Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Barney Frank Confronts Woman At Townhall Comparing Obama To Hitler

Barney Frank Confronts Woman At Townhall Comparing Obama To Hitler

  • 1
"Trying to argue with you would be like trying to have a conversation with a dining room table."


I guess it's awesome, but do we have any real answers for these people who are so angry and clueless?

Your guess is as good as mine: http://www.larouchepac.com/health

I have a hard time making heads or tails of it.

What kind of answers can we have to questions equivalent to "when did you stop beating your wife"?

The audience question in the video is "Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy, as Obama has expressly supported this policy? Why are you supporting it?"

If Frank says "Because it will help millions of people who are under- and uninsured get the health care they deserve," he is implicitly agreeing that it's a Nazi policy.

If the word Nazi wasn't in the question, it would be a reasonable question, and the answer above would be reasonable.

Why should he be expected to come up with answers to utterly unreasonable questions? When people are expressing outrage at things that ARE OUTRIGHT LIES, why is the responsibility of the person who isn't doing any lying to say anything to calm them down?

I think Frank handled it perfectly. "As long as you are going to be an unreasonable wingnut, I am not going to talk to you. When you want to have an actual conversation, let me know." You know, sort of like you do with a toddler who's throwing a tantrum.

If people have ACTUAL concerns about healthcare reform and ACTUAL questions based on reality in this universe, then by all means get them to start asking so they can get some answers.

There are different sets of people who are angry and clueless, and there are different answers for some than for others. This particular woman - no, I doubt there are any real answers for her on this matter. But see my response to thespian, below.

Some of the other angry/clueless people can be engaged (I've done this successfully a few times, though it's hard). But not ones whose opening is an Obama/Hitler picture and a question about the "Nazi" health care reform. At that point, useful discussion has ended, just like on the Usenet.

you know, it does nothing to really advance things (no, I don't know what you can do to make these people realize how much they devalue history this way), but by god that was satisfying.

I think it does something to advance things, actually. LaRouchites who draw Obama/Hitler posters and ask about the "Nazi" health care bill cannot be engaged with constructively, but they *can* be a significant component of derailing the debate others might be happening, if you let them. Treating their inanity with humorous ridicule is an important piece of not letting them. Letting everyone else see that this inanity is being treated with ridicule (and hearing all that applause!) is constructive, even if the questioner herself is a lost cause.

  • 1