Posted on 01/04/2004 8:42:37 AM PST by Doctor Raoul
Use of the analogy to the Nazis in the title is justified. What made Hitler and his goons so powerful in Germany was that they saw no separation between their political position and their government office. Their loyalty to their political party was greater than their loyallty to the country, so they felt that using the power of their government position for political, even personal goals, was justified. To the Nazis, use of the power of their government office was just the same as using the power of their political office. In other words, if you needed a hotel sold to the Nazi Party for a conference center, you could either use your political resources, i.e., send the Brown Shirts to intimidate the owners, or you could use the power of the government office to have the owners jailed. In the Tripp indictment and the Limbaugh investigation, the Democrats betray their Nazi tendancies when it comes to seeing their elected office as an acceptable tool for settling political scores. Just to remind everyone of a parallel to the current Rush Limbaugh "investigation", the Linda Tripp indictment. Long after it served any purpose but political revenge, the Democrat prosecutor indicited Linda Tripp in Maryland on wiretapping charges. Two things make it obvious that it was a political prosecution, the strength of the case and who called for the indicitment. Both of which the media gave very little coverage. First of all, the law had a loophole where you had to be aware of the law to violate it. And the conversations in question took place with Lewinsky being in either DC or Virginia, NOT Maryland. Second, a county Democrat Club and some hotdog with a White House connection encouraged their fellow Democrat to bring charges. Politicians wanting people in jail, regardless of the facts. Maybe in their blind rage, they hoped to be successful, but if nothing else, it was another chance to smear Tripp with any manner of charges, disrupt her life, cause her fear and to drain her finances. All of which the Democrats could do at no risk to themselves. And now comes the Palm Beach Democrat prosecutor. Note that the media gives very little coverage to what doctors were "raided". I'm not defending Rush with the following statements, I'm pointing out that the Democrats had a weak case like they did with the Tripp indictment. Two doctors were from the SAME practice and treated Limbaugh for the SAME problem. Doctor shopping here? I don't think so. The other two doctors, well one treated him for failing hearing and the other cured it. When most people hear "Doctor Shopping", they take it to mean that you'd be seeing multiple doctors with only the intent of getting more prescription drugs and that the doctors would be unaware of the others. In this case, the patient had multiple doctors treating multiple problems and at least the doctors in the same practice could reasonably be expected to know of each other, likewise with the pair of doctors who treated the ear problem. "Doctor Shopping" charges only work if you make a big assumption, THE DOCTORS WERE IN ON IT. And I don't remember any Democrat prosecutor mentioning that. Why, because the doctors who go after him publically and he doesn't want the weak case publicized. Look at the current crop of Democrat candiates. Their rhetoric is full of conclusions that are not based on evidence. It's one thing to do that in an election, it's another to do it where we all look for justice and protection. It's been said, "Never Trust A Democrat With Your National Security". It's becoming clear that "Never Trust A Democrat With Your Civil Rights" is not an unfair statement.
Every definition of "fascist" includes an element that states only one view is allowed and others are ruthlessly crushed.
Look at the Democrat boycott attempted against Sean Hannity. Look at claim that Ed Anser said, "Your boy Hannity's next." And note that they want a "Libera; Talk Radio Network". Not a talk network that has liberals. They demand only liberals.
Only one opinion and others are silenced. Fits the element of the definition of "Fascist" to a "T".
Assumes facts not in evidence, as I've hear said on Court TV.
If Bill Clinton murdered Paula Jones to prevent her from bringing a civil suit, would you still have the gaul to make that statement?
OK, so Bill Clinton didn't murder Paula Jones, but he lied to prevent her from bringing a civil suit. That's OK.
And if you say the case has no merit, that's for the JUDGE, not Clinton, to decide. And I have $800,000 of Hillary's fortune that says that the case had merit. That's why they wouldn't risk an appeal.
A conservative. Which kind of makes a lot of your points come undone.
It's time for those Democrats to take back their party from the thugs.
Oh, please.
These same kindergarden attempts at 'reasoning' are made in equal measure over at DU in regards to Republicans being Nazis, exhibiting the same tendencies, the same lust for power, blahblahblahblah....
Democrats and Republicans are simply not Nazi's, and to maintain otherwise is simply rabid Know-Nothingism that defames this website.
Absolutely true. No exaggeration at all.
An enlightened "tolerant" Democratic hard-line good "friend" of mine still maintains John Ashcroft is "too Christian" to be Attorney General. Now substitute any other word for "Christian" and who and what have you got?
I'd so "Oh please" but I don't want to sound condescending.
Prove that the Tripp and Limbaugh prosecutions are NOT politically motivated OR prove the Nazis did not engage in political prosecutions.
In two and a half years of protesting on Saturdays at the White House, it was typical for some Fascist Liberal supporter of Clinton to be displeased with our protest to go up to the first uniformed officer they could find and say, "Make them stop." Happened all the time. It was a frequent reaction by the liberals. They just asumed that since their guy was "in charge" what not use the police to stop free speech they didn't like. A frequent response by the officers was to at least smile, if not outright laugh. Amd they'd have a hell of a timeexplaining to those "tolerent" liberals that free speech was not against the LAW.
I'd so "Oh please" but I don't want to sound condescending.
Prove that the Tripp and Limbaugh prosecutions are NOT politically motivated OR prove the Nazis did not engage in political prosecutions.
In two and a half years of protesting on Saturdays at the White House, it was typical for some Fascist Liberal supporter of Clinton to be displeased with our protest to go up to the first uniformed officer they could find and say, "Make them stop." Happened all the time. It was a frequent reaction by the liberals. They just asumed that since their guy was "in charge" what not use the police to stop free speech they didn't like. A frequent response by the officers was to at least smile, if not outright laugh. Amd they'd have a hell of a timeexplaining to those "tolerent" liberals that free speech was not against the LAW.
The evidence strongly suggests the Democrats are worse. This party has evolved into an ideological cancer and mere stealth anti-American organization.
That does not change the fact that liberals revert to their Nazi tendencies at the slightest whim.
If there is another example of another group, that's a topic for it's own thread.
Prove that the Tripp and Limbaugh prosecutions are NOT politically motivated OR prove the Nazis did not engage in political prosecutions.
It is impossible to prove a negative, and flies in the face of the rules of logic, so your request must remain unaddressed.
In two and a half years of protesting on Saturdays at the White House, it was typical for some Fascist Liberal supporter of Clinton to be displeased with our protest to go up to the first uniformed officer they could find and say, "Make them stop." Happened all the time. It was a frequent reaction by the liberals. They just asumed that since their guy was "in charge" what not use the police to stop free speech they didn't like. A frequent response by the officers was to at least smile, if not outright laugh. Amd they'd have a hell of a timeexplaining to those "tolerent" liberals that free speech was not against the LAW.
This was about Democrats, not necessarily liberals. There are plenty of liberal Republicans, in case that escaped your notice.
The problem is that you are extrapolating the behavior of a very limited subset of a population onto the whole, and I see no evidence or data that would justify this.
The real problem is that this limited subset are the one's who are in various levels of power at this time...be they Republicans of Democrats.
They deserve the label. A pox on all of them.
The Demoncrat leadership is an incipient and embryonic Fourth Reich, in itself. Just as the NAZI's used hatred and marginalization of those who opposed them, so too do the Left use the same tactics to bludgeon Conservatives and even those within their own party who disagree with them.
The Left which was taught by the Chomsky's and Davis's of the world have gained power in the Demoncrat party and are cruising down the highway to Hell, little Red Books in hand.
Spot on unexaggerated assessment of the new Democratic Party. How can any Democrat who's intellectually honest possibly refute any of this with a straight face??
For "truth in advertising"'s sake, The Donkey icon ought to be replaced by a snake-eyed, forked-tongue Demon.
Tripe. Cliche. Read a little book called How We Know What Isn't So.
Tripe. Cliche. Read a little book called How We Know What Isn't So.
No, what's tripe is the assertion that that book, which I've read, has anything at all to do with the formal rules of logic, which were established manifold centuries ago and are still valid. It doesn't.
Proving a negative is impossible, by its very nature.
You are mixing apples and oranges.
Then maybe we shouldn't have passed Patriot and Patriot II, huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.