6
6
0
Can you spell - G E S T A P O!!!
This new "Disinformation Panel" i.e., "Truth Panel" at the DHS is tantamount to the goals of the NAZI GESTAPO of WWII!!!
Is DHS serious that they are going to go after the speech they are defining as - called DISINFORMATION? WTHFO!!!!
My father and grandmother barely survived the holocaust, but not so for my grandfather and > 95% of my family line. The same lies about disinformation and managing "public" thought abounded then and is rearing its ugly small-minded head now from multiple arrays! Can you say Joseph Goebbels?
This person who is to head this new DHS function of seeking out so-called "disinformation" when you hear her talk sounds very Goebbels'esk in her language patterns!!! She "...fears free-speech...". Perhaps what she fears is the free exchange of the capacity to share and CHALLENGE ideas in an open marketplace of ALL ideas.
References to Goebbels and the GESTAPO:
- https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/goebbels-biography/
- https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/joseph-goebbels
- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrJSxfH7q0Q
- https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-gestapo.htm
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gestapo
- https://www.thoughtco.com/gestapo-4768965
As a veteran, I don't care which side of the political devide you are on, we were willing to laydown our lives to especially uphold the FIRST TWO Amendments to our precious Constitution. Having an idea and then having it challenged on its merits is - "not" a bad thing. Every day I am challenged to look at things in new ways. Every day I look deeper to fine sustainable solutions to deep challenges. This directed challenging pushes me - and I like it!!!
If one ONLY functions from a "surface" (i.e., shallow thinking) perspective and doesn't have the courage to think long and deep and outside one's warm and cuddly comfort zone about a topic, any topic, then those who welcome this new form of the THOUGHT POLICE (i.e., the modern-day GESTAPO) are COWARDS down to every cell in their bodies!!! Such people lack both honor and integrity!
If one does not have the intelligence to see BS being flung by all partisans (i.e., multiple sides of the political divide) then regardless, if you have PhD or HS Diploma perhaps, you are indeed beyond ignorant if you somehow believe this new DHS agency will not be, eventually, - WEAPONIZED - by either side in today's heat climate of mind-numbing rhetoric.
Finally, if we as AMERICANs cannot, are somehow NOT ALLOWED, to challenge hate on the right or the left from a perch of INDEPENDENT analysis (i.e., independent thought) with an expectation that such a right to do so that will be protected as the cornerstone of a FREE people then the battle is already lost and those who wish to control thought have already won. But if we value our fellow human beings and cherish healthy HONEST debate, then fighting against this new form of what will be TRYANICAL is a must, while exemplifying the requirement the "...people..." have the "...right of...peaceable assembly..." to "...petition the government for a redress of grievances...", in this case the grievance is "Who is one person or one group of unelected officials think they are to define what is or is not disinformation?" Will this new DHS function have the same Twitter-esk filters that lead to confirmation bias of desired speech and the same confirmation bias for undesired speech?
I agree some speech has practical limits, like not shouting fire in a crowded facility, just to see people scurry when there is not such an event, as the Supreme Court has already ruled. So, that leaves one with all other speech, even speech that transmits bias and prejudice. Speech I at times personally find offensive, yet speech I choose to challenge on its merits, rather its lack of merits!!! The Founders knew that once the freedom to speak, a freedom the British often worked to deny them, was not kept sacred and among the first rights that needed to be codified, they would NOT have a nation at all.
Just saying........................
This new "Disinformation Panel" i.e., "Truth Panel" at the DHS is tantamount to the goals of the NAZI GESTAPO of WWII!!!
Is DHS serious that they are going to go after the speech they are defining as - called DISINFORMATION? WTHFO!!!!
My father and grandmother barely survived the holocaust, but not so for my grandfather and > 95% of my family line. The same lies about disinformation and managing "public" thought abounded then and is rearing its ugly small-minded head now from multiple arrays! Can you say Joseph Goebbels?
This person who is to head this new DHS function of seeking out so-called "disinformation" when you hear her talk sounds very Goebbels'esk in her language patterns!!! She "...fears free-speech...". Perhaps what she fears is the free exchange of the capacity to share and CHALLENGE ideas in an open marketplace of ALL ideas.
References to Goebbels and the GESTAPO:
- https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/goebbels-biography/
- https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/joseph-goebbels
- https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrJSxfH7q0Q
- https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-gestapo.htm
- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gestapo
- https://www.thoughtco.com/gestapo-4768965
As a veteran, I don't care which side of the political devide you are on, we were willing to laydown our lives to especially uphold the FIRST TWO Amendments to our precious Constitution. Having an idea and then having it challenged on its merits is - "not" a bad thing. Every day I am challenged to look at things in new ways. Every day I look deeper to fine sustainable solutions to deep challenges. This directed challenging pushes me - and I like it!!!
If one ONLY functions from a "surface" (i.e., shallow thinking) perspective and doesn't have the courage to think long and deep and outside one's warm and cuddly comfort zone about a topic, any topic, then those who welcome this new form of the THOUGHT POLICE (i.e., the modern-day GESTAPO) are COWARDS down to every cell in their bodies!!! Such people lack both honor and integrity!
If one does not have the intelligence to see BS being flung by all partisans (i.e., multiple sides of the political divide) then regardless, if you have PhD or HS Diploma perhaps, you are indeed beyond ignorant if you somehow believe this new DHS agency will not be, eventually, - WEAPONIZED - by either side in today's heat climate of mind-numbing rhetoric.
Finally, if we as AMERICANs cannot, are somehow NOT ALLOWED, to challenge hate on the right or the left from a perch of INDEPENDENT analysis (i.e., independent thought) with an expectation that such a right to do so that will be protected as the cornerstone of a FREE people then the battle is already lost and those who wish to control thought have already won. But if we value our fellow human beings and cherish healthy HONEST debate, then fighting against this new form of what will be TRYANICAL is a must, while exemplifying the requirement the "...people..." have the "...right of...peaceable assembly..." to "...petition the government for a redress of grievances...", in this case the grievance is "Who is one person or one group of unelected officials think they are to define what is or is not disinformation?" Will this new DHS function have the same Twitter-esk filters that lead to confirmation bias of desired speech and the same confirmation bias for undesired speech?
I agree some speech has practical limits, like not shouting fire in a crowded facility, just to see people scurry when there is not such an event, as the Supreme Court has already ruled. So, that leaves one with all other speech, even speech that transmits bias and prejudice. Speech I at times personally find offensive, yet speech I choose to challenge on its merits, rather its lack of merits!!! The Founders knew that once the freedom to speak, a freedom the British often worked to deny them, was not kept sacred and among the first rights that needed to be codified, they would NOT have a nation at all.
Just saying........................
Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) | American Experience | PBS
Posted from pbs.orgPosted in these groups: 
World History
World History
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 8
4
4
0
US counter propaganda efforts by the government are not anything new. It's the old problem with propaganda and counter propaganda. The very act of attempting to counter it, is by definition going to involve taking a position.
If you believe that engaging in it makes the government a bunch a fascists then I have very bad news for you about the US government in WW II. We did it all the time and concertedly. We did it in the cold war and the fact that we took our eye off that ball is now showing up in a highly divided nation influenced on both the right and the left by hostile foreign powers flooding us with propaganda to cause that division.
"Herbert Romerstein, the working group’s longest serving member, summed up the dismantling of the AMWG, “Without counterpropaganda, we’ve unilaterally disarmed.” Consequently, the U.S. presently lacks the capability to counter active measures and sustain trust in media sources."
https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/countering-propaganda-disinformation-bring-back-active-measures-working-group/
If you believe that engaging in it makes the government a bunch a fascists then I have very bad news for you about the US government in WW II. We did it all the time and concertedly. We did it in the cold war and the fact that we took our eye off that ball is now showing up in a highly divided nation influenced on both the right and the left by hostile foreign powers flooding us with propaganda to cause that division.
"Herbert Romerstein, the working group’s longest serving member, summed up the dismantling of the AMWG, “Without counterpropaganda, we’ve unilaterally disarmed.” Consequently, the U.S. presently lacks the capability to counter active measures and sustain trust in media sources."
https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/countering-propaganda-disinformation-bring-back-active-measures-working-group/
COUNTERING PROPAGANDA AND DISINFORMATION: BRING BACK THE ACTIVE MEASURES WORKING GROUP?
Using the historical case of Soviet propaganda during the Cold War, this piece shows why the U.S. needs a robust capability to counter disinformation.
(4)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
PO1 Jeff Chandler - Just going to dodge the question with your weak insults, Jeff? I'm not surprised. I am sure there is very little about you that would surprise me, Jeff.
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MSgt Steve Sweeney - From the linK:
In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that “the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/education/431719-can-schools-require-students-to-say-the-pledge-of-allegiance/#:~:text=In%201943%2C%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled%20in%20West,American%20flag%20and%20say%20the%20Pledge%20of%20Allegiance.%E2%80%9D
In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that “the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance.”
https://thehill.com/opinion/education/431719-can-schools-require-students-to-say-the-pledge-of-allegiance/#:~:text=In%201943%2C%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled%20in%20West,American%20flag%20and%20say%20the%20Pledge%20of%20Allegiance.%E2%80%9D
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Is this somehow worse than calling the free press an "enemy of the state"?
Do you feel the U.S. government should stand idly by and let others, whether foreign governments or political entities freely peddle disinformation and misinformation to U.S. citizens?
How would you suggest combatting purposely spread disinformation and misinformation?
Do you feel the U.S. government should stand idly by and let others, whether foreign governments or political entities freely peddle disinformation and misinformation to U.S. citizens?
How would you suggest combatting purposely spread disinformation and misinformation?
(3)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
SFC Jason Werstak - Have you ever considered whatever selective clips you have seen of AOC were fed to you and filtered through your own brain? Congrats on your degree (from?), but your assessment of AOC's intelligence falls very short. If the "conservatives" were not so afraid of her, they wouldn't spend so much time trying to drag her down. Character assassination, from the Clintons to AOC, is a huge arrow in the right-wing quiver. A go-to staple of their fear and anger based strategy. You can say "conservatives" are not scared all you want, but actions speak louder than words. The people that I see calling AOC stupid are people who are not nearly as smart as they think they are. They have not been tested nor accomplished much. It is very similar to how you see people at the bar talking about how bad the professional athletes on TV are and how they could do a lot better from their vantage of a couple of seasons of high school football under their belt. A lot of talk with very little backing it up.
It is called church "doctrine" for a reason. It may vary from denomination to denomination, but every church has their doctrine and the members of the church are indoctrinated into said doctrine. The form of indoctrination varies, but it is indoctrination regardless.
Likewise, the military has expansive doctrine. You must know and follow the doctrine. When you trained privates, you were indoctrinating. Many service schools even call the initial phase of training "Indoc"... what do you think that stands for? Do you know why they still do close order drill? What practical application does it have on the modern battlefield? The entire process of recruit training is indoctrination into the military culture and society. That is all it is. You can call it "training" if you like, and that is an aspect. But much of recruit training... the vast majority of recruit training is "indoctrination". Removing individuality. Team building. Creating a unit out of individuals. That does not happen without indoctrination.
No, the Socratic method is not simply asking questions. There is a form and a function. Your understanding of the Socratic method may be oversimplified, which may be why you hold up Tucker Carlson as a "good" example. It was funny, don't get me wrong, but Tucker may not be the one you want to emulate.
Yes, trade skills require a certain level of intelligence and expertise, but it is of a different level and kind. Nothing wrong with trade skills at all, but on a whole, if you look at the distribution, people with higher level degrees are on average more intelligent and have access to a much wider pool of knowledge. It doesn't mean the trades do not require intelligence, or even that super intelligent people automatically default to a university path. I am talking on average looking at the full distribution of intelligence. Keep in mind, plenty of Republicans go to college as well... though in the age of Trump, that isn't the target demographic. As I have said a couple times before, it is hard to remove ego from the equation when looking at the question, but the statistics and data support the claim.
As for me, I have a PHD - A Public High School Diploma, and a huge library. I do have an Associates degree in auto mechanics (Associate of Automotive Science), but that is mostly because I like to work on cars and took some classes to work on cars better. I don't have any ASE certification, and while I likely have the hours, I haven't sat for the exams. No practical value at this time. So yeah, I understand the trades and and plenty of friends that are trades people.
It is called church "doctrine" for a reason. It may vary from denomination to denomination, but every church has their doctrine and the members of the church are indoctrinated into said doctrine. The form of indoctrination varies, but it is indoctrination regardless.
Likewise, the military has expansive doctrine. You must know and follow the doctrine. When you trained privates, you were indoctrinating. Many service schools even call the initial phase of training "Indoc"... what do you think that stands for? Do you know why they still do close order drill? What practical application does it have on the modern battlefield? The entire process of recruit training is indoctrination into the military culture and society. That is all it is. You can call it "training" if you like, and that is an aspect. But much of recruit training... the vast majority of recruit training is "indoctrination". Removing individuality. Team building. Creating a unit out of individuals. That does not happen without indoctrination.
No, the Socratic method is not simply asking questions. There is a form and a function. Your understanding of the Socratic method may be oversimplified, which may be why you hold up Tucker Carlson as a "good" example. It was funny, don't get me wrong, but Tucker may not be the one you want to emulate.
Yes, trade skills require a certain level of intelligence and expertise, but it is of a different level and kind. Nothing wrong with trade skills at all, but on a whole, if you look at the distribution, people with higher level degrees are on average more intelligent and have access to a much wider pool of knowledge. It doesn't mean the trades do not require intelligence, or even that super intelligent people automatically default to a university path. I am talking on average looking at the full distribution of intelligence. Keep in mind, plenty of Republicans go to college as well... though in the age of Trump, that isn't the target demographic. As I have said a couple times before, it is hard to remove ego from the equation when looking at the question, but the statistics and data support the claim.
As for me, I have a PHD - A Public High School Diploma, and a huge library. I do have an Associates degree in auto mechanics (Associate of Automotive Science), but that is mostly because I like to work on cars and took some classes to work on cars better. I don't have any ASE certification, and while I likely have the hours, I haven't sat for the exams. No practical value at this time. So yeah, I understand the trades and and plenty of friends that are trades people.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez questions Mark Zuckerberg on when Facebook will fact check
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pressed Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg for answers during a House Financial Services Committee about when the social media giant wi...
The military indoctrinates. Period. It is not an argument. It is a established fact. You may not like the word "indoctrination" from your understanding of it. That does not mean the military does not indoctrinate. It does. That is what recruit training is designed to do. It isn't political indoctrination, it is military indoctrination. That is what the military does. Period. End of argument. There is no counter argument. It is what the military does. It is the primary purpose of entry level training, recruit training, boot-camp, officer candidate school, what have you. The primary objective of these courses is indoctrination. Period.
I did not say indoctrination is a bad thing. It is necessary for the military, especially for a military of a democratic nation that puts so much emphasis on the individual and individual liberties. The military cannot function as a liberal democracy. It is a authoritarian meritocracy that stands in defense of democracy. But there is absolutely no argument that the military indoctrinates regardless of your "feelings" about the word.
That said, a wise man once said "Doctrine is the refuge of the unimaginative", and that rings true, but an equally wise man once said, "You have to know the rules before you break the rules". Both ring true.
As for your experience with college educated people, and going off my personal education level, you may not want to jump to that conclusion. Despite my education level, I work a white collar job surrounded by people with advanced degrees. My peer and colleague is a retired admiral (college educated MBA). I have worked with top level physicists, microbiologists, organic chemists, you name it. My CV may be short, but my list of contacts is quite expansive. And I don't know what you mean about my assertion of a "college education" specifically. You may want to go back and see what exactly I was asserting.
As for AOC, here is a clip of her cross examination of Mark Zuckerberg. Some debaters as an example of how to conduct a cross examination. Check her Socratic method. Notice how Zuckerberg suddenly suffers from memory problems... seems to be going around.
https://youtu.be/xT9BRUoXhh8
I did not say indoctrination is a bad thing. It is necessary for the military, especially for a military of a democratic nation that puts so much emphasis on the individual and individual liberties. The military cannot function as a liberal democracy. It is a authoritarian meritocracy that stands in defense of democracy. But there is absolutely no argument that the military indoctrinates regardless of your "feelings" about the word.
That said, a wise man once said "Doctrine is the refuge of the unimaginative", and that rings true, but an equally wise man once said, "You have to know the rules before you break the rules". Both ring true.
As for your experience with college educated people, and going off my personal education level, you may not want to jump to that conclusion. Despite my education level, I work a white collar job surrounded by people with advanced degrees. My peer and colleague is a retired admiral (college educated MBA). I have worked with top level physicists, microbiologists, organic chemists, you name it. My CV may be short, but my list of contacts is quite expansive. And I don't know what you mean about my assertion of a "college education" specifically. You may want to go back and see what exactly I was asserting.
As for AOC, here is a clip of her cross examination of Mark Zuckerberg. Some debaters as an example of how to conduct a cross examination. Check her Socratic method. Notice how Zuckerberg suddenly suffers from memory problems... seems to be going around.
https://youtu.be/xT9BRUoXhh8
(0)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Best Moments Supercut | NowThis
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) has made a huge splash in Washington. These are her highlights after less than a year in office.» Subscribe to NowThis: h...
SFC Jason Werstak - Here is something else for your AOC file. Keep in mind that when she was elected, she was the youngest women ever to get elected to Congress. Also keep in mind, just because you disagree with her position, that does not make her stupid. I am willing to bet you may actually agree with her at some points in these clips.
This is an hour long, but give it a chance and think how much time you have spent with AOC clips or "memes" fed to you by right-wing media... give it equal time. If you want to be selective, check out her questioning on campaign finance starting at 8:30ish. It will show you a great example of the Socratic method.
https://youtu.be/1LvmPL-ubsI
This is an hour long, but give it a chance and think how much time you have spent with AOC clips or "memes" fed to you by right-wing media... give it equal time. If you want to be selective, check out her questioning on campaign finance starting at 8:30ish. It will show you a great example of the Socratic method.
https://youtu.be/1LvmPL-ubsI
(0)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
SFC Jason Werstak - As I said, disagreeing with her position does not make her stupid. I am relatively sure I could have told you where you stand on any one of the positions AOC was taking in the clips... that wasn't the point. What I provided was a good faith attempt to demonstrate that AOC comes prepared, knows the subject matter, and has the ability to articulate and defend her position. An articulate use of the Socratic method you had mentioned before. This may be lost on a lot of people. The point was the manner in which she approached the subject. You instead chose to argue these points as if that were the conversation we were having.
Listen, if you want to call people "F--- tards" simply because you disagree with them, you are free to do so, but it says more about you than it does about them. Personally, I think you missed quite a bit and are forming your opinions based on your feelings and emotions rather than any type of objective assessment. That and I feel you have entrenched yourself in the position that "AOC is stupid" so aggressively that a big part of your ego will not let you move off that position, as if you would lose face if you were to recognize her intelligence, even if you disagree with her. Not much more to be gained here. You go on hating AOC if you wish. That is your baggage to carry.
One note though, when AOC was engaging with Mr. Garrity of the FBI, I think she missed an opportunity to ask how it makes any sense at all that for something to be charged as "DOMESTIC Terrorism" that it must have a link to a FOREIGN terrorist organization? It does not follow and didn't make any sense at all to me.
Ultimately I think we are approaching these issues on different levels. You put yourself in the position of how you would have answered AOC, and that wasn't really what our conversation was about. You asked my to provide examples of AOC "being intelligent". I, in good faith, attempted to provide examples of what you asked for. Perhaps our standards of what constitutes intelligence are different. You appear to be of the mind that if someone says something you disagree with, then they are stupid or a "F--- tard". You are free to believe what you want to believe. At the very least I hope I was able to provide you a larger context on what the word "indoctrinate" means. Beyond that, I don't think there is much more to be gained here. Best of luck to you.
Listen, if you want to call people "F--- tards" simply because you disagree with them, you are free to do so, but it says more about you than it does about them. Personally, I think you missed quite a bit and are forming your opinions based on your feelings and emotions rather than any type of objective assessment. That and I feel you have entrenched yourself in the position that "AOC is stupid" so aggressively that a big part of your ego will not let you move off that position, as if you would lose face if you were to recognize her intelligence, even if you disagree with her. Not much more to be gained here. You go on hating AOC if you wish. That is your baggage to carry.
One note though, when AOC was engaging with Mr. Garrity of the FBI, I think she missed an opportunity to ask how it makes any sense at all that for something to be charged as "DOMESTIC Terrorism" that it must have a link to a FOREIGN terrorist organization? It does not follow and didn't make any sense at all to me.
Ultimately I think we are approaching these issues on different levels. You put yourself in the position of how you would have answered AOC, and that wasn't really what our conversation was about. You asked my to provide examples of AOC "being intelligent". I, in good faith, attempted to provide examples of what you asked for. Perhaps our standards of what constitutes intelligence are different. You appear to be of the mind that if someone says something you disagree with, then they are stupid or a "F--- tard". You are free to believe what you want to believe. At the very least I hope I was able to provide you a larger context on what the word "indoctrinate" means. Beyond that, I don't think there is much more to be gained here. Best of luck to you.
(0)
(0)
CPO Nate S.
Godwin's Law. Right, how foolish of me.
So, are you saying that when it emanates from the right or the left the conversation stops? Of course, you are!
I would agree, the comparison to WWII and that dreadful time is something people want to forget and is - overplayed in today's heated rhetoric environment. Which begs the question - Why is it overused?
It is a convenient 'dog whistle', often used by the so-called elite (right and left) without a logical and balanced argument for its casual casting into the discussion winds. Of this I have no doubt!!!
That said, I understand that in June 2018, Godwin wrote an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times denying the need to update or amend his rule. Apparently, he rejected the idea that whoever invokes Godwin's Law has lost the argument. Seems, he went on to argue that appropriate application of the rule "should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."
So, if that is true, the comparison to NAZI Germany should be a "...conversation starter..." then I understand why I lost so many people, they only use the words and have no substance or context with which to argue their counter- or counter-counter points. History is complicated (i.e., double edged) and many are not comfortable enough to address it head on. I get it! Yet does that mean the comparison should not be made? No, it does not!
Our government is not perfect because it is run by imperfect "human beings". For that reason, we right, left, or center of all creeds and persuasions must be able, if people choose to listen or not voice what is in our hearts or on our minds. Then have the courage to defend or retract.
Invoking Godwin's Law, is a conversation starter - does anyone else care to join in?
Personal Note: I have in the past few years received family diaries and stories that I read over and over from WWII experiences. While I appreciate your offering of Godwin's Law, respectfully, if people choose to ignore history, then that is on them! Making the comparison does not make it so or NOT so. Rather, it should be a conversation starter.
Just saying..................
So, are you saying that when it emanates from the right or the left the conversation stops? Of course, you are!
I would agree, the comparison to WWII and that dreadful time is something people want to forget and is - overplayed in today's heated rhetoric environment. Which begs the question - Why is it overused?
It is a convenient 'dog whistle', often used by the so-called elite (right and left) without a logical and balanced argument for its casual casting into the discussion winds. Of this I have no doubt!!!
That said, I understand that in June 2018, Godwin wrote an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times denying the need to update or amend his rule. Apparently, he rejected the idea that whoever invokes Godwin's Law has lost the argument. Seems, he went on to argue that appropriate application of the rule "should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."
So, if that is true, the comparison to NAZI Germany should be a "...conversation starter..." then I understand why I lost so many people, they only use the words and have no substance or context with which to argue their counter- or counter-counter points. History is complicated (i.e., double edged) and many are not comfortable enough to address it head on. I get it! Yet does that mean the comparison should not be made? No, it does not!
Our government is not perfect because it is run by imperfect "human beings". For that reason, we right, left, or center of all creeds and persuasions must be able, if people choose to listen or not voice what is in our hearts or on our minds. Then have the courage to defend or retract.
Invoking Godwin's Law, is a conversation starter - does anyone else care to join in?
Personal Note: I have in the past few years received family diaries and stories that I read over and over from WWII experiences. While I appreciate your offering of Godwin's Law, respectfully, if people choose to ignore history, then that is on them! Making the comparison does not make it so or NOT so. Rather, it should be a conversation starter.
Just saying..................
(2)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
CPO Nate S. - At the point you say "So you are saying..." and then go on to say something that was entirely formulated in your head, you lost everyone else. But to be fair you may have won back a few who have no interest in a good faith discussion.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google