Wow. Chris Matthews really gave the smackdown to some punkass rightwing talk radio host. This wasn't hardball; this was dodgeball, except this jerkoff didn't have the brains enough to know how to dodge a god damn thing. Matthews nailed the guy head-on repeatedly and the guy was so dazed that he actually imagined that he could somehow shout his way out of the situation rather than shutting the fuck up and letting someone bail him out.
But the funniest thing about it was how it showed that these nutjobs really don't know what the hell they're talking about. Here he is, shouting about Obama being the next Neville Chamberlain and loudly praising Bush for making this point, yet...he clearly didn't know what the hell Chamberlain did wrong, beyond being an "appeaser." Not a clue. He couldn't even begin to answer Matthews' question. All he could do was repeat the words "appeasement," "appease," and "appeaser" and imagined that this was all anyone ever needs to know about Neville Chamberlain.
But to guys like this, that IS enough. This guy's like 45 years old, a lawyer, and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, and didn't know the first thing about why Neville Chamberlain is infamous. And that's fine. Not everyone is a history buff. Not everyone cares about this stuff. I'm no snob to think that everyone needs to know what I know. But...if you're going to be insisting that somebody is doing "the exact same thing" as Chamberlain, you really should have some sort of fucking clue of what it was that Chamberlain did, beyond "appeasing" Hitler.
The Exact Same Thing
But it was obvious that he not only didn't have a clue what Chamberlain did wrong, he didn't even know what the word "appeasement" means. And that's why this is important. This isn't like when Matthews nailed my former mayor for not being able to name Obama's legislative accomplishments. This guy was on the show to specifically talk about the Obama-Chamberlain nexus, and how Obama did "the exact same thing" as Chamberlain yet...didn't know what that thing was.
For as much as he was clearly prepared to shout about how foolish Obama was, he clearly wasn't even the least bit prepared to actually say anything informative about it. For him, Obama is Chamberlain, Bush was right for saying so, and he had just planned on screaming about this for ten minutes straight without actually saying anything. And to be honest, I'm quite positive that the reason he shouted is because he knew he didn't have anything else and that he's one of those morons who imagines that a point becomes more convincing if it's made LOUDLY.
And more importantly, Chris Matthews' point was entirely right, because what Obama is suggesting is NOTHING like what Chamberlain did. Nor is Obama wanting to "appease" Iran at all. Because appeasement doesn't mean "being nice." Appeasement means you give in to your enemy's demands in the hope that it satisfies them and they'll be nice. And as Matthews pointed out, in Chamberlain's case it meant handing over an important part of Czechoslovakia.
And what did Obama suggest that is "the exact same thing"? Talking to Iran. That's it. Talking to Iran, a third-rate power that is just asking to be toppled from within, if only we'd stop propping them up with anti-American patriotism. And we're supposed to imagine that talking to them is the same as handing Czechoslovakia to Hitler. Right. And we're supposed to take these people seriously?
And let's not forget the last time these dopes kept sounding the Appeasement siren. Back then, it was when we were "appeasing" Saddam by slowly destroying his country. For these people, there are only two gears: Stop and Go. And "containment" surely doesn't exist in there. Remember, these are the bozos who hated our containment policy with the Soviets too, preferring a hot war over a cold one; but now pretend as if they were the ones who caused the Soviets to fall. And whaddya know, here we are after seven year of a macho Republican president, and the Russians are becoming more aggressive every day. Big surprise.
You Just Can't Please War-Mongers
And even then, appeasement isn't necessarily always a bad policy. In Hitler's case, it was a bad policy because he was a war-monger who really only wanted power and war. And he was actually upset at the appeasement given to him, because he didn't want to be appeased. He wanted war. And nothing could stop him from that. Appeasement didn't "energize" or "legitimize" Hitler, as this doofus suggested to Matthews. He was intent on war, and while giving him Czechoslovakia helped him immensely, it didn't cause WWII. It didn't make him more aggressive. He wanted war from the start, and a big reason why giving him Czechoslovakia didn't help is because that's not really what he wanted. That was a fake demand, used as an excuse to act aggressive. He wanted war.
But that in no way suggests that you can never give in to your enemy's demands. It didn't work with Hitler because they didn't actually fulfill Hitler's demands. But if your enemy has a real grievance they want resolved, giving it to them can satisfy them. Or at a minimum, it can pull the rug out from under their aggressive rhetoric and deny them the ability to continue to push their points. Of course, this is all difficult, nuanced stuff, which I guess is why wingnuts never understand the purpose of diplomacy in the first place. Their idea of nuance is a fart joke that involves them farting in your face and then mocking you for complaining about it.
And what's so funny is that this rightwing douchebag wasn't re-living the past, where he's seeing Chamberlains everywhere, based upon what happened in the past. Rather, he's wanting to attack Obama and casting Chamberlain's actions in the same light as a way to attack Obama. Because the criticism of not wanting to "legitimizing" your enemy isn't part of appeasement at all, That's just a neo-con creation as a way to stifle diplomacy. And what's ironic is that this was Hitler's attitude too. No moral equivalence suggested here, but it's our own war-mongers who are repeating Hitler's strategies, and the only way Obama would be the "appeaser" here is if he gave into their demands and launched the war against Iran they desire.
They may scream about appeasers and Iranians training Sunnis and any number of other phony issues, but at the end of the day, it's all about the bombs. They want people to die and they'll say whatever they think they need to in order to get it. Heck, that's a big way that Bill Clinton's Iraqi policy amounted to appeasement. He gave the neo-cons the tough embargoes, inspections, and bomb missions they demanded, but could never satisfy them because it was really all about war. And then, all it took was a new president to start up where Bill left off, and now we're trapped in eternal war that will be blamed on us when we pull the plug and admit that it was a huge failure.
And the lesson for that is the same one we learned from Winston Churchill: You can appease your enemies in the short-term, but if you don't have a long-term plan to deal with them, you're just delaying the inevitable.
Oh, and as a piece of advice: When Chris Matthews asks why you're screaming, you're a nutjob.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
Missed that interview, but the guy never should've gone on if he didn't know:
Chamberlain's legacy is marked by his policy regarding the interaction (AKA - Appeasement) with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany with his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler.
Britain and France both joined Germany and Italy in signing the Munich Agreement ("Munich betrayal")...Czechoslovakia wasn't even invited to the "conference".
In 1940, Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and France...and, "Chamberlain was forced to resign."
Appeasement lasted about 2 years...
karcom,
You sort of skipped Poland, invaded by Hitler on 9-28-1939.
anon,
Good point...like Czechoslovakia, Poland gets no respect.
Make that - Appeasement lasted about 1 year...
Two years?!? Karmi? Beyond the invasion of Poland, which marked the beginning of WWII less than a year after the Munich Agreement; the Munich Agreement only lasted for a few months before Hitler violated it and Chamberlain realized he had been tricked. The agreement was signed on September 30, 1938, and Hitler broke it on March 15 1939 when he invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. And just so you know, England and France had already declared war before Germany invaded France, and appeasement had already been dismissed as being a bad idea. I'm not sure where you got the idea that appeasement lasted for two years, but that's definitely incorrect.
But of course, Matthews question hadn't been meant to be a "gotcha" question, as his point for bringing it up was a discussion on the word "appeasement" and the comparison between what Chamberlain did and what Obama proposed. Chamberlain gave away a large portion of Czechoslovakia with strategic importance to a ruthless madman with real plans and abilities to conquer Europe; and he used that as a way to conquer the rest of Czechoslovakia a few months later. Obama proposed sitting down to talk to our enemies, including those like Iran, a third-rate power that hasn't invaded anyone and with no ability to do so. Can you explain how these things are comparable?
Again, Matthews point wasn't to embarrass the guy's lack of historical knowledge, but to challenge the guy's point. The fact that the guy was so ignorant that Matthews couldn't even get to the main point is all the worse. But as I suggested in my post, I don't think this lack of knowledge is limited to this dummy. Most conservatives have a basic ignorance of history and rely upon empty phrases like "appeasement" as a substitute for any real understanding. They imagine that the people feeding them these empty phrases must know what they're talking about, but remain too ignorant to realize they're being tricked.
Anyone who suggests that Obama's policy is "appeasement" clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
Oops, I see you responded to Anonymous about Poland before I could post my remark. But again, appeasement only lasted for a few months.
But the bigger point had nothing to do with how long this dumb policy lasted, but on what the nature of appeasement is. And no, it doesn't mean that you talk to your enemies. Talking to Hitler wasn't the problem. The problem was giving him part of Czechoslovakia and imagining that this would bring peace.
Thanks for the update, DB.
Make that - Appeasement lasted just a few months...
So much for talking with the enemy, huh.
Karmi - What part of "gave them part of Czechoslovakia" didn't you understand? Diplomacy is NOT appeasement, dumbass.
Honestly, do you have some idea that liberals think the appeasement of Hitler was a good idea? Really?? How clueless of you.
You people really don't know what words mean, do you? Can you possibly explain why you think talking to Iran is appeasement? Or do you imagine that Obama's diplomacy will involve him giving part of Iraq to Iran? Not that it'd be necessary, now that Bush has essentially forced Iraq into Iran's arms. But no, you've been trained to believe that diplomacy is appeasement and refuse to even explain how that makes any sense at all.
This really is the best!
Dr. Biobrain's pumping himself up, pounding his chest for attacking a genuine idiot rightwing nutjob, an easy case if there ever was one! The guy's a fool, and Matthews had him on there so he wouldn't be made to look like the idiot that he usually does!
But Dr. Biobrain goes too far! He doesn't know he's committing an egregious fallacy of non-representitiveness.
This one whack reveals himself to be an idiot on Matthews' show, and voila! All rightwingers are nutjobs! Presto magic-o! And then all of Dr. Biobrain's commenters will be fawning for the good Doctor's brilliance. I'm swooning myself, help!!
But note the old tricks a la Biobrain are in evidence:
"...he didn't even know what the word "appeasement" means."
There it is! He didn't know the definition. That's key, because if anyone debates the definition with Dr. Biobrain, the good Doctor can go back into the presto magic-o routine, and voila! We have a new definition: "See, Hyperdictionary says so! You're a nutjob, you're a nutjob! Na na na na naaaa na!"
This is killing me! Oh, the humanity!!
I can point to similar cases of left-wing glee for what they feel is some real accomplishment here. Ms. Libby over at the Impolitic was in ejaculatory heaven over the same Hard Ball episode:
"Matthews knocks down wingnut radio host":
"Help. My world is falling apart. Tweety actually did something good today on Hardball. He nailed some wingnut hate jockey that I've never heard of when he called him on his empty sloganeering. The guy evoked the Chamberlain appeaser smear and Matthews got him to admit that he had no idea what Chamberlain actually did...
Watch the video at the link. It's really a thing of beauty.
I wish Matthews had been doing more like this since say 2002, but I'll take a metamorphosis any time, even though I suspect it's fleeting. I suppose he'll be disappointing me by using his gotcha skills on trivialities again soon enough. Still, one should praise good behavior and he did good this time."
The Impolitic
One dumb shock jock and presto! Matthews is rehabilitated from the dungeons of left-wing ridicule.
You've got to love it!
But there's a big problem here for the lefty nihilists: Obama really is committing appeasement in his approach to Iran, and unfortunately for Dr. Biobrain, he himself has messed up the definitions.
Ignorance revealed: Now that's gold! For example, from Dr. Briobrain:
"Chris Matthews' point was entirely right, because what Obama is suggesting is NOTHING like what Chamberlain did. Nor is Obama wanting to "appease" Iran at all. Because appeasement doesn't mean "being nice." Appeasement means you give in to your enemy's demands in the hope that it satisfies them and they'll be nice."
Isn't that sweet! If the prime minister would just handed over the Czech state, a nation that had the most important defensive emplacements in all of Eastern Europe, a nation that had prepared its small-state foreign policy on the belief that it'd have great power backing upon initiating a Czechoslovakian defensive riposte to German revanchism, then Hitler would be "nice."
You've got to love the lefties! It's all touchy-feely, even in the highest stakes of war and peace!
Let's make nice, Mahmoud! Hey, we'll dress up in drag like Patrick Swayze and have a good time. Don't like that eh? Don't want to be strung up in the square for freak show homo execution, eh? Okay, I know a couple of nice Puerto Rican girls who're just dyin' to meet you!! Let's get a case of wine a throw a Persian party!!
Yowza, Obama's got it easy next year. More cowbell!!
But, of course, you're wrong:
Appeasement does not mean making them feel nice! It's about satifying demands that will be reciprocated.
The problem for Obama? He's got no demands. Obama's own website has this:
"Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." (Check barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/).
Can you get that? No preconditions, whatsoever! That's giving Tehran the store! One does not enter into high stakes diplomacy with an impending nuclear power without conditions. That's not diplomacy.
So, yeah, you're right:
"... what Obama is suggesting is NOTHING like what Chamberlain did..."
At least Chamberlain got some commitment for peace, remember "Peace in our time..."? This was a long tradition in British foreign policy, and Chamberlain's been caricatured as spineless and weak, which is up for debate. Hitler lied, so that was the problem. Believing that Hitler could be appeased.
But here, Obama makes Chamberlain out to be a barbarian conqueror!! Hitler didn't stand a chance! Obama's not making iran guarantee anything, let alone the big prize of their nuclear program. The Mullah's can keep their proxy army inside Lebanon to rain down missiles on northern Israel, but hey, as long as Mahmoud and the raghead clerics are "nice" and happy! Hey, we're saved. Dr. Biobrain to the rescue!!
But hey, don't forget what Dr. Biobrain says here:
"But it was obvious that he not only didn't have a clue what Chamberlain did wrong..."
Hey, alright, you've done me proud, Biobrain! We have evidence that the punkass rightwing talk radio host didn't know WTF he was talking about, so you're pointing to some objective referent to make the argument.
I'm so pleased that over 200 comments at "Obama's Pastor" didn't go to waste! Your silence at that thread finally concedes the point, and now that you wanted further debate, here I am to tell you, not so fast buddy. Wrong again, LOL!!
Kevin James is a hack. You're basically putting him up there as a strawman, easy to knock down. Then you draw it out to distort the history of the cold war, to belittle GOP foreign policy, which ended the superpower conflict after the Reagan defense build-up. President Carter gave away the store by not responding to the Iranian revolution, leaving American diplomats hostage for 444 days. The Ayatollah released the captives on inauguration day 1981 because he knew regime change Iran was around the corner under the Reagan team.
Obama's the new Carter. No preconditions will get Israel wiped off the map, just as Mahmoud has promised.
Great job, Biobrain. Just in time for Israel's 60th!!
Jesus Donald, what are you going on about? That was a strange piece of nonsense even from you. But just so you understand, when I wrote that Chamberlain wanted to appease Hitler so Hitler would “be nice,” I meant that Hitler wouldn’t invade other countries and war would be averted. I have no idea why you imagined I meant anything else, but that’s exactly what I meant. I apologize for not using the Official Professor Donald Fouglas Words when I wrote that, but I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant. For you to suggest otherwise just shows what a weird, weird person you are.
And just so it’s understood, Hitler’s promise not to attack was clearly bogus, and because that’s the only thing Chamberlain got, it means Chamberlain got NOTHING in return. And Churchill said that at the time. I’m not sure why you’re implying that Chamberlain’s appeasement policy wasn’t so bad, but it definitely was horrible. He gave away a huge chunk of strategic territory and only got an empty promise in return; a promise that was broken a few months later. You should be truly ashamed for suggesting that Obama’s promise to talk to Iran is worse than Chamberlain’s blunder.
And where on earth do you get the idea that Obama would give “Tehran the store?” Look, Obama’s diplomacy will probably amount to nothing. He’s not promising to give them ANYTHING during these talks. And if he doesn’t get anything from them, he certainly won’t give them anything. How does that amount to appeasement? All he’s agreeing to is to have diplomatic relations with them. That’s it. That’s not appeasement. That’s diplomacy.
And do you really believe that Israel will be destroyed just because we talked to Iran? Really? How does that one work? And why do you imagine that America is so weak that we can’t even talk to Iran without getting hurt? Why do you hate America so much?
And what exactly was it that Reagan did to Iran that was so effective? Do you mean illegally selling them weapons to raise money to illegally fund the Contras, or did you have something else in mind? Have I missed the regime change that Reagan instituted in Iran?
BTW, I wrote a response to you at our other debate and you haven’t responded. I’m guessing you weren’t able to figure out that the comments flip to a second page after 200 comments, but they did. Heck, I was just fixing to go to your blog to taunt you for not responding, but am glad to see I don’t need to go over there.
Well, I guess we've got two debates going on, because Obama's indefensible on this one, and making "nice" is not a purpose of appeasement.
You dodged most of my points anyway, especially the strawman. So I'm not expecting much resistance here. Mostly denialism, as usual.
Donald, I "dodged" most of your points here because they were utter nonsense that, at best, completely misrepresented what I wrote, and at worst, was entirely incomprehensible. What was the point about quoting that other liberal blogger? I have no idea why you did that. Look, if you want to have a debate, make your points clear and concisely and leave out the superfluous insults and noise. I’ve already told you that I rarely read everything you write, and this is the reason why; because the bulk of your comments are just empty noise that serve no purpose.
How's this: Can you please explain to me exactly what Chamberlain got from Hitler besides an empty promise that he broke a few months later? And how was this agreement not just asking Hitler to “be nice” (ie, stop being aggressive and war-like)?
Secondly, exactly how is talking to Iran going to get Israel wiped out?
As for the strawman, just so you understand, a true strawman is one that doesn't exist. Like your absurd suggestion that I thought appeasement meant "making them feel nice." Where did you get that idea? I was saying they wanted Hitler to BE nice, not to make him FEEL nice, dumbass.
And then there was your strawman about us dressing up in drag like Patrick Swayze, whatever the hell that was supposed to be about. That represented NOBODY'S opinion whatsoever and was just an invention of yours that I still can't comprehend. On the other hand, we have KarmiCommunist who even had time to research this yet STILL didn't know how WWII got started, or what appeasement meant.
That's the kind of thing I was talking about when I mentioned conservatives who don't understand this stuff. But my words were never meant to suggest that no conservative knows what Chamberlain did wrong, and if that’s how you interpreted what I wrote, then it was just a misinterpretation of what I meant. But again, my emphasis was always on how you people are misusing the word “appeasement” if you think it applies to Obama; and it’s obvious from your comment that this applies to you.
Actually, Dr. Biobrain, my reference to Ms. Libby is a REAL reference to you big liberals picking on dumb conservatives to make a point you otherwise wouldn't be able to make. In this case, Kevin's a REAL strawman, since he's just sitting their making himself out as an ignorant duck ripe for the plucking.
No, my posts have a logic to them, and as anyone can see you've totally avoided the thrust of my riposte: You don't know what you're talking about, like Patrick Swayze in drag trying to make nice nice (actually, Swayze's tougher, so I shouldn't denigrate his rep).
You're out of your depth on debating appeasement. Obama's not too hip with his NO PRECONDITIONS, and you're again just dodging, as usual. But don't take it from me, check John Bolton at WSJ.com:
"President Bush's speech to Israel's Knesset, where he equated "negotiat[ing] with the terrorists and radicals" to "the false comfort of appeasement," drew harsh criticism from Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders. They apparently thought the president was talking about them, and perhaps he was.
Wittingly or not, the president may well have created a defining moment in the 2008 campaign. And Mr. Obama stepped right into the vortex by saying he was willing to debate John McCain on national security "any time, any place." Mr. McCain should accept that challenge today.
The Obama view of negotiations as the alpha and the omega of U.S. foreign policy highlights a fundamental conceptual divide between the major parties and their putative presidential nominees. This divide also opened in 2004, when John Kerry insisted that our foreign policy pass a "global test" to be considered legitimate.
At first glance, the idea of sitting down with adversaries seems hard to quarrel with. In our daily lives, we meet with competitors, opponents and unpleasant people all the time. Mr. Obama hopes to characterize the debate about international negotiations as one between his reasonableness and the hard-line attitude of a group of unilateralist GOP cowboys.
The real debate is radically different. On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous.
Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique. Saying that one favors negotiation with, say, Iran, has no more intellectual content than saying one favors using a spoon. For what? Under what circumstances? With what objectives? On these specifics, Mr. Obama has been consistently sketchy.
Like all human activity, negotiation has costs and benefits. If only benefits were involved, then it would be hard to quarrel with the "what can we lose?" mantra one hears so often. In fact, the costs and potential downsides are real, and not to be ignored.
When the U.S. negotiates with "terrorists and radicals," it gives them legitimacy, a precious and tangible political asset. Thus, even Mr. Obama criticized former President Jimmy Carter for his recent meetings with Hamas leaders. Meeting with leaders of state sponsors of terrorism such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il is also a mistake. State sponsors use others as surrogates, but they are just as much terrorists as those who actually carry out the dastardly acts. Legitimacy and international acceptability are qualities terrorists crave, and should therefore not be conferred casually, if at all."
<----END
Yep, terrorists and radicals ... friends of Obama, and of his delegates, no?
Barack “Neville” Obama, Jr.
Wow Donald, way to avoid making ANY real point. You couldn’t even speak for yourself, and had to outsource most of your argument to disgraced loon John Bolton. Great.
Look, if you want to quote nuts like Bolton on your blog to suggest some point to your readers, that’s fine as they already agree with him. But to liberals, John Bolton is a punchline and telling us that you’ve got Bolton on your side is the equivalent of an ex-hippy saying he’s got Charles Manson on his side…except Bolton is responsible for more death and destruction than Manson ever was. And so quoting him will do nothing but elicit laughs from liberals like me. I know you found his words to be convincing, but I found them to be absurdist parody that a smarter person would have been ashamed to quote. I’m not sure what you meant to accomplish by quoting Bolton, but I can assure you that it only made me laugh.
Now back to our regularly scheduled debate. Donald, in your previous comment you made a few points meant to show how foolish Obama’s position was as well as disagreeing with what I wrote about appeasement, and because these were the only points of substance you wrote, I challenged them because I found them to be entirely stupid. But rather than explain yourself, all you could do was spout more nonsense and ignore my questions entirely. So I’ll repeat the questions:
Can you please explain to me exactly what Chamberlain got from Hitler besides an empty promise that he broke a few months later? And how was this agreement not just asking Hitler to “be nice” (ie, stop being aggressive and war-like)?
Secondly, exactly how is talking to Iran going to get Israel wiped out?
Any chance you’d like to explain this nonsense? Or will you continue with your idiotic strawmen?
And again, Kevin James ISN’T a strawman, because he’s a real person, and while I’ve never heard of him, the fact that he has his own radio show would indicate that he’s far more influential than you. So it’s not as if I pulled a no-name like N=1 to represent liberals, as you did. And as a reminder, I wasn’t suggesting that conservatives didn’t know what Chamberlain did wrong, but rather that conservatives often recite meaningless phrases like “appeasement” without really understanding what they mean…just as you’re doing by calling Obama’s policy “appeasement.” But again, I was addressing real conservatives, like James and you, to make my point; and real people aren’t strawmen.
Here’s another example of a strawman:
On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time.
And you approve of this strawman by quoting Bolton’s nonsense? There is NOBODY who wants to use negotiations 100% of the time. NOBODY. It is an actual strawman, as Bolton and you are bashing a caricature of your own creation. You’ve got no liberal talkshow host to quote saying these inanities, or even a no-name blogger to quote. NOBODY says these things. These are conservative inventions designed to make your unreasonable positions seem reasonable in comparison. And rather than even defend your positions, you just ignore everything and continue to attack Obama and me for positions we don’t have.
But I think the problem I’m having here is that you don’t actually like to have real debates. Instead, you just do character assassinations. You read my posts to find some point you can over-generalize, and then attack me for misspeaking because you can misinterpret what I wrote to make it sound stupid. But you don’t seem to care about my actual points, and just want to attack me rather than my arguments. And when I explain what I wrote, you just accuse me of lying and insist that I didn’t say what I say I said; as if you know what I’m saying better than I do.
And so you think I missed the point because I didn’t apologize for over-generalizing against conservatives, despite the fact that I DIDN’T over-generalize, and this yet again represents a misinterpretation of what I wrote. And so that’s why you imagine I’ve missed your points, because all you want is for me to apologize for something I didn’t do, while you refuse to actually have a meaningful discussion of the topic at hand. In your mind, you’ve already won the debate and so all that’s needed is for me to apologize for disagreeing with you and being wrong about everything. And to you, the fact that I continue to debate at all is an example of me evading your point, because you’ve already decided the debate was over before it began.
Once again, rather than engaging in a real debate, Donald Douglas rants against the liberals he invented in his mind, representing a foe who is a mirror image of himself.
Good one, Anonymous. You successfully changed Obama's name into a silly name, which is all that's necessary to prove somebody wrong. Who needs to make valid points when you can just change their name and feel superior?
But doesn't this represent an improvement from the slur you people intended by mentioning his real middle name? Before, you guys were trying to imply that he's a Muslim traitor who will wage war against us infidels. Now, he's merely an appeaser who will allow Iran to have a few victories before declaring war on them. While both theories were silly, it looks like this new incarnation represents a shift in your estimations of him. Interesting.
Doctor,
This is my first visit to your blog. I really enjoyed your comments.
It should be made clear that Chamberlain did not buy six months or even six minutes from Hitler with his capitulation in Munich. Hitler seized the remainder of Czechoslovakia as soon as spring had progressed far enough to permit his tanks to operate on unpaved roads. His timing had nothing to do with the Munich conference. Similarly, Hitler's schedule for the invasion of Poland was worked out far in advance, based on the need to complete the invasion before the fall weather turned against him.
Munich was not an isolated incident. It was the end stage of a long process in which Chamberlain and Daladier both found it politically expedient to ignore the obvious truth about Hitler's intentions. If we need to compare this to recent American behavior, I would suggest an appropriate analogy might be Bush's years long refusal to take any meaningful action against the country from which 15 of the 19 hijackers came, or his cozying up to the government whose country provides a refuge for Osama Bin Laden. Now, there is something that might justify comparison to Chamberlain.
Thanks for the correction, Green Eagle. I hadn't meant to imply that Chamberlain had bought them any time at all, and your comment makes that even more clear.
What text is NeroCon referencing for a proper definition of "appeasement," I wonder... (and will he be able to find one that encompasses "diplomatic talks" as an example of the act)?
Oh look... Do I see "an egregious fallacy of non-representitiveness" over yonder?
I believe so:
American Power: "Mainstream" of the Democratic Party? Daily Kos and the Death of Israel
Of course, it's only wrong when a liberal does it (assuming for argument that the liberal actually does it, in the first place)... We can't discuss when Nero himself does it... His debate rules, 'n'all...
What text is NeroCon referencing for a proper definition of "appeasement,"
Repsac, that'd be Donaldpedia, of course; the end all, be all of any respectable online debate. The magic of Donaldpedia is that it didn't make the mistake of being accessible by anyone but Donald. That way, none of us slimy polecats can play our montebank tricks by using it to defend ourselves.
Besides, if a word meant anything other than what Donald needed it to mean at any given moment, it'd obviously be wrong. Donald Douglas is the authority dictionaries and encyclopedias turn to when they want to find out what the hell's going on.
Post a Comment