O'Reilly's main hammer-thrust against Obama is "we still don't know who this guy is."

So -- do we?

Now THAT'S a maxi-series!  I wonder how many sub-plots there'll be?

My DVR gives me two weeks of advance listings, here they are:

Episode 1: Barack Obama's Muslim and radical upbringing
Episode 2: Barack Obama's Radical Friends
Episode 3: Barack Obama's Drug Use
Episode 4: Barack Obama and Reverand Wright: Best Friends Forever
Episode 5: Barack Obama Wants To Destroy Marriage
Episode 6: Barack Obama is the Boogyman
Episode 7: Barack Obama Doesn't Recycle
Epsidoe 8: Barack Obama Doesn't Like Flag Pins
Episode 9: Barack Obama Double Dips His Chips
Episode 10: Barack Obama is a Democrat

I cannot, nor would I, defend what Scott's arguing but I think using Adolf Hitler in almost an analogy tends to be over the top.  Even the most hateful racist is a piker compared to that fucker.  And despite Scott's non-sensical argument* I don't believe he is in fact a racist.

*Scott where the hell are you going with this argument?

There was no argument.  I simple pointed out the fact that a radio show host didn't have to be racist or bigoted to use that term.  Then people got their panties in a bunch because they didn't read what I actually said and instead let their emotions go crazy.

You are correct about me not being racist (though I don't think anyone said I was).

Scott:

By using terms specifically intended to stir fears in others of other races or faiths is an act of racism.  One may not be a racist in the sense they think other races are inferior in some way but that act is a racist act because it is seeking to create a negative impression about someone based on their race or national origin.

Let me say this again, slowly, it was an ANALOGY (and a very sound one), you are not meant to focus on the details, but on the underlying EXAMPLE.  Easier to go after my analogy than to really take Scott to task for his comments about racism and bigotry, huh?

Marc:

Why don't you table the condecension in your post?  I didn't direct my post toward you in that way and I would appreciate the same consideration from you.  Turning to the merit of your statement I think that your analogy works but asking someone to not focus on the details is insulting.  You specifically chose Adolf Hitler because you know what he represents.  To ignore that representation is ridiculous.  You could not have made an equally effective analogy with some other figure?  

As for Scott's statement I did address it.  

Edited to add:

In reading your edited comment I wanted to adress (in case it is not clear in my post) the effectiveness of your analogy was never questioned.  The person you chose was.

Your blinding anger over anyone who doesn't want to vote for Obama is most definitely is in play here.

What?  Blind anger?  You get upset when someone misinterprets your words, but follow that with a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of your own?  You crack me up.

What?  Blind anger?  You get upset when someone misinterprets your words, but follow that with a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of your own?

Okay, Tom.  I'll admit that I may have read into your condescending misunderstandings as blinding anger.  If that wasn't the reason for them, then I apologize.

At least you finally admit you misinterpreted my words.