"Welcome to Bergen-Belsen*, Ms. Frank...
...Courtesy of the New York Times"
An interesting analogy was proffered by former NBS reporter Richard Valeriani at the Huffington Post this past Thursday...
...where it was soundly rejected by the Post's 'Progressive' readership-- They're not a very nice bunch over at Arianna's place.
A sampling of comments:
1) Blinders. He's wearing blinders, because he obviously believes what his Progressive demi-gods have told him; that the program was about 'spying on the financial transactions of American's.' Hmmm, that sounds vaugely familiar... Oh, Yeah! Bush is secretly listening to American's phone conversations too! And 'Illegally'?!? Everyone, including many 'Progressive' politicians have said this program is so legal it reeks of Grandma's apple pie. Just who is this guy listening to? Al Franken? Randi Rhodes?
2) Uh... They're spying on the financial transactions of F-O-R-E-I-G-N Terrorists. There's not an original thought in this one... it's all talking points.
The fact is, the NYT's has DEMONstrated they care nothing for the U.S. finding and capturing and/or derailing further terrorist attempts to do this nation and its citizens further harm. And the Left is too blinded by hate to stand up for what is right. If I can stand up and say, "I don't like the idea of Georgie trying to establish a North American Union behind my back," why can't the Left stand up and call the NYT's behavior less than in the spirit of wanting to see America succeed in the War on Terror? I'm not asking for the Left to brand their favorite Rag's actions as treasonous, just "severely lacking in good judgment"... or, "in need of new management".
But there aren't any truly "progressive" Progressives out there-- Just a bunch of Liberals trying to hide their TRUE nature under sheeps clothing.
I know some "Progressives" out there will want to tell me how offended they are by what I've had to say here. Well, I'm offended by much of what these so-called progressives stand for, a fact for which they couldn't care less, nor apologize. They should therefore expect none such from me.
----
*Bergen-Belsen-- For those of you who don't know the reference... It's the concentration camp where Anne Frank died of typhus, early 1945.
An interesting analogy was proffered by former NBS reporter Richard Valeriani at the Huffington Post this past Thursday...
"Running the story about the money-tracing program is a version of giving Anne Frank’s address to the Nazis."
...where it was soundly rejected by the Post's 'Progressive' readership-- They're not a very nice bunch over at Arianna's place.
A sampling of comments:
"The press should print ANYTHING that keeps our Government from defacing our Constitution and our Laws. The Press's role in American Life is to make every government 'employee' remember the potential for humiliation at any moment. Humility and prison and nasty prison sex..."--It would seem the Left's perception of what the Press' role in our society is, is also progressive. And remorselessly WRONG.
"I'm not sure why the republicans have decided to make the NYT their latest strawman, but I guess once again, it's all they have left."--Strawman!? Do we have to point out the NYT's OBVIOUS pattern of 'hurt G.W. even if it hurts the U.S.'? Should we talk about the democrat's own pantheon of strawmen? These folks are so progressive they've left their intellects a few miles behind... to say nothing of their sense of honesty.
"...the Right is so far out there that it honestly believes what you've just written.--Two things:
"You need to engage in more hyperbole and make it clear the absurdity of a position that reporting on a story which spies on the financial transactions of Americans - illegally, mind you - is somehow morally equivalent with turning in Jews during the holocaust."
1) Blinders. He's wearing blinders, because he obviously believes what his Progressive demi-gods have told him; that the program was about 'spying on the financial transactions of American's.' Hmmm, that sounds vaugely familiar... Oh, Yeah! Bush is secretly listening to American's phone conversations too! And 'Illegally'?!? Everyone, including many 'Progressive' politicians have said this program is so legal it reeks of Grandma's apple pie. Just who is this guy listening to? Al Franken? Randi Rhodes?
2) Uh... They're spying on the financial transactions of F-O-R-E-I-G-N Terrorists. There's not an original thought in this one... it's all talking points.
The fact is, the NYT's has DEMONstrated they care nothing for the U.S. finding and capturing and/or derailing further terrorist attempts to do this nation and its citizens further harm. And the Left is too blinded by hate to stand up for what is right. If I can stand up and say, "I don't like the idea of Georgie trying to establish a North American Union behind my back," why can't the Left stand up and call the NYT's behavior less than in the spirit of wanting to see America succeed in the War on Terror? I'm not asking for the Left to brand their favorite Rag's actions as treasonous, just "severely lacking in good judgment"... or, "in need of new management".
But there aren't any truly "progressive" Progressives out there-- Just a bunch of Liberals trying to hide their TRUE nature under sheeps clothing.
I know some "Progressives" out there will want to tell me how offended they are by what I've had to say here. Well, I'm offended by much of what these so-called progressives stand for, a fact for which they couldn't care less, nor apologize. They should therefore expect none such from me.
----
*Bergen-Belsen-- For those of you who don't know the reference... It's the concentration camp where Anne Frank died of typhus, early 1945.
from the mind of... Eric | 8:22 PM
12 Comments:
"Progressivism" of the modern mold will run us headlong off a cliff!
i liked this comment from "justjohn":
"....cravenly demagoguing the issue and did not previously know about this set of programs....it's been reported on since 2002, and Bush himself talked about it in campaign speeches in 2004..."
KEvron
"....Bush himself talked about it"
your chimp is a nazi who kills teenage jewish girls!
btw, i thought comparisons to nazis were off limits since durbin's blunder?
KEvron
Admitting to the nation that we have a nuclear program is not the same as telling the world the "details" of the program. The "details" are secret, the fact that there is a program is not. Surely even you can see the difference.
Also. No where in my post to I endorse the analogy, saying only, "An interesting analogy was proffered..."
Proffer -- a proposal offered for acceptance or rejection;
Followed by, "...where it was soundly rejected..."
Lastly. Bush is not a Chimp... any more than Clinton was, and is, a Dog; incapable of keeping his nose out of everyone's crotch.
If you be nice... I'll be nice. Clinton's got every opportunity to turn his life around. God wants him in heaven too.
expounding on the idea of nuclear secrets:
It is not a crime for any citizen of the U.S. to tell foreign agents that the U.S. has a nuclear program or to give them direction on how to get to the Los Alamos National Laboratory...
It's quite another to give away the details of specific projects that go on inside.
As to what is and is not off limits... I have absolutely no idea what party affiliation Mr. Valeriani claims. For all I know he's a Democrat.
Durbin's comments were reprehensible; attacking the U.S. Military by comparing them to Pol Pot and Hitler. Kerry once called the actions of U.S. troops "reminiscent of Ghengis Khan" and he caught a lot of flak for it... the only wound for which he actually deserved a Purple Heart.
Comparing the "actions" of the NYT's , whose honor and patriotism is at best 'questionable', via the use of an Analogy, is not the same. It strikes the same nerve, but grammatically speaking, it's not the same.
No need to point out I'm splitting hares. That's exactly what I'm doing. Oh, and I'm pretty sure they've split an atom or two at Los Alamos as well... that's not a state secret either.
And for those of you who didn't catch that last statement... it's called Sarcasm.
"Admitting to the nation that we have a nuclear program is not the same as telling the world the "details" of the program. The "details" are secret, the fact that there is a program is not. Surely even you can see the difference."
the diffeence between a top secret govt program involving a weapon of unfathomable power, and an international financial database? yes, i see the difference. do you?
"Also. No where in my post to I endorse the analogy, saying only, 'An interesting analogy was proffered...'"
swell. however, i think you're being coy.
"Followed by, '...where it was soundly rejected...'"
which was promptly followed by something else. remember?
"Lastly. Bush is not a Chimp..."
yes. he is.
"....any more than Clinton was, and is, a Dog; incapable of keeping his nose out of everyone's crotch."
so, you don't like it when public officials are the target of insults; is that what you're trying to get me to believe? i'm not convinced.
"If you be nice... I'll be nice. Clinton's got every opportunity to turn his life around. God wants him in heaven too."
you may say whatever you like about the clintons or anyone else, for that matter. doesn't phase me in the least.
let me ask you this: do you think the terrorists did not realize that their international transactions were being monitored? and do you believe there was an opportunity for abuse of the program?
KEvron
"expounding on the idea of nuclear secrets"
seeing as nuclear secrets are not the subject of the times article, let's not bother to expound on that red herring.
KEvron
"No need to point out I'm splitting hares. That's exactly what I'm doing."
ah, then i won't bother.
KEvron
It's doubtful they knew their overseas transactions were being monitored as closely as they were... 'overseas' as in, not in America.
There is always the possibility of abuse in ANY government program. Take a look at Social Security... there's nothing there but IOU's and that can't be levied solely upon the heads of Republicans.
Nuclear Secrets aren't the subject of the Times' article, but then neither is G.W.'s status as a chimp. It's called an analogy. And it certainly fits.
"Red Herring" -- Is that the same as "Kommunist Kipper" ?
"It's doubtful they knew their overseas transactions were being monitored as closely as they were..."
why would that be doubtful?
"'overseas' as in, not in America."
yes, hence my reference to an international database.
"There is always the possibility of abuse in ANY government program."
there was more than a possibility for it. there was actual abuse. that makes the story newsworthy.
"Take a look at Social Security... there's nothing there but IOU's and that can't be levied solely upon the heads of Republicans."
no thanks, i've had enough of your red herrings. couldn't eat another bite.
"Nuclear Secrets aren't the subject of the Times' article, but then neither is G.W.'s status as a chimp. It's called an analogy. And it certainly fits."
specious reasoning, to say the least.
"'Red Herring -- Is that the same as 'Kommunist Kipper' ?"
in the hands of a wingnut, it most certainly can be.
KEvron
Specious! That's all your argument has been from the beginning.
<< Home