>If it is true that >95% of protesters disapproved of the Nazi imagery, showing it on TV is unrepresentative and probably further personalizes a debate that is already sensitive by nature. It also encourages those who think this may be how to achieve 15 minutes of fame. On this basis, perhaps it is correct for media editors who railed about an anonymous Hitler attack on Bush to ignore it this time rather than playing it up. Sheesh, we all know not to reward children being naughty with extra attention and this isn't so different.
In this case, one side has a study to point to:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33714And then there was all of this:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_jQTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DfADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6695,3874988&dq=reagan+hitlerhttp://news.google.com/newspapers?id=L7cSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wPkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4698,77088&dq=reagan+hitlerhttp://news.google.com/newspapers?id=b_MPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yYwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4649,8113131&dq=reagan+hitlerThere are tons and tons of comparisons of Reagan to Hitler both by foreign leaders and here at home. I must be old if I am the only one who remembers all of that? It was everywhere in the news and much more prolific than the current nonsense.
.·*´¨)
.·`TCH
(..·*
010000110101001101101000011000010111001001110000010011110111001001000010011101010111001101110100
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates
Vita contingit, Vive cum eo. (Life Happens, Live With it.)
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." -- author unknown
"De omnibus dubitandum"
