My man, Hank Jr.

[Dudethebagman 222]

This has gotten all twisted around. He never "compared" Obama to Hitler. He used an analogy to liken the polarized pairing of Obama and Boener to the equally (in his mind) odd pairing of Hitler with Netanyahu. I supposed if he would have said it was like pairing an apple with an orange he would be accused of calling Obama a "fruit". It would be just like Hank to call a press conference to issue an "apology". Then proceed to apologize to the Hitler family for comparing him to Obama.

 

An analogy is a comparison by definition. If he wanted to analogize something to suggest polar opposites, he could have used "oil and water" - things that actually are polar opposites. But he chose to use a politically charged comparison that also had a "fascist" implication, and I don't believe that was an accident.

 

 

analogy

 

a·nal·o·gy

   /əˈnælədʒi/ which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

2.

similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.

3.

Biology . an analogous relationship.

4.

Linguistics .

a.

the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.

b.

a form resulting from such a process.

5.

Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Dudethebagman

[Dudethebagman 222]

That's exactly the way I heard it, DogMan. Way to many oversensitive, politically correct types out there that want to infringe on somebody's First Amendment rights if they don't like what the think the heard, but wasn't actually said!

 

I'm not being oversensitive or simply politically correct. Partisan bias notwithstanding, words mean things. If you want to make excuses for the obvious implications, that's your business. But it has no bearing on the intention of the man who said the words.

 

You could analogize anything red to satan because they are both red, but there are some pretty obvious implications of your choice of analogies.

 

Also, firing the man because of his choice of words doesn't violate the First Amendment. There was no State Action, just action by a private organization. For example, if you exercise free speech to call your boss a cocksucker, you can expect to be fired. You may not like it, but your free speech rights haven't been violated.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Dudethebagman

[YOT 3,743]

 

 

An analogy is a comparison by definition. If he wanted to analogize something to suggest polar opposites, he could have used "oil and water" - things that actually are polar opposites. But he chose to use a politically charged comparison that also had a "fascist" implication, and I don't believe that was an accident.

 

 

 

I do believe us to be headed in that direction.

 

 

 

fas·cism

noun \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\

Definition of FASCISM

 

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralizedautocratic government</span> headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition</span>

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge></span>

 

— fas·cist noun or adjective often capitalized

Edited October 8, 2011 by Yeoldetool

[DogMan 2,343]

This has gotten all twisted around. He never "compared" Obama to Hitler. He used an analogy to liken the polarized pairing of Obama and Boener to the equally (in his mind) odd pairing of Hitler with Netanyahu. I supposed if he would have said it was like pairing an apple with an orange he would be accused of calling Obama a "fruit". It would be just like Hank to call a press conference to issue an "apology". Then proceed to apologize to the Hitler family for comparing him to Obama.

 

An analogy is a comparison by definition. If he wanted to analogize something to suggest polar opposites, he could have used "oil and water" - things that actually are polar opposites. But he chose to use a politically charged comparison that also had a "fascist" implication, and I don't believe that was an accident.

 

 

analogy

 

a·nal·o·gy

   /əˈnælədʒi/ which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

2.

similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.

3.

Biology . an analogous relationship.

4.

Linguistics .

a.

the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.

b.

a form resulting from such a process.

5.

Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

Um, yes professor....I know what an analogy is. And I know that it is a kind of comparison. You are just confused about what is being compared. He is comparing the relationship between one pair of people compared to the relationship of another separate pair of people. Nowhere did he say Obama was like Hitler OR that Boener was like Netanyahu. Yeah, maybe it was an extreme example and the guy obviously has no business talking into a microphone, but I know what he meant.

[Dudethebagman 222]

 

I do believe us to be headed in that direction.

 

As do I, but not in the same way Hank Williams sees it. I don't think it's caused only by "big government." Rather, I think big business has essentially bought and paid for "our" elected representatives. I think Citizens United v. FEC (the case that says that because corporations are people, limiting corporate campaign donations infringes those "people's" free speech) is only going to make this tendency much worse.

 

Many jobs have been moved overseas because of "free trade" laws that benefit the corporate bottom line at the expense of American jobs. Bankers create complex shell games, get rich, crash the economy, then get bailed out with tax money. And then they tell us it's the middle class's fault. Our expectation of getting back the money we've paid for decades into the social security fund is "entitlement" greed. It's time for us to tighten our belts, because the problem is that "we" have been running a deficit.

 

Or maybe it's the combination of tax cuts and loopholes for the extremely wealthy and corporations, no government oversight keeping industry from cannibalizing the middle class (on which it depends to do the actual work and pay the taxes that pay for infrastructure), and the resulting stagnant wages and disappearing jobs (which is where tax revenue comes from). Half of the deficit "problem" is spending. But the other half is tax revenue.

 

No matter whether you agree with me about the cause, the effect is obvious: the rich get richer, and everyone else gets poorer. They get us to point fingers at each other.

 

So I'm worried about a government that does the bidding of multinational corporations rather than using its powers and our tax money for our benefit. Money for education is being cut. The media is getting more biased, more inflammatory, and reduced to sound bites. It's creating a nation of retards easy and eager to be whipped into a frenzy to do big business's bidding while believing they are acting in their own best interest. It's not about party - that's just a distraction to keep us divided. It's about money and control.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Dudethebagman

[Dudethebagman 222]

This has gotten all twisted around. He never "compared" Obama to Hitler. He used an analogy to liken the polarized pairing of Obama and Boener to the equally (in his mind) odd pairing of Hitler with Netanyahu. I supposed if he would have said it was like pairing an apple with an orange he would be accused of calling Obama a "fruit". It would be just like Hank to call a press conference to issue an "apology". Then proceed to apologize to the Hitler family for comparing him to Obama.

 

An analogy is a comparison by definition. If he wanted to analogize something to suggest polar opposites, he could have used "oil and water" - things that actually are polar opposites. But he chose to use a politically charged comparison that also had a "fascist" implication, and I don't believe that was an accident.

 

Um, yes professor....I know what an analogy is. And I know that it is a kind of comparison. You are just confused about what is being compared. He is comparing the relationship between one pair of people compared to the relationship of another separate pair of people. Nowhere did he say Obama was like Hitler OR that Boener was like Netanyahu. Yeah, maybe it was an extreme example and the guy obviously has no business talking into a microphone, but I know what he meant.

 

I'm not confused at all.

 

He used one of the most hated figures in history in his comparison. I don't think that was an accident. Immediately afterward, he also referred to Obama and Biden as "the enemy," which strengthens his implication that Obama is like Hitler (because Hitler was our enemy). When one of the Fox anchors said "I don't understand that analogy," Hank replied "I'm glad you don't brother, because a lot of people do" (wink wink).

 

If you want to make excuses for the man and pretend this isn't what he meant, that's your business. But that doesn't change the reality of his politically charged choice of words. You just don't use Hitler analogies unless you're comparing someone to Hitler. Most people realize this, even those refusing to acknowledge it in this instance.

[uzitiger 193]

How many times did celebrities compare Bush to Hitler? The double standard baffles me sometimes.

Bush wasn't black. I know that Obama is mixed but everything you read or hear is about "the first black president", never "the first biracial president".

This has gotten all twisted around. He never "compared" Obama to Hitler. He used an analogy to liken the polarized pairing of Obama and Boener to the equally (in his mind) odd pairing of Hitler with Netanyahu. I supposed if he would have said it was like pairing an apple with an orange he would be accused of calling Obama a "fruit". It would be just like Hank to call a press conference to issue an "apology". Then proceed to apologize to the Hitler family for comparing him to Obama.

 

 

The Obamanable Muslim is a lot like Hitler (may he burn in hell) and wants a 250,000 security force answering only to him. Doesn't sound like the SS to you? It sure does to me.

[Donkeyshins 87]

The Obamanable Muslim is a lot like Hitler (may he burn in hell) and wants a 250,000 security force answering only to him. Doesn't sound like the SS to you? It sure does to me.

 

Obama's no Muslim. Just like many people leading the Religious Right aren't Christian (or, at least they certainly don't follow in Christ's footsteps)

[ENTIRETEAMISBABIES 5]

He shouldn't have been fired, since he's free to speak what he wants in this country, but honestly I'm tired of all the comparisons to Hitler. Looking at National Socialism compared to Liberal Socialism is the same as comparing a Honda Civic to a Lockeed SR-71. Totally, totally, totally different.

[ENTIRETEAMISBABIES 5]

 

 

An analogy is a comparison by definition. If he wanted to analogize something to suggest polar opposites, he could have used "oil and water" - things that actually are polar opposites. But he chose to use a politically charged comparison that also had a "fascist" implication, and I don't believe that was an accident.

 

 

 

I do believe us to be headed in that direction.

 

 

 

fas·cism

noun \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\

Definition of FASCISM

 

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralizedautocratic government</span> headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition</span>

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge></span>

 

— fas·cist noun or adjective often capitalized

 

Actually, it was Communism and its predecessor Marxism that, historically, inhibited the most freedoms and liberties. In the 40's through the 70's, the House Committee on Un-American Activities uprooted and exposed countless Communist agitators and hidden cells, leading to many convictions and a few executions, with the rock-steady efforts of Senator McCarthy.

Edited October 28, 2011 by ENTIRETEAMISBABIES

[bigj480 203]

Stupid statement, but no big deal.

 

How many times did celebrities compare Bush to Hitler? The double standard baffles me sometimes.

 

Did any of them work for the NFL? Treatment after such a situation will vary by employer.

 

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

True, though I use a definition of terrorist that I THINK avoids this contradiction no matter where one is on any issue. To me if you target civilians you are wrong, plain and simple.

 

There are exceptions to freedom of speech such as: obscenity, treason, defamation, fighting words, incitement to violence, violation of copyrights, bribery, threats, and false advertising. There's also varying levels of protection depending on the type of speech. There is high, low, and no value speech. The level of protection speech gets depends on its value. You can learn all about it, if you care to research the constitution before you invoke what you think it means.

 

Comparing the president to Hitler and declaring the exectutive branch of the government "the enemy" is at best low value speech and at worst sedition bordering on treason.

 

When you compare YOUR PRESIDENT to Hitler and declare him "the enemy", you are being seditious.

 

At no point was the entire executive branch or any large part of the government mentioned, just a couple of men. It was also clearly does not fit the legal definition of sedition or treason, though it was useless drivel. One can have an enemy without declaring war or inciting violence. I'll put it plainly, big government politicians are my enemy regardless of their party or office, the president included. I might not see the sense in comparing Obama to Hitler but even if I did that it is not sedition. Not unless I advocate violence against the government or the overthrow of such.

 

se·di·tion

   [si-dish-uhn]noun

1.

incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.

2.

any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.

 

I'm just going by Wikipedia (LOL) but that seems like a very broad definition, much more so than the legal definition. Anything promoting discontent?! There goes all political speech of substance. I'll be honest and admit that I believe in free speech in the absolute sense. In my mind speech of ANY kind has never, in it's self, hurt anyone. If we are going to punish those who's statements might encourage immoral people to commit unjust acts then we will need larger prisons. Goodbye rap music. Regardless of my personal stance, the law does not seem to apply as you think they do. There is no doubt in my mind that, if it did, the thugs would already be busting down Mr. Williams' door or worse.

Edited October 29, 2011 by bigj480

[Scott Kenny 144]

Hank Williams Jr., cultural icon, analogizes the U.S. President to Hitler, and says that "they're the enemy" (referring to Obama and Biden). He is made to apologize. Certain forum members are disgusted that he was punished for his speech.

[...]

Anwar al-Awlaki, cultural icon, also speaks out against the U.S. government to the effect of: "they're the enemy." The government executes him in a drone attack. Certain forum members rejoice and call the man a seditious traitor.

 

I recognize that there is a difference in degree, but does anyone else see any irony or double standard here?

Oh, yeah. Irony so thick you could cut it with a knife.

 

Even though I repeat that al-Awlaki could have been tried for sedition and treason. You can call for all the change you want in America, you just can't call for violent overthrow of the US government. The fact that he may have been killed by the US instead of being brought to trial worries me greatly. But I really can't be saddened by his death, even though (according to my father and most of my friends) I should be. Probably makes me damaged goods, to some extent.

[Dudethebagman 222]

I'm just going by Wikipedia (LOL) but that seems like a very broad definition, much more so than the legal definition. Anything promoting discontent?! There goes all political speech of substance. I'll be honest and admit that I believe in free speech in the absolute sense. In my mind speech of ANY kind has never, in it's self, hurt anyone. If we are going to punish those who's statements might encourage immoral people to commit unjust acts then we will need larger prisons. Goodbye rap music. Regardless of my personal stance, the law does not seem to apply as you think they do. There is no doubt in my mind that, if it did, the thugs would already be busting down Mr. Williams' door or worse.

 

You're correct that prosecution for seditious conspiracy or treason would require a more explicit incitement to action. I never said the man should be prosecuted for those offenses.

 

However, just because he hasn't met the statutory requirements for committing a crime doesn't mean his speech is protected. I do think his choice of analogies and declaring them "the enemy" have undeniable (or at least rationally undeniable) connotations, as I explained above. If he was just analogizing a hypothetical relationship of opposites (Netanyahu and Hitler), he wouldn't have needed to explain that in his analogy Obama and Biden are "the enemy."

 

I said that his speech isn't protected by the first amendment as political speech, and that the first amendment didn't provide him any protections from being fired by a private employer. I stand by that.

 

1. While he didn't outright advocate any illegal act, he did seem to imply that it would have his imprimatur. He seemed to go out of his way to make his point to the viewing audience. In the post-John Hinckley, Jr./Jared Loughner era, celebrities should know that their speech reaches a lot of nut jobs who might try to take things that next step.

 

2. If his drug-addled analogy was so nonsensical and outlandish that the news anchor had to ask what the hell he meant, and then he clarified and made his speech even more threatening, was that really a substantive political message? Or is it just an implied threat couched in political window dressing? Or was it just an ad hominem attack with unintended nasty connotations that didn't contain any political content other than it being directed at a politician? I don't think the first amendment protects these kinds of implied threats. Just because an implied threat is made against a politician doesn't make it political speech. And just because a threat is implied rather than explicit doesn't make it anything other than a threat. Context can be considered. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Activists,

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/290/290.F3d.1058.99-35333.99-35405.99-35331.99-35327.99-35325.html (full opinion).

 

3. As you noted above, treatment will vary by employer. Even if Williams's speech was constitutionally protected political speech, the first amendment doesn't apply to private employers. It applies to government action, which doesn't exist when a private employer cans you for saying something they don't like.

 

Sheesh. This thread just won't die. People just keep coming back like flies to shit. Regardless, I won't reply any longer because I don't really think anyone's going to change their opinion. Crappy president? Yes, another one. Nazi socialist Muslim? No, but arguing this latter point is like trying to argue someone out of their religion. Meaning is subjective and self-serving. Cognitive dissonance colors the facts to suit whatever cultural narrative is already entrenched. Ideology reinforces itself, circle-jerk ensues. No thanks.

[YOT 3,743]

Sheesh. This thread just won't die. People just keep coming back like flies to shit. Regardless, I won't reply any longer because I don't really think anyone's going to change their opinion.

 

You, sir, have been one of the biggest advocates of this thread.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Yeoldetool

[DonaldDuck 9]

He shouldn't have been fired, since he's free to speak what he wants in this country, but honestly I'm tired of all the comparisons to Hitler. Looking at National Socialism compared to Liberal Socialism is the same as comparing a Honda Civic to a Lockeed SR-71. Totally, totally, totally different.

Yeah, Hitler only managed to kill under 20 million People.

Stalin managed an estimated 40 million.

 

Be gone now.....