Ben Stein just wrote a book comparing Darwin to Hitler. It's believable.ghostrunner wrote:I'm skeptical about this. Stein's a pretty reasonable guy.GatewaySnayke wrote: Ben Stein and Glenn Beck are drawing comparisons between Obama and Hilter.
Stein likes Hitler comparisons. His Expelled movie, for example, claims that belief in natural selection leads to Nazism. For the most part, I just find Stein kind of dopey. I don't understand why he's a national political commentator.ghostrunner wrote:I'm skeptical about this. Stein's a pretty reasonable guy.GatewaySnayke wrote: Ben Stein and Glenn Beck are drawing comparisons between Obama and Hilter.
Wow, they also compared FDR to Hitler there. So are they trying to say FDR was a bad president, when he's universally regarded as a top 3 president?pop_haines wrote:Believe it.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200807240001?f=h_latest
And it's still July, folks.
Well, it sounds bad because those people ended up doing bad things. However, getting a huge following like that *is* important. At the end of the day, those regimes got things done. Given, their particular regimes ended up doing very bad things. As long as you trust Obama not to engage in genocide, etc., wouldn't we all like a president that at least gets his agenda accomplished, and not just say a bunch of campaign rhetoric that never actually gets accomplished because of bi-partisan bickering and whatever else?ghostrunner wrote:Stein's dad was a pretty well known economist back in the day, and he's written on that subject in some depth before.
I have to wade into this and defend him a little bit here. I'm probably voting for Obama at this point - but, I have some of the same reservations about Obama's campaign so far. The comparison is not to Hitler, the tyrannical anti-semite. It's a comparison of political methods and propaganda. With respect to that and FDR, it's about him putting himself up as a savior, or at least tacitly accepting that role.
I saw one of the Obama "hope" stickers on a car yesterday. It's a portrait, rendered in three or four colors. Very iconic looking and attractive, and everyone's probably seen them. My wife has one, but not on her car. His face, and HOPE written in huge caps underneath. It's more similar to communist propaganda than Hitler's stuff. Like seeing portraits of Stalin or Lenin or Mao everywhere. I don't think he's even behind those stickers in particular, so my discomfort is more with his followers. But I am a little uncomfortable with his willingness to indulge that mentality at the same time. Putting himself in a huge setting like that where HE is the attraction strikes me as a little over the top.
I understand the campaign is more about him than any particular idea. I don't particularly care for that, but I recognize he has to play into it a little bit to succeed. Nevertheless, it still bugs me a little and he walks a fine line.
Just checked and actually it looks like he sells similar stuff on his campaign site. I don't particularly care for it.
Having said that, Stein ought to avoid any mention of Hitler.
It's not all about getting things done. Would you like it if Bush got his whole agenda accomplished? No, I think the bickering is largely a good thing. The Democrats should have done more of it.Popeye_Card wrote: Well, it sounds bad because those people ended up doing bad things. However, getting a huge following like that *is* important. At the end of the day, those regimes got things done. Given, their particular regimes ended up doing very bad things. As long as you trust Obama not to engage in genocide, etc., wouldn't we all like a president that at least gets his agenda accomplished, and not just say a bunch of campaign rhetoric that never actually gets accomplished because of bi-partisan bickering and whatever else?
Well, Bush did use a huge wave of popularity post-9/11 to get a bunch of stuff he wanted done. The big difference is, I didn't like his agenda going into office, and I of course still don't like it.ghostrunner wrote:It's not all about getting things done. Would you like it if Bush got his whole agenda accomplished? No, I think the bickering is largely a good thing. The Democrats should have done more of it.Popeye_Card wrote: Well, it sounds bad because those people ended up doing bad things. However, getting a huge following like that *is* important. At the end of the day, those regimes got things done. Given, their particular regimes ended up doing very bad things. As long as you trust Obama not to engage in genocide, etc., wouldn't we all like a president that at least gets his agenda accomplished, and not just say a bunch of campaign rhetoric that never actually gets accomplished because of bi-partisan bickering and whatever else?
Related to that, I don't like the office of President getting more attention and power than it already has. People forget about Congress and their own local governments. The iconography and cult of personality doesn't help that cause any. People like to get on Bush for rolling over the Constitution, but I have no doubt whatsoever that if Obama tried to push an increase in emissions requirements by executive order, many of those same people would have no problem with it. Clinton used executive orders all the time, including starting the Kosovo war without Congressional approval.
Basically, i think Obama is partly feeding an idea that is going to end up disappointing many people.
That's true about his dad. Ben, on the other hand, doesn't appear to understand the subject. Nevertheless, he's been given a weekly column in the New York Times business section and a regular commentary on NPR.ghostrunner wrote:Stein's dad was a pretty well known economist back in the day, and he's written on that subject in some depth before.
