Welcome to PatsFans.com

Scientist Accuses White House of "Nazi" Tactics

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Mar 21, 2007.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032107N.shtml

    Scientist Accuses White House of "Nazi" Tactics
    By Joel Havemann
    The Los Angeles Times

    Monday 19 March 2007

    Washington - A government scientist, under sharp questioning by a federal panel for his outspoken views on global warming, stood by his view today that the Bush administration's information policies smacked of Nazi Germany.

    James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, took particular issue with the administration's rule that a government information officer listen in on his interviews with reporters and its refusal to allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.

    "This is the United States," Hansen told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. "We do have freedom of speech here."

    But Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) said it was reasonable for Hansen's employer to ask him not to state views publicly that contradicted administration policy.

    "I am concerned that many scientists are increasingly engaging in political advocacy and that some issues of science have become increasingly partisan as some politicians sense that there is a political gain to be found on issues like stem cells, teaching evolution and climate change," Issa said.
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,316
    Likes Received:
    118
    Ratings:
    +245 / 7 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Not allowing freedom of speech (which isn't happening in this case, but if it were), is a minor irritation compared to the bigger issues of the Nazis. People who keep comparing this administration to that of the Nazis are doing nothing but embarassing themselves.

    Now, if Bush would just round up all Democrats and . . . well, never mind.
  3. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    yeah, we'll nevermind...

    once again, read Italian philosopher Umberto Eco's 14 Tenets of Fascism, and tell me how many don't apply to this current "Faith-based" administration... while I won't call them Nazis, i will gladly point out striking similarities between our slow destruction of open society, and Nazi Germany's swift one...
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,571
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +107 / 7 / -10



    When you work at a job your employer has the right to set the parameters for talking with the press as a representative of the organization. This happens in most jobs in this country. Besides he has been all over the press for years,

    The part of his resume that is bothersome is his taking $250,000 from Heinz Kerry's foundation and campaigning for her Hubby after this gratuity. Why are public employee's getting a quarter million for a partisan advocacy group?
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Good one!

    I don't like the Nazi anaology for anything except for Hirohito, Khan, or Euro-Americans in regards to the Indians. Whenever a comparison is made that is way out of whack with the scale of things, it sounds stupid, like when Saddam or the Iranian President are compared to Hitler. No comparison.
  6. 3 to be 4

    3 to be 4 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    So the problems behind the way the Bush Administration mishandles itself is due to "faith-based" reasons? Cant be they just are incompetant and corrupt?
    Why waste getting a good anti-Christian shot in, right?
  7. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    41,436
    Likes Received:
    283
    Ratings:
    +719 / 44 / -47

    Disable Jersey

    Last edited: Mar 21, 2007
  8. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

  9. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0


    that's a stretch... i AM a Christian... just not in step with their peculiar take on being a Christian... i see a striking difference in being a real, honest Christian, and being a fanatical fascist Christian...

    to answer your other question, yes they ARE also incompetent and corrupt...
  10. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,821
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +295 / 1 / -7

    One of liberalisms favorite tactics is to attack viciously, dirty and cruel then if their hated enemy attempts to fight back they run squealing and wimpering to mommy accusing the enemy of being "JUSY LIKE THEM" DIRTY.

    This new breed of liberal democrat is very dangerous to America, they aren't interested in you, they have lost all their interest in their favorite passtime (helping the poor) they have forgotten all about 9/11 and protecting the country, they have one thing and one thing only on their rotten little minds that being, DESTROY BUSH, GET BUSH, CRUCIFY BUSH AND HIS WHOLE FAMILY, RUIN HIS LIFE, RUIN HIS DOGS LIFE.

    THIS IS A GOOD THING, AMERICA ALWAYS STANDS WITH THE UNDERDOG, GEORGE BUSH IS NOW BECOMING THE UNDERDOG AND THE DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES HAVE CAUSED IT WITH THEIR UNFORGIVING HATRED, THEY WILL NEVER GET OVER THE HUMILIATION OF BEING BEATEN TWICE BY THE MAN THEY CONSIDERED A MORON, THEY LOST TWICE TO THE SAME MORON.

    IF A MORON OUTSMARTS YOU WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOU?
    This is Gore after the election-------->:bricks:

    This is Kerry after the election------->:bricks:


    This is Bush after both elections----->:singing:
  11. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    more hypocrisy from the party that wrote the manual on partisan hackery... the Neoconservative movement
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2007
  12. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    41,436
    Likes Received:
    283
    Ratings:
    +719 / 44 / -47

    Disable Jersey



    Please pretend to have some shred of objectivity:



    It wasn't the Republicans running television ads featuring a nuclear bomb exploding (The famous "Daisy Ad") in an attempt to defeat Goldwater, it was the Democrats.

    It wasn't the Republicans pulling the crap against the Vietnam War, it was the Democrats.

    It wasn't the Republicans throwing Reagan's budgets into the trash and declaring them dead on arrival, it was the Democrats.

    It wasn't the Republicans who viciously attacked a nominee for the Supreme Court to such an extent that it's now named after the experience (Borking), it was the Democrats.

    It wasn't the Republicans lying about the Bush (the elder) economy, it was the Democrats.

    It wasn't the Republicans caught with FBI files they weren't supposed to have, it was the Democrats.

    It wasn't the Republicans who sold their souls to defend a President that was guilty of perjury, it was the Democrats.

    It wasn't the Republicans who were claiming that Iraq had WMD's in the Clinton administration and then preaching "Bush lied" after the invasion, it was the Democrats.

    It wasn't the Democrats claiming that the struggling economy post 9/11 was Bush's fault rather than conceding the impact of that brutal day, it was the Democrats.

    It wasn't the Republicans who tried pinning the post Katrina problems on Bush when there was clear incompetence on the municipal and state levels in Louisiana, it was the Democrats.

    And, as one last example, it's not the Republicans using a common presidential move, the firing of attorney's that the President doesn't want, in an attempt to score cheap political points after their own president fired each and every one of the attorneys on that same level upon assuming office, it's the Democrats.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2007
  13. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    you do the same, could you? nice list of subjective assessments...

    "sold their soul" to defend Clinton? could you BE more dramatic? lol...:rolleyes:

    to fill the docket on Republican fraud, misuse of funds, approprations, attack ads, swindle, gay sex, racism, fraud, misrepresentation, breeches of security and embezzlement, this forum site would drastically need to increase its bandwidth...
  14. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    41,436
    Likes Received:
    283
    Ratings:
    +719 / 44 / -47

    Disable Jersey


    Obviously, you can't be objective, although I don't think that was ever really a proposition in doubt. Please feel free to name the "subjective" assessments. The only one you could even potentially put there is the "sold their soul" example, and then only because of the wording. The fact is that all the others are completely factual. And, as for the "soul" comment, what else can you call it when Democrats admit that the crime itself was an impeachable offense and still don't vote to impeach and/or 'convict' Clinton?


    You can't possibly be this ignorant, so I'll just consider it the bitter ravings of someone who realizes he's been exposed as a completely unthinking shill. I wasn't the fool who made the original claim, you were. I just pointed out how completely wrong you were. Then again, with Democrats and Liberals in general, wrong is the usual state of being.
  15. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    wtf are you talking about? you're coming to a bizarre conclusion and patting your self on the back over it and declaring some kind of victory??...LOL

    what am i displaying "ignorance" about, exactly? do you DENY that i can see your handful of examples above and blow them out of the water with another 100 examples of GOP slime? you didn't point out i was "wrong" about anything...all you did was conjur up a short list of unflattering, vague or half-truth instances that ruffle your own personal feathers... you wanna talk about facts as they relate to GOP vs. Dem "hackery" and slime? we can do that... and i can assure you you'll lose... shall i start with 1948 Dick Nixon? Joe McCarthy? or do you wanna jump ahead to Tom Delay? Karl Rove? swiftboating? character assassination of Dukakis? Mondale? i mean, where would you like me to begin?
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2007
  16. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    41,436
    Likes Received:
    283
    Ratings:
    +719 / 44 / -47

    Disable Jersey


    1.) You claimed the examples I used were subjective. They aren't, although I should have given details regarding Vietnam (I simply figured that one was pretty self-explanatory). I did find it interesting that you cited to Nixon in 1948, however, because you seemed to have overlooked all the dead people voting for Kennedy during the election between the two gentlemen, as well as the importance of the date you were citing being pre 1960's.

    2.) You posted
    when, clearly, the "partisan hackery" you spout off about was not begun by the Neoconservative movement and, clearly, they did not write 'the manual'.


    Look, I don't care that you're foolish enough to be liberal despite overwhelming evidence that liberalism (Which is nothing more than socialism in disguise) is a failure. I don't care that you're foolish enough to believe all the crap that you've been spoon fed despite being able to learn the truth via the same tool you're using here to make fool comments about "subjective". I do, however, care that you're either ignorant of history or you're someone who's willing to completely disregard the truth when you're wrong. Both of those qualities are problems when it comes to having a realistic, open and honest debate.

    Per Encyclopedia Britannica:

    So, you going back prior to that pretty much kills the "neo" part of your argument. And please don't start with the ridiculous notion of trying to claim that the Democrats are the lesser of two 'offenders', because history proves otherwise. And, if you want to go back, we can go all the way back as far as you'd like. Shall we delve into Roosevelt packing the court? Shall we point out which party was in power when the south was refusing to allow blacks to attend school after the Supreme Court ruling? (Hint: Wallace was not a Republican). Would you like to go back even further, to the Civil War for "hackery and slime" and comparisons of right vs. wrong? The Democrats have been perfecting "hackery and slime" for far longer than the Neoconservative movement has even existed.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2007
  17. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Per the Encyclopedia Britannica:

    Neoconservatism
    U.S. political movement.

    It originated in the 1960s among conservatives and some liberals who were repelled by or disillusioned with what they viewed as the political and cultural trends of the time, including leftist political radicalism, lack of respect for authority and tradition, and hedonistic and immoral lifestyles.

    ----------------


    And this is PRECISELY what the New Left hates. The New Left is exactly the same as the Old Left; they're just too young to be 60s radicals.

    The Hard Left's remnants are going all out to seize on this time of challenge for the U.S./West, via Islamist radicalism and old Left-overs, like Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro and his spawn, Hugo Chavez. The Left is so much in its last desperate throes of crazed impotence they are swinging at anything that looks even remotely like it might break or fall.

    But it isn't going to happen. They know they're time is over and they have no place to hide anymore, and they are going nuts.

    It's a pity, but pity has its limits, too.



    //
  18. godef

    godef Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Unless it's true...:eek:
  19. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    LOL.... great stuff... so liberalism is a "failure" and anyone who chooses to be liberal is "foolish?"... expand on that a bit more, if you would...

    further, the Democratic of 70+ years ago does not resemble the one of today in any way shape or form, besides in name only... you know it, and i know it, so why be coy, comparing apples to oranges? the fact of the matter here is that the current neocon movement has taken slimey smear campaigns to a whole new level, and have, in fact perfected the tactic ...

    it's interesting that what we have here is yet another blowhard righty who sees the world only in black or white, and can not make a distinction between liberalism and communism... i would say today's right wing base resembles fascism far more than the far left resembles communism...
  20. bledsoetocoates

    bledsoetocoates Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It wasn't Democrats responsible for the racist Willie Horton ads in 1988, or for the smearing of the war record of a decorated Navy veteran in 2004. It was the Republicans.


    It wasn't the Democrats pulling the "crap" against Bosnia, it was the Republicans.

    Reagan was so keen on defense (and by that, I mean SDI-esque missile defense plans that don't work, and never have), that he actually requested larger budgets EVERY YEAR than Tip O'Neill or Jim Wright authorized. The Reagan-era budgets would have been $80 billion HIGHER if the Democrats had rubber-stamped Reagan's budgets.

    Nice job.

    Actually, several Republicans DID vote against Bork. That is because Bork was, and is, a radical.

    Republicans and Democrats alike have KO'd the nominations of several appointees-Haynsworth, Carswell, Babbitt.

    Hell, the Republicans threatened to raise such a stink over Babbitt that Clinton didn't even bother appointing him.

    Nobody needed to lie about that economy. Working people could see for themselves. That's why Clinton won the election.

    That is simply not true. Both the Bush and Nixon administrations have taken NSA and FBI files they were not permitted access to.

    Yes, defending a President guilty of war crimes and abuse of power is much, much better.

    It definitely was the Republicans who were claiming that Iraq had WMD's. The Clinton Administration never stated that Iraq had WMD's. They stated that Iraq had plutonium, and Bill Richardson made them get rid of it.

    Wait, what?

    Oh, dear.

    Of course the Republicans wouldn't pin any blame on the Dear Leader.

    Look, nobody's saying that Nagin and Blanco aren't at fault. I think they both are, and I don't support either of them.

    That said, the federal response was a disgrace as well, and you must have had a healthy helping of Kool-Aid to think otherwise.

    Sorry, this is just blatantly false.

    WHEN YOU TAKE OFFICE, you routinely ask every US Attorney for their resignation, with the full intent to rehire most of them later. Generally they all acquiesce with no problem.

    The ONLY time anybody's objected was in 1993, when several Republicans refused to resign to make Janet Reno look bad.

    In this case, the President didn't "not want" these people. He loved them for six years. He ******* endorsed David Iglesias' 2002 campaign for New Mexico Attorney General against Patricia Madrid: I bet you didn't know that.

    These people all receive glowing reports. They were sacked because the GOP wanted to do damage control after the midterm elections. We have records of GOP senators and Reps phoning these attorneys and basically threatening them to pursue investigations against Democrats, OR ELSE.

    That's illegal. And shameful.

    One of them, Chris Christie in NJ, did what they asked, pursuing a bogus investigation against Bob Menendez. Thankfully the NJ voters are smarter than the GOP gave them credit for.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>