DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: MissusDe on April 11, 2007, 05:26:46 PM
-
Who's Next to Host ABC's The View -- David Duke?
Steven Zak
Tue Apr 10, 3:30 PM ET
Deniers of 9/11 and of the Holocaust are two of a kind. It is a given that television networks put profits above pride, but ABC has reached a new low in its sponsorship of Rosie O'Donnell. The daytime talk show host recently joined the world of "truthers" --people who believe that 9/11 was an attack staged by this country's own government.
On ABC's popular The View, O'Donnell lent her expert opinion that it is impossible for the World Trade Center's building 7 "to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved." To say otherwise, she added, "is beyond ignorant." (When she isn't offering instruction on the fine points of structural engineering, O'Donnell entertains by hanging upside-down from a rope.)
If this all sounds like the howling of a rabid dog, O'Donnell isn't alone in the kennel. A recent poll from the Scripps Research Center found that more than a third of Americans believe that 9/11 was an "inside job." Those who actively promote the idea, though, are more than mere laughable loons. They bear resemblance to another particularly virulent conspiracy nut -- the Holocaust denier.
It may be coincidence that O'Donnell's 9/11 denial has manifested itself in such close proximity to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "Holocaust conference" of last December, but she sounds a lot like many of its participants.
Both profess interest in the pursuit of truth.
Mahammad Ali Ramini, advisor to Ahmadinejad, announced that he would chair a committee to find "the truth on the genocide of Jews."
O'Donnell says that she is merely "trying, as always, for a rigorous truth."
And both profess total objectivity in that pursuit.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki made an offer to British Prime Minister Tony Blair to send "independent investigators" to visit former Nazi death camps -- people "who are not sympathetic" to the Nazis nor "to the Zionist regime."
"I have begun doing exactly what this country, at its best, allows for me to do," wrote O'Donnell on her blog. "Inquire. Investigate."
Yet for both, "truth" precedes "investigation."
The Holocaust, Ahmadinejad said at the start of the "conference," is a "myth."
The terrorist attack of 9/11, said O'Donnell at the mere outset of her "inquiry," "is impossible."
Both make shameless use of fabricated math and science.
"The number of victims at the Auschwitz concentration camp," said Australian Holocaust denier Frederick Toben, "could be about 2,007. The railroad to the camp did not have enough capacity to transfer large numbers of Jews."
"I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel," said O'Donnell. "It is physically impossible."
And both cite "studies" or "experts" without actually citing any studies or experts.
"All the studies and research carried out so far have proven that there is no reason to believe that the Holocaust ever occurred," said former Iranian interior minister and Hezbollah cofounder Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour.
"Look at the films, get a physics expert in here from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school," said O'Donnell.
The worlds of deniers O'Donnell and Ahmadinejad intersected more overtly when the former defended the latter's hostage taking of 15 British sailors and Royal Marines who, O'Donnell ruled by fiat, "went into Iranian waters and they were seized by the Iranians." O'Donnell added her expression of sympathy for mass murderers the world over: "Don't fear the terrorists. They're mothers and fathers."
Only one with the most sinister sentiments toward the country that gave her so much for so little could express such warm regard for its most determined enemies. And therein lies the real similarity between Holocaust deniers and 9/11 deniers. The "theories" of both, which could otherwise only be explained as serious psychopathology, are but expressions of venom and bile. The former hate Jews (and, often, the United States). The latter hate the United States (and, often, Jews).
White House press secretary Tony Snow's description of Ahmadinejad's conference as "a platform of hatred," then, applies as well to the current incarnation of The View.
Which leads to this question: If ratings were strong, would ABC allow, say, David Duke to host a show on which he preached his doubts about the Holocaust and his fondness for Nazis? Stay tuned and the answer will soon be revealed -- by whether and how fast the network pulls the plug on O'Donnell.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070410/cm_rcp/whos_next_to_host_abcs_the_vie;_ylt=AqKYa5_QsZC8tqku40sT1CTMWM0F
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070410/cm_rcp/whos_next_to_host_abcs_the_vie;_ylt=AqKYa5_QsZC8tqku40sT1CTMWM0F)
-
A scurrilous attempt at right-wing smears, Missus, but for what reason? No thinking person can equate David Dukes's hate-filled screed, a persistent, public effort to vilify and debase, with the gratuitous efforts of Rosie O'Donnell to show insight into things she's knows absolutely nothing about, for the purpose of controversy and ratings, and her pathetic effort to seem cool and wise at the obvious cost of both. Rosie is a leftie, unabashedly, and more power to her. Save maybe for Donald Trump (who she actually was quite funny ridiculing), O'Donnell does not pick on identifiable groups of people in a manner corrosive of their very human dignity. She's a peckerwood, not meaning harm but craving for love. Her paranoid rant about the Twin Towers, though packaged as an indictment of "the government," really was a stab at the more-ubiquitous today, it seems, paranoid "them," the safe target for intellectually-challenged, stability-impaired, would-be divas of the hip, something she will never be. Another thing she'll never be like is David Duke, and you should be ashamed of yourself, Missus.
-
The people I know in Ohio who don't believe 9/11 happened the way the government said...none of them are Holocaust deniers. That's a laughable attempt at a smear.
No, they're just citizens who rightly or wrongly do not trust the government approved story of 9/11, of at least one of the buildings. They aren't structural engineers or explosives experts. They just do not buy it. Some I find to be wacky. Some I know quite well and they're not at all wacky. I think they have more in common with people who don't believe in the Warren Report version of JFK's assassination.
-
I checked out Zak's website, "American Thinker," from which I learned that not only are 9-11 conspiracy buffs Holocaust deniers, but that Cindy Sheehan is a Nazi and that John Kerry solicited KKK votes.
Geeze, this guy is a real wake-up call for America! German lessons anyone?
-
The people I know in Ohio who don't believe 9/11 happened the way the government said...none of them are Holocaust deniers. That's a laughable attempt at a smear.
Perhaps some reading leassons are in order. "They bear resemblance to another particularly virulent conspiracy nut -- the Holocaust denier," does not mean that you must be a Holocaust denier to believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. It just means that both stem from similar forms of (flawed) thinking.
-
This is a "curious" juxtaposition by a couple of hate-filled pricks. It's not, to me, the labyrinthine connections of a paranoid mind that causes concern here, but the NECESSARY equations of the two distinct efforts in that regard in terms of hate-filled intent. Fuck you, Ami.
-
Fuck you, Ami.
You're not my type. Thanks for the offer, though.
-
Pathetic.
-
Pathetic.
Yeah, your "fuck you" sure was pathetic.
-
Domer, you must be schezofrentic. Sometimes., I must read and re-read your posts because they are so deep and then you go off and act like a teenager. Go figure!
-
BT, please feel free to kick off folks who act like this. You have my permission (not that you need it). Anytime will suffice.
-
Domer, you must be schezofrentic. Sometimes., I must read and re-read your posts because they are so deep and then you go off and act like a teenager. Go figure!
Domer does that when he has no cogent response.
-
A scurrilous attempt at right-wing smears, Missus, but for what reason?
Dang, domer. You do love to assign motive and intent, don't you?
You know, if you truly wanted to know why I posted the article, you could have asked me without inserting your opinion. I would have gladly answered: "Because I think Rosie O'Donnell is a no-talent tool. If her blog wasn't evidence enough, her willingness to join the Conspiracy Lemmings ought to prove it."
-
All the feds had to do was let the so called "conspiracy nuts" access to the crime scene. If they could not come up with any evidence that would have ended the suspicion. I don't think Rossie did anything wrong. All she really ask for is a real investigation.
-
All the feds had to do was let the so called "conspiracy nuts" access to the crime scene. If they could not come up with any evidence that would have ended the suspicion. I don't think Rossie did anything wrong. All she really ask for is a real investigation.
Do the conspiracy nuts include any qualified investigators?
How credulous does one have to be to doubt the population of New York as witnesses?
-
Do the conspiracy nuts include any qualified investigators
I think it does. Everyone who has tried to raise public awareness has been attack. Rossie is just an example of what others have been subject to from the start.
-
I don't think Rossie did anything wrong. All she really ask for is a real investigation.
Larry - a real investigation would, by necessity, be an impartial investigation. Do Rosie's words indicate that she possesses an open mind? Or has she already decided the outcome and is seeking validation?
-
Do the conspiracy nuts include any qualified investigators
I think it does. Everyone who has tried to raise public awareness has been attack. Rossie is just an example of what others have been subject to from the start.
Would a qualified inestigator discount the testimony of thousands of eyewitnesses ?
-
<<"Because I think Rosie O'Donnell is a no-talent tool. If her blog wasn't evidence enough, her willingness to join the Conspiracy Lemmings ought to prove it.">>
So you proved your point by quoting from a conspiracy lemming of a different stripe?
-
So you proved your point by quoting from a conspiracy lemming of a different stripe?
Well, it helps that Rosie's quoted "facts" are not true.
-
<<Well, it helps that Rosie's quoted "facts" are not true.>>
I wasn't defending Rosie, I was attacking the anti-Rosie source quoted. The guy's a fucking nut-case.
-
I don't think Rossie did anything wrong. All she really ask for is a real investigation.
Larry - a real investigation would, by necessity, be an impartial investigation. Do Rosie's words indicate that she possesses an open mind? Or has she already decided the outcome and is seeking validation?
Missusde, I agree Rossie has made up here mind on the issue. I believe what she did was to use her celebrity status to support people she believes have provided evidence. The film footage shown on the view that day does raise some serious questions. I did not see any fire from the building and I did not see any damage to the building that would suggest the building was struck by falling Debris from the twin towers. I think there is credible evidence that warrant an investigation by someone other than government agents.
No one should be above suspicion just because of who they are. All credible evidence should be investigated.
-
I did not see any fire from the building and I did not see any damage to the building that would suggest the building was struck by falling Debris from the twin towers. I think there is credible evidence that warrant an investigation by someone other than government agents.
The fire was inside in the basement. There were a number of large fuel tanks inside that building to power the emergency backup generators. In addition, there are a number of photos taken after the first two towers fell and before building 7 fell that show a large section of one corner of building 7 scooped out by falling debris.
Both of those facts were brought up here in this forum several times.
-
Why some people I know first thought that building's falling was fishy:
1.They could see no damage (but they weren't at the scene)
2. The Saudi citizens, some of them bin Laden family members, were gotten out of the country quickly after the Towers were hit. (I don't remember the date but I think it was about 3 or 4 days later.)
This, I think, led people to be extremely suspicious of the government. So they worked backward and came up with a conspiracy theory. It's just as bad, logically speaking I mean, as when Cheney cherry-picked intel to work backward to come up with a conclusion he's already formed.
-
So they worked backward and came up with a conspiracy theory. It's just as bad, logically speaking I mean, as when Cheney cherry-picked intel to work backward to come up with a conclusion he's already formed.
Or like when some people look at a small group that is against mandatory vaccinations and concludes "all Republicans want women to die of cancer," mostly because that person had already concluded that all Republicans are bad.
-
Ami, I know that not all Republicans actually want women to die of cancer. My point in making that statement was that this powerful group, the FRC (which Ohio's crooked former Sec. of State just joined) is very influential and yes, can cause future cancer deaths. Simply because they don't want girls to become sexually active, as if having a vaccine against genital warts is going to make teens any more sexually active.
-
My point in making that statement was that this powerful group, the FRC (which Ohio's crooked former Sec. of State just joined) is very influential and yes, can cause future cancer deaths.
I know of no one who votes based on the FRC's recommendations.
So, they can't be all that powerful a group.
I guess I'll renew my criticism that "Democrats want US soldiers to die" because Kerry relied on political contributions that were gathered by fund raisers that also supported the terrorist organizations fighting against the US in Iraq.
It's just as valid a criticism.
So, how do you feel about supporting a group that wants US soldiers to die?
-
<<I know of no one who votes based on the FRC's recommendations.>>
What is the FRC and what does it matter that no one you know votes on their recommendations? I bet you don't know anyone who voted on Don Imus' recommendations either, but that doesnt' detract from the power that he had to influence people.
I would suspect from the nature of the dialogue that FRC is some kind of organization that gives aid and cover to legislators who vote for what would otherwise be unsuppportable legislation or fail to vote for what would otherwise be obviously essential legislation. Permits them to make legislative decisions directly in opposition to the public good and yet shields them from the voters' wrath for so doing. Some kind of fact-falsifying or fact-obscuring organization useful to Republicans zealously working for corporate interests and pretending to be serving "the people."
In which case they (FRC) would have a lot of power whether or not anyone you know votes on their recommendations.
OTOH I could be talking right out of my ass, and FRC could be something entirely different. But this looks like it is shaping up to be a very busy day and I might nothave the time to ask what FRC is, wait for the answer and then respond, so I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and take my best shot at it. Apologies in advance if I mis-gauged the issue.
-
Missus,
I agree that Rosie is a talentless hack. She is a member of the "New Left" and I don't much care for that on principle. Yet, comparing her to David Duke and Holocaust deniers? I don't think that's very fair or for that matter, reasonable.
-
What is the FRC and what does it matter that no one you know votes on their recommendations?
The FRC is the "Family Research Council" and they're a rather small group of religious wackos. Last time I checked, this lobbying group controlled about 10 million dollars in funds, which is a drop in the bucket in current political races. Yeah, they might be able to influence a few races nationwide, but nothing major, like the big groups can.
It matters because Lanya claimed it to be a "powerful group," which "is very influential and yes, can cause future cancer deaths."
-
Ami, I know that not all Republicans actually want women to die of cancer. My point in making that statement was that this powerful group, the FRC (which Ohio's crooked former Sec. of State just joined) is very influential and yes, can cause future cancer deaths. Simply because they don't want girls to become sexually active, as if having a vaccine against genital warts is going to make teens any more sexually active.
Last time I went to their website I could not find them advocateing the POV that this vaccine was a bad thing.
How are you sure that this is not a lie told about them?
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PV07D03
From reading this article I would have thought them to be against makeing the vaccine manditory , not for makeing it hard to get.
-
Then they have changed their story.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624954.500
' ' In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.' '
-
Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV
Is this statement untrue?
-
Then they have changed their story.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624954.500
' ' In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.' '
You never found this attitude (that the vaccine is a bad idea) from the Actual Family reasearch council did you ?
You are useing a quote selected by a critic.
So how can you know that this whole thing is not a lie told about the Family Reasearch council?
-
Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV
Is this statement untrue?
Abstinence is also the best way to prevent the continuance of humanity. Hmm- Maybe not such a bad idea after all.
-
Abstinence is also the best way to prevent the continuance of humanity.
This is true, but it doesn't address the original question.
-
Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV
Is this statement untrue?
Abstinence is also the best way to prevent the continuance of humanity. Hmm- Maybe not such a bad idea after all.
Infectious disease can do a major job of Population reduction too.
I would not advise anyone to be promiscouous , but perhaps for people who thought they had lived long enough , it may be reasonable.