Belafonte Invokes 'Gestapo' Image.

[ChiptBeef]

"Belafonte accuses Bush of Gestapo tactics"

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10964067

Harry has a right to freedom of speech and dissent. His invocation of the Gestapo image of the Nazis regime against our government is tantamount to hate speech, IMO. While Harry didn't call our President a "terrorist" to his face, based on the times we're in, those are fighting words, IMO. Hate speech and fighting words are not protected by our constitution. I think Harry owes the Jewish community and our president an apology for his offensive hate speech and fighting words.

[gmc]

posted by chiptbeef

Harry has a right to freedom of speech and dissent.


But only so long as he doesn't use it to criticise the government? You jest I take it.

Bush, he said, rose to power “somewhat dubiously and ... then lies to the people of this nation, misleads them, misinstructs, and then sends off hundreds of thousands of our own boys and girls to a foreign land that has not aggressed against us.”


Sue him for slander then.

Tony Blair is a liar, but since I live in a free country I can say that.

[ChiptBeef]

Another troubling aspect is that the "greatest tyrant and terrorist in the world" attack by Harry Belafonte against President Bush came as Harry was standing next to Venezualian president Hugo Chavez, an alleged anti-semite. Maybe Harry should stick to being a singer and actor.

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments ... ts_id=4099

[TruthSeekerToo]

gmc wrote: But only so long as he doesn't use it to criticise the government? Sue him for slander then. Tony Blair is a liar, but since I live in a free country I can say that.
Criticizing our government (in America) is almost sacred. Using verbal attacks that could cause harm or incite violence is different. I'm about sick of entertainers that think they are above standards that most others live by. His remarks are easily seen as offensive to many. I see him as part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[StupidCowboyTricks]

TruthSeekerToo wrote: Criticizing our government (in America) is almost sacred. Using verbal attacks that could cause harm or incite violence is different. I'm about sick of entertainers that think they are above standards that most others live by. His remarks are easily seen as offensive to many. I see him as part of the problem, not part of the solution.




kind of like John Wayne.

[RedGlitter]

I see no problem with what he's said. I don't feel he owes the jewish community any apologies and I certainly don't believe in the concept of "hate speech."

[StupidCowboyTricks]

SnoozeControl wrote: Yeah, I don't see why a Nazi reference would offend Jews... if anything, that's insulting to Germans.



By the way, is TruthSeekerToo related to Chipt in some way? Brother, sister, lover, other personality?


Biggest Fan:-2

[gmc]

posted by truthseekertoo

Criticizing our government (in America) is almost sacred. Using verbal attacks that could cause harm or incite violence is different. I'm about sick of entertainers that think they are above standards that most others live by. His remarks are easily seen as offensive to many. I see him as part of the problem, not part of the solution.


Please elucidate. Are you reading a different article? Where does he cause harm or incite violence.

I see him as part of the problem, not part of the solution


Bad use of the phrase in this context, or do you have a solution in mind for those, like Belafonte, who disagree?

from the article

“We’ve come to this dark time in which the new Gestapo of Homeland Security lurks here, where citizens are having their rights suspended,” Belafonte said in a speech to the annual meeting of the Arts Presenters Members Conference.

“You can be arrested and not charged. You can be arrested and have no right to counsel,” said Belafonte.


TB tried that as well so far without as much success he would like. We didn't need these kind of draconian powers before to fight terrorism before we don't now. Same with ID cards he's taking a kicking over the issue.

You will notice when govts try to extend police powers and their control over people's privacy the phrase you have nothing to fear if you are innocent keeps cropping up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4329839.stm

Its original use was more straightforward - a writ to bring a prisoner into court to testify in a pending trial. But what began as a weapon for the king and the courts became - as the political climate changed - protection for the individual against arbitrary detention by the state.

It is thought to have been common law by the time of Magna Carta, which says in Article 39: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him except upon the lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land."

Over the next few hundred years, concern grew that kings would whimsically intervene on matters of detention, so it was enshrined in law in 1679.

[StupidCowboyTricks]

"You will notice when govts try to extend police powers and their control over people's privacy the phrase you have nothing to fear if you are innocent keeps cropping up. "





Sadly GMC this is the "New Battle Cry" being put out there.



....................................

[gmc]

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

Martin Luther King


Seemed apposite, did you not have a martin luther king day recently?



posted by stupidcowboytricks

Sadly GMC this is the "New Battle Cry" being put out there.


Hopefully you're not all daft enough to rally to the banner.

[ChiptBeef]

In a transcript from the 1/23/06 CNN program "Situation Room," Harry Belafonte tries to defend his prior racially charged comments that can be viewed by many as offensive hate speech and fighting words. To add insult to injury, Belafonte tries to lay the burden of the Holocaust at the feet of "the Jews of Germany" and people who had not "spoken out much earlier and had resisted the tyranny that was on the horizon..." Senator Barack Obama condemned the use of "Nazis analogies." Wolf Blitzer observed "But Belafonte is standing behind his no-holds-barred assault on the president."

http://www.cnn.com under "Situation Room" link.

The offensive nature of Belafonte's remarks are clear and evident to any person with even a basic understanding of history, which is repleat with instances of a varied pool of heroes that stood up against the Nazis regime. To resort to such racially charged comments exhibits the lowest and most repulsive denominator in the process of debate.

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/resistance/

[TruthSeekerToo]

gmc wrote: posted by truthseekertoo

Please elucidate. Bad use of the phrase in this context,
An en.wikipedia.org article about U.S. Senator Harry Byrd states, "when Byrd was approximately 24 years old, he joined the Ku Klux Klan..."

Can you provide any links to similar outrage from Harry Belafonte regarding the historical ties between Senator Byrd and the known racist Ku Klux Klan group? Harry Belafonte has tried to tie President Bush to the known racist Gestapo group without any historical data to support his claims.

[gmc]

from the transcript

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), ILLINOIS: You know, I never use Nazi analogies because I think that those were unique. And I think, you know, we have to be careful in using historical analogies like this.


from the oxford english dictionary

analogy

/nalji/

• noun (pl. analogies) 1 a comparison between one thing and another made to explain or clarify. 2 a correspondence or partial similarity.

” DERIVATIVES analogical adjective.


Analogies are useful to explain how things can get from one type to another. It's an insidious process where rights are gradually eroded and people get persuaded to go along with it and no one likes to shout about it because, well it's unpatriotic isn't it. As soon as jews and nazis get mentioned rationality seems to go out the window. Hitler didn't just go after or demonise the jews. It's how he got absolute power that is the lesson.

http://www.forerunner.com/champion/X000 ... mller.html

Ever heard of pastor neimoller? Author of one of th most famous quotes about the rise of the nazis.

Under orders from Hitler, he was imprisoned and finally transferred to the infamous Dachau concentration camp until the end of the war in 1945. He emerged from his years of detention as a towering symbol of the Church's struggle. In his travels to America, he addressed over two hundred audiences, sometimes with the concluding words that have become famous:

"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."


Interestingly enough american versions are often edited with the jews being put first and communists and trade unonists removed. I make no comment just an observation.

If you want to protect your rights then you have to worry about everybodies. Due process of the law is not something that should be thrown out the window for any reason. Arbitrary arrest without trial is a power no government should be given.

You've got leaders on record as saying they think torture is justified-never mind the morality of it the information is unreliable.

frrom the transcript

BLITZER: But let me interrupt for a second. Are you familiar -- and I'm sure you are, because you're an intelligent man -- what the Gestapo did to the Jews in World War II?

BELAFONTE: Absolutely.

BLITZER: And you think that what the Department of Homeland Security is doing to, you know, some U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism is similar to what the Nazis did to the Jew?

BELAFONTE: Well, if you're taking people out of a country and spiriting them someplace else, and they're being tortured, and they're being charged without -- or not being charged, so they don't know what it is they've done.

It may not have been directly inside the Department of Homeland Security, but the pattern, the system, it's what the system does. It's what all these different divisions have begun to reveal in their collective.

My phones are tapped. OK? My mail can be opened. They don't even need a court warrant to come and do that as we once were required to do.

BLITZER: But no one has taken you or anyone else, as far as I can tell, to an extermination camp and by the tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, even millions decided to kill them, which is what the Nazis did.




posted by chiptbeef

The offensive nature of Belafonte's remarks are clear and evident to any person with even a basic understanding of history, which is repleat with instances of a varied pool of heroes that stood up against the Nazis regime. To resort to such racially charged comments exhibits the lowest and most repulsive denominator in the process of debate.


You keep bringing race in to it, so does blitzer, why? Anti semitism has it's origins in religious bigotry as much as anything else. Bigotry and social darwinism, what a lethal cocktail that is.

It's a reasonable analogy to use the nazis as an analogy to what could happen if you let the state become too powerful. Bit by bit you rights are taken until one day none are left.

Classic tactic as used by all would be rulers be they individuals, theorcracies, oligarchies. find an outside enemy to demonise, if the one you have isn't the right kind of threat to get what you want make up a story that is plausable enough to be believeable and make sure anyone criticising gets shouted down for being unpatriotic or in support of the enemy so that what they are actually saying gets drowned out. Control the media so that objective reporting is kept top a minimum and label any report putting the wrong point of view as biased. Completely ignore any suggestion that what is happening might be due to policy mistakes in the past and soldier on. As a sideline pick on a minority that no one likes as a diversion from the real topic of discussion preferable something that people can go tut tut about and feel good because they are morally better.

posted by truthseeker

Criticizing our government (in America) is almost sacred.




if that is true why object when someone does so.? You might not agree but you should worry about those who would shut critics up.

We have a socialist party (well they used to be at one point it's a bit of a moot point nowadays) in power trying to impose some of the same things, arrest without trial for suspected terrorists. Phone tapping etc without a warrant.

Turn this on it's head, if Bush was a left wing politician wanting the same things-a socialist for instance would you still be in favour of letting that kind of power be given to an administration?

That's maybe a bad analogy. I'm not sure that an american can imagine a socialist president, never mind. Hopefully you get my drift.

The current set of politicians might be quite benign and well intentioned but would you trust Hilary clinton with the same power? Because if she wins she will inherit the powers Bush has been given. Actually I don't even know if she is likely to run.

Pick your own bogey man.

As one critic of arrest without a proper trial pointed out in this country during the debate, if you think someone is a terrorist hopefully you will have evidence that aroused your suspicions in the first place, rather than just him looking shifty, in which case produce it.

[ChiptBeef]

A "gmc" quote: "You keep bringing race in to it..."

I never used the word "race." I never referred to anyone's race or religion in this debate, prior to the Calypso crooner. Harry Belafonte was the one that used the first racially charged words in this debate.

[TruthSeekerToo]

SnoozeControl wrote: Yeah, I don't see why a Nazi reference would offend Jews... if anything, that's insulting to Germans.

By the way, is TruthSeekerToo related to Chipt in some way? Brother, sister, lover, other personality?
If you can't see the offense of those remarks to the Jewish community, you need to go back to high school history. I see the horizon as you paint it...guilt by association. I'm just expressing my views. Deal with it.

[gmc]

ChiptBeef wrote: A "gmc" quote: "You keep bringing race in to it..."

I never used the word "race." I never referred to anyone's race or religion in this debate, prior to the Calypso crooner. Harry Belafonte was the one that used the first racially charged words in this debate.


I couldn't see how a reference to the nazi state and how it became what it did and how gradual the change was at first was offensive to jews.

But I see what you mean, I had overlooked the comment about Colin Powell. I suppose the non racist equivalent would be he has sold out to the "establishment" and become part of it.

Do you think you can end racism, sectarianism without talking about it?

[ChiptBeef]

I've said it in other posts... I don't think you can fix problem without talking about it. It takes action too. That's why I started the thread. It seemed a good combination. Our discussion here might spur someone to positive action that might help curb the scurge of racism.

[Accountable]

Objecting to another's posted opinion, even vehemently, is not calling for eliminating such speech. I don't understand, gmc, when you equate objection with trying to shut someone up. If I feel attacked, I attack in return. That hardly equates to removing someone's right to insult me. (note: I've re-read this twice and it's still not exactly what I want to say)



Moving on.

gmc wrote: Classic tactic as used by all would be rulers be they individuals, theorcracies, oligarchies. find an outside enemy to demonise, if the one you have isn't the right kind of threat to get what you want make up a story that is plausable enough to be believeable and make sure anyone criticising gets shouted down for being unpatriotic or in support of the enemy so that what they are actually saying gets drowned out. Control the media so that objective reporting is kept top a minimum and label any report putting the wrong point of view as biased. Completely ignore any suggestion that what is happening might be due to policy mistakes in the past and soldier on. As a sideline pick on a minority that no one likes as a diversion from the real topic of discussion preferable something that people can go tut tut about and feel good because they are morally better.
GMC, do I follow your line right in that, despite the fact that Bush is eliminated as president after this term, whoever picks up the reins after will take the same tak and continue down this same path?

[gmc]

posted by acccountable

xObjecting to another's posted opinion, even vehemently, is not calling for eliminating such speech. I don't understand, gmc, when you equate objection with trying to shut someone up. If I feel attacked, I attack in return. That hardly equates to removing someone's right to insult me. (note: I've re-read this twice and it's still not exactly what I want to say)


I was referring to this post from truthseekeer

Criticizing our government (in America) is almost sacred. Using verbal attacks that could cause harm or incite violence is different. I'm about sick of entertainers that think they are above standards that most others live by. His remarks are easily seen as offensive to many. I see him as part of the problem, not part of the solution.


Seemed to me you can defend the roght to criticise as sacred and in almost the same sentence condemn someone for doing just that. Maybe i read too much in to it.

posted by accountable

GMC, do I follow your line right in that, despite the fact that Bush is eliminated as president after this term, whoever picks up the reins after will take the same tak and continue down this same path?


Do you think Bush and those around him is following that path? I wasn't actually suggesting that that was what is happening in America The nazis used, amongst other things patriotism and racism and fear of an external enemy to help them get control and keep it. shouting down dissent by making it unacceptable and unpatriotic. ( You oppose the war therefore you support terrorism and don't support our troops, which is a load of cobblers, at least that's the response that arguement gets in the UK which is why no politician is daft enough to come out with it) I wouldn't have thought the american people would let it happen as blind acceptance of authority is not in their psyche.

It's not as though the govt can control all the media-maybe the mass media being owned by just a few companies gives their reporting a slant but things like the internet are beyond any government control. You can always watch the BBC:D

or try http://www.guardian.co.uk/ nice liberal paper for you.

or http://www.thesun.co.uk/ if you like to find out what george Galloway has been up to in big brother.:yh_rotfl

Whatever powers you give to the current incumbant in the white house will pass on to the next one do they not? When you look at the patriot act would you want Bill Clinton to have the same kind of powers or Hilary Clinton or someone the opposite of Bush.

In the UK that's one of the main arguements against giving the police greater powers of detention and holding people without trial. A future government might abuse the authority. Apart from that we have had terrorist attacks in the past, the current crop is variations on a theme. Draconian measures don't solve the problem. Get the B(*^^&**s doing it but don't demonise the entire population of a country.

posted by truthseeker

An en.wikipedia.org article about U.S. Senator Harry Byrd states, "when Byrd was approximately 24 years old, he joined the Ku Klux Klan..."

Can you provide any links to similar outrage from Harry Belafonte regarding the historical ties between Senator Byrd and the known racist Ku Klux Klan group? Harry Belafonte has tried to tie President Bush to the known racist Gestapo group without any historical data to support his claims.




Never actually heard of Senator Byrd. Nor am I familiar with everything Belafonte has said-actually I thought he was dead-nor do I want to find out. Anything I posted was referring to the article that started this post. I took Belafonte reference to the gestapo as being analogous not literal.

[Accountable]

gmc wrote: I was referring to this post from truthseekeer
Makes sense in this case. You've said similar things in the past, if I remember right. But I'm not supposed to be here (sneaking) so I don't have time to verify it.



gmc wrote: Do you think Bush and those around him is following that path? I wasn't actually suggesting that that was what is happening in America The nazis used, amongst other things patriotism and racism and fear of an external enemy to help them get control and keep it. shouting down dissent by making it unacceptable and unpatriotic. ( You oppose the war therefore you support terrorism and don't support our troops, which is a load of cobblers, at least that's the response that arguement gets in the UK which is why no politician is daft enough to come out with it) I wouldn't have thought the american people would let it happen as blind acceptance of authority is not in their psyche.
I can see the early seeds of it here, if I squint. I was more thinking about our term limit making it near impossible for an American Pres to successfully pull off an entire world conquest.



gmc wrote: Whatever powers you give to the current incumbant in the white house will pass on to the next one do they not? When you look at the patriot act would you want Bill Clinton to have the same kind of powers or Hilary Clinton or someone the opposite of Bush.
I've used this reasoning often in the past. "Sure, it sounds reasonable now with these guys in charge, but what can somebody we can't foresee do in the future with the same thing?" I get a strange "Spidey-sense" tingle around the so-called Patriot Act. It's too thick to be completely honest and forthright (300 pages).

[spot]

ChiptBeef wrote: While Harry didn't call our President a "terrorist" to his face, based on the times we're in, those are fighting words, IMO.I rather thought he did, reading the article, but maybe I was reading too much into it.

It might help if we agree on what being a terrorist means. The United States Department of Defense refers to "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

If we take that as a working definition, you might try to argue that the test fails on "unlawful". I'd prefer to see that tested by a court, though, before I agreed.

There's no such test in the definition which governs my own jurisdiction, England. Our current Terrorism Act words it thus:

section 1. -

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

which is somewhat more of a catch-all, and probably not so useful for us here. To be honest, I don't see how anyone can be in politics and not pass the UK test.

[StupidCowboyTricks]

spot wrote: I rather thought he did, reading the article, but maybe I was reading too much into it.



It might help if we agree on what being a terrorist means. The United States Department of Defense refers to "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."



If we take that as a working definition, you might try to argue that the test fails on "unlawful". I'd prefer to see that tested by a court, though, before I agreed.



There's no such test in the definition which governs my own jurisdiction, England. Our current Terrorism Act words it thus:



section 1. -



(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-



(a) the action falls within subsection (2),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.



(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-



(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.



(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.



which is somewhat more of a catch-all, and probably not so useful for us here. To be honest, I don't see how anyone can be in politics and not pass the UK test.


Chiptbeef is working on stirring up a little McCarthyism.

[gmc]

keep it simple

from the oxford english dictionary

terrorist

• noun a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

” DERIVATIVES terrorism noun.


posted by spot

It might help if we agree on what being a terrorist means. The United States Department of Defense refers to "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."




Pretty much the same. Terrorists win when govts overreact and meet violence by a few with attacks on the ci[=ommunity around them, all that does is get more support for the terrorist turning those who disapprove of their actions in to those who tacitly support and go on to actively support them.

I notice the american media is staring to talk about drug terrorists and gang terrorists instead of just criminals gangs. It confuses the issueWere I given to conspiracy theories I would suspect it was intended to give the impression that there are terrorist threats all over the place and hype up the fear.

In the UK there have been terrorists attacks for years, left wing, basque nationalists IRA so now there are muslim ones.

If you take the american definition

It might help if we agree on what being a terrorist means. The United States Department of Defense refers to "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."



and want to be pedantic then the action against Iraq potentially falls in that category, then again what was it when saddam invaded Kuwait.

What's the difference between a bomb in a litter bin and one dropped on the civilian population by a bomber pilot? gets complicated doesn't it.

In ww2 both sides used terror bombing extensively and targeted civilian populations deliberately. There is no such thing as a just or an unjust war, there is just war.

Personally I think if you go to war there should be no illusion that in the 21st century the purpose of warfare is to destroy an enemy, there is no other possible choice and a lot of people who are innocent will get killed in the process and both sides will be traumatised. Limited war is an oxymoron. So if you go to war be very sure there is no other option.

[ChiptBeef]

"McCarthyism"

Now, there's a hateful analogy. Just because a person thinks the hateful statements of Belafonte are over the top, the labels start flying. That's right folks, if you don't walk in lock-step with the group-think, you are evil. :rolleyes:

[StupidCowboyTricks]

ChiptBeef wrote: "McCarthyism"



Now, there's a hateful analogy. Just because a person thinks the hateful statements of Belafonte are over the top, the labels start flying. That's right folks, if you don't walk in lock-step with the group-think, you are evil. :rolleyes:


You wear it well, "JackBoots" and all.

[ChiptBeef]

I see the offer I proposed to Accountable was rejected. I see the "ignore list" hasn't kicked in yet, either.

[StupidCowboyTricks]

ChiptBeef wrote: I see the offer I proposed to Accountable was rejected. I see the "ignore list" hasn't kicked in yet, either.


I don't want to tune you out.....what would be the value in that?

[ChiptBeef]

It's nice to learn you believe I have value. Thanks for that support. Compliments are always welcomed.

[gmc]

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" - Mahatma Gandhi


Then you get assassinated by a religious fanatic because you believed that no one was better then anyone else and all had equal value.

[ChiptBeef]

gmc wrote: because you believed that no one was better then anyone else and all had equal value.
Martin Luther King Jr. adopted the same ideals. Are you inferring that Gandhi and King were somehow responsible for their own deaths? Surely you jest. Could you clarify?

[spot]

ChiptBeef wrote: "McCarthyism"

Now, there's a hateful analogy. Just because a person thinks the hateful statements of Belafonte are over the top, the labels start flying. That's right folks, if you don't walk in lock-step with the group-think, you are evil. :rolleyes:Good Lord, surely you don't disapprove of Eugene McCarthy and his fight to roll back the undermining influence of Communism on the American Public? Surely what he did was right, necessary and in the public interest. In which case, how can it be a hateful analogy?

[gmc]

posted by chiptbeef

Martin Luther King Jr. adopted the same ideals. Are you inferring that Gandhi and King were somehow responsible for their own deaths? Surely you jest. Could you clarify?




http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mahatma_ghandi.htm

He realised that the religious issues of India were too deep for any remedy to work. Hence he collaborated with Mountbatten and Wavell in the build up to independence in 1947. This association with the break-up of India was to cost him his life. There had been one assassination attempt on Gandhi on January 20th 1948 - it had failed. Just ten days later on the 30th January, he was assassinated by a Hindu fanatic who could not forgive Gandhi for his belief that Muslims had equal value to Hindus and no-one was better than anybody else.


from the oxford english dictionary

irony

/irni/

• noun (pl. ironies) 1 the expression of meaning through the use of language which normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous effect. 2 a state of affairs that appears perversely contrary to what one expects.

” ORIGIN Greek eironeia ‘simulated ignorance’.


ironic

/ironnik/

• adjective 1 using or characterized by irony. 2 happening in the opposite way to what is expected.

” DERIVATIVES ironical adjective ironically adverb.

[Accountable]

spot wrote: Good Lord, surely you don't disapprove of Eugene McCarthy and his fight to roll back the undermining influence of Communism on the American Public? Surely what he did was right, necessary and in the public interest. In which case, how can it be a hateful analogy?Don't bite down too hard, Spot. You'll chop your tongue off.

[ChiptBeef]

gmc wrote: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mahatma_ghandi.htm
Thanks for the link. I understand now that you were just making a historical reference of fact.

[ChiptBeef]

spot wrote: In which case, how can it be a hateful analogy?
In the case of Post #24 and Post #27 of this thread. It's commonly refered to as context.