> Let's hope that our next Reagan is ready in the wings, whoever he may be.

>I'd bet on "she"

Palin's not a conservative. Extensive discussion and justification of this view at View From the Right (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012711.html).

BTW, Obama has just declared that the 64% of Americans who doubt AGW are a fringe group, and are liars. Keep it up, Barry! At this rate, the American people may demand your impeachment before we have the chance to kick you out in 2012.

Posted by: Sparticus | Oct 25, 2009 2:12:19 AM

minordomo, are you saying that the left is NOT persecuting the right for expressing conservative thought?

In the words of BHO;

""What our advisors have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes... And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format, then that's one thing. And if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another thing. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over."

So, by these standards, The White House will treat MSNBC the same as Fox, given that Countdown with Keith Olbermann is 'basically a talk radio format', comparable to Glenn Beck's program. Right?

Ah Liberals. Valuing difference, unless those differences are conservative thought in nature in which case watch out...

Posted by: Randy | Oct 26, 2009 11:51:51 AM

It gets better:

Nielsen: Fox News ratings up almost 10% since WH declared war

Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Oct 27, 2009 11:19:25 AM

> It doesn't even compare to 1930s Germany, in any sense. If you think otherwise, you'll have to come up with a much more thorough case.

Go ahead, detail the differences. Tell us EXACTLY how it's "all hyperbole".

Otherwise, you've just called it a name and tried to handwave it off.

One suggestion -- most of the people around here actually know history, so try not to show how ignorant you are by quoting *40s* stuff as though it were *30s*... eh?

You might manage to find a couple things... not many.

Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Oct 27, 2009 11:22:10 AM

"Throughout the 1930s, the legal, economic, and social rights of Jews were steadily restricted. In legally defining "who is Jew", the Nazis considered anyone of Jewish descent, even the descendents of converts who converted from Judaism after January 18, 1871, (the founding of the German Empire) were still considered Jews. Friedländer writes that, for the Nazis, Germany drew its strength for its "purity of blood" and its "rootedness in the sacred German earth."[52] In 1933, a series of laws were passed which contained "Aryan paragraphs" to exclude Jews from key areas: the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service; the physicians' law; and the farm law, forbidding Jews from owning farms or taking part in agriculture. Jewish lawyers were disbarred, and in Dresden, Jewish lawyers and judges were dragged out of their offices and courtrooms, and beaten.[53] At the insistence of then president Hindenburg, Hitler added an exemption allowing Jewish civil servants who were veterans of the first world war, or whose fathers or sons had served, to remain in office. (Hindenburg was disturbed that people who had fought and bled for Germany would be forced from their state jobs.) Hitler revoked this exemption in 1937. Jews were excluded from schools and universities, (Law to prevent overcrowding in schools) and from belonging to the Journalists' Association, or from being owners or editors of newspapers."

"In 1935, Hitler introduced the Nuremberg Laws, which: prohibited Jews from marrying Aryans, annulled existing marriages between Jews and Aryans (the Law for the protection of German blood and German honor,) prohibited Jews from serving as civil servants, stripped German Jews of their citizenship and deprived them of all civil rights. In his speech introducing the laws, Hitler said that if the "Jewish problem" cannot be solved by these laws, it "must then be handed over by law to the National-Socialist Party for a final solution (Endlösung)."[55] The expression "Endlösung" became the standard Nazi euphemism for the extermination of the Jews. In January 1939, he said in a public speech: "If international-finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed once more in plunging the nations into yet another world war, the consequences will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation (vernichtung) of the Jewish race in Europe.""

"11 November 1938 onwards - in the aftermath of the 'Night of the Broken Glass' about 30,000 German and Austrian Jews were sent to concentration camps, and about 2,000 died by Chritmas 1938. The main idea was to make life hell for them and bully them in leaving Germany."

Anyone who would compare that to the situation of the political right today isn't playing with a full deck.

Posted by: minordomo | Nov 13, 2009 1:34:32 AM

"minordomo, are you saying that the left is NOT persecuting the right for expressing conservative thought?"

Pretty much. Do you really want to compare some criticism of a less than objective cable station to the actual persecution of Jews in the 1930s?

There's a word for that kind of comparison: hyperbole.

Posted by: minordomo | Nov 13, 2009 2:59:56 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.