Originally Posted by poodha:

Just jumping into this fray, is there the implication that Israelis are fighting "freedom fighters?" Middle East terrorists = The Resistance (as opposed to Nazis)? Israelis = Nazis?

While Sharon, Blair and Bush are conservatives politicians with questionable ethics and policies, let's put Hitler in his right place with Stalin, Amin, Pot Pol, Pinochet.

Originally Posted by beelzebubba:
Wow.

The really dumb liberals aren't just confined to the Yahoo.com message boards.

They here, too!



THEY'RE EVERYWHERE !!!!

Originally Posted by Myrrh:


I was gonna keep my mouth shut on this one, but having read the web page on Biko I noted that the South African government considered him a "terrorist", whereas Bill called him a "freedom fighter." If you look at Nicaragua, Israel, no matter where, you find the same polarity between those fighting for what they believe in, with the labels only indicating which side of the story you're hearing.... Ariel Sharon, George Bush, and Hitler are identical in this regard.

Originally Posted by veegez:


Even though the naysayers have fact and reality squarely in their corner. Rock on, dude.

Originally Posted by orpheus:

you are absolutely correct despite your naysayers
:)

Originally Posted by bluedot:


Bush was NOT elected.

He ELBOWED his way into power after
having clearly LOST a democratic American election.

The stuff that happened in Florida was frightening and
deeply tainted. His SELECTION by his cronies on
the Supreme Court was unadulterated corruption.

Who ever heard of putting someone into power in a democracy
on the basis of NOT COUNTING THE VOTES?

What a load of crap.

The scariest part of all is that the American people just let it happen.

Bush is an illegitimate asshole fascist who STOLE the presidency
in the biggest crime against democracy in American history.

At least Hitler was ELECTED.


------

Originally Posted by Jeronimus_Funk:



True, but false.
The comparison with Hitler is striking. He indeed was elected in a Democracy unknown to Americans. But that's not very interesting. Germans at that time didn't know about the holocaust. Germans didn't realise their position in the world, their policies and so on. They can't be hold responsible for what Hitler did. Hitler himself didn't realise what his dumb decisions led to. Americans can't be hold responsible for what Bush does. They just don't realise their position in this world. They are blind with patriotism, just like the Germans were, just like the Romans were. It's the arrogance which comes naturally with a #1 position.
So it's just hoping for better times, for everybody, right?

Originally Posted by bluedot:

Bush was NOT elected.

He ELBOWED his way into power after
having clearly LOST a democratic American election.

The stuff that happened in Florida was frightening and
deeply tainted. His SELECTION by his cronies on
the Supreme Court was unadulterated corruption.

Who ever heard of putting someone into power in a democracy
on the basis of NOT COUNTING THE VOTES?

What a load of crap.

The scariest part of all is that the American people just let it happen.

Bush is an illegitimate asshole fascist who STOLE the presidency
in the biggest crime against democracy in American history.

At least Hitler was ELECTED.


------

Originally Posted by bluedot:


Bush was NOT elected. (FALSE)

He ELBOWED his way into power after (SAME THING GORE TRIED TO DO)
having clearly LOST a democratic American election. (SAYS WHO, YOU?)

The stuff that happened in Florida was frightening and
deeply tainted. His SELECTION by his cronies on
the Supreme Court was unadulterated corruption. (JUST LIKE GORE'S SELECTION BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN)

Who ever heard of putting someone into power in a democracy
on the basis of NOT COUNTING THE VOTES? (NO ONE)

What a load of crap. (IT'S YOUR OWN)

The scariest part of all is that the American people just let it happen. (WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE SUGGESTED, A REVOLT?)

Bush is an illegitimate asshole fascist who STOLE the presidency
in the biggest crime against democracy in American history. (VERY DOUBTFUL)

At least Hitler was ELECTED. (PLEASE SEEK MEDICAL ATTENTION)


------

originally posted by bluedot:

who ever heard of putting someone into power in a democracy
on the basis of not counting the votes?

originally posted by rgj13:


anyway, i made no claim for any absolute, one-to-one equivalent between bush and hitler, and, to my knowledge, no one else has, either. what i did seek to do is show how the rise to power that bush has enjoyed, and the policies he has enacted since coming into power, have a startling similarity to hitler's--more of a similarity, that is, than to most other noticable leaders of the 20th century. .

"so long as people continue to see only one side and refuse to compromise and work together there will always be these polarities, and i'm afraid more truly senseless wars will be fought (declared and undeclared) by administrations hoping the people they supposedly serve will ignore the ignomious state of their domestic policies by focusing on external enemies. ariel sharon, george bush, and hitler are identical in this regard. "

Originally Posted by bluedot:


Bush was NOT elected.

He ELBOWED his way into power after
having clearly LOST a democratic American election.

The stuff that happened in Florida was frightening and
deeply tainted. His SELECTION by his cronies on
the Supreme Court was unadulterated corruption.

Who ever heard of putting someone into power in a democracy
on the basis of NOT COUNTING THE VOTES?

What a load of crap.

The scariest part of all is that the American people just let it happen.

Bush is an illegitimate asshole fascist who STOLE the presidency
in the biggest crime against democracy in American history.

At least Hitler was ELECTED.


------

Originally Posted by javafreek:


I don't think Bush is on the darker side of the spectrum. If you want to make the comparison by stating that both Hitler and Bush were elected, fine. You can make that comparison to any freely elected public official and Hitler. But the similarities end there.

Originally Posted by rgj13:

**snipped for brevity**
I only brought it up in the first place so that those who wanted to could look into it and think about it for themselves, whatever they decided or believed, and not to toss another salvo in a dispute that can go nowhere.

Originally Posted by javafreek:
I don't think Bush is on the darker side of the spectrum. If you want to make the comparison by stating that both Hitler and Bush were elected, fine. You can make that comparison to any freely elected public official and Hitler. But the similarities end there.

Originally Posted by rgj13:
**snipped most of it for brevity: **
While I concede that Hitler was pretty near the darkest side of the moral spectrum, I think a persuasive case can be made that Bush is somewhere on the same part of it, and in doing so I only meant to encourage people to think. Surely, I can't make them do so, and I harbor no illusions that I can.

Originally Posted by rgj13:

Ouch. Really. I hardly meant to imply that I'm the only one thinking here, and for what it's worth, and despite the public nature of this posting area, I was addressing you, not everyone--and I have to wonder what in my posting you can point to that smacks of the kind of pretense you seem to detect. Anyway, sorry for the length of my reply; whether successful (or, to your mind, right) or not, the effort to be thoughtful tends to require that sort of thing. Merely having an opinion doesn't, as both of your posts appear to evince. I guess you best cling to that bone, son, if it's all ya got.

Originally Posted by veegez:
So much material in an essay such as this requires a concise sarcastic retort. Something kinda like this:

So I take it, you are one of the "thinkers".......and the rest of us are, like, "sheep" that need to be prodded to think. Right? Right. Got it! Thanks Professor Peabody! :D

Originally Posted by rgj13:

Huh, you don't sound too amused. Oh, and the sky sometimes is purple in my world, and in yours too. Just look up at the right time around dusk. It's beautiful.

Anyway, I made no claim for any absolute, one-to-one equivalent between Bush and Hitler, and, to my knowledge, no one else has, either. What I did seek to do is show how the rise to power that Bush has enjoyed, and the policies he has enacted since coming into power, have a startling similarity to Hitler's--more of a similarity, that is, than to most other noticable leaders of the 20th century. Reagan would be another fairly good analogy; he was far less committed to a complete indifference to the thoughtful formulation of foreign policy, though his domestic agenda was just about as inhumane and unconscionable as Bush's is. In any case, I am well aware that Hitler is guilty of arranging the extermination of millions of people--not just the 6 million Jews you mention, but the additional 7 million people he killed for other political aims (including several million Eastern Europeans scarecely differentiable, racially, from Germans, as well as millions of the oft-forgotten gypsies). Highlighting the analogy between Bush and Hitler is sensationalistic, to be sure, but is merely meant to point out the singular, troubling precedence of some of Bush's more egregious policies, practices, and goals. And in my particular post, to reiterate, I was trying to highlight a moral equivalence, not a moral identity. While I concede that Hitler was pretty near the darkest side of the moral spectrum, I think a persuasive case can be made that Bush is somewhere on the same part of it, and in doing so I only meant to encourage people to think. Surely, I can't make them do so, and I harbor no illusions that I can.

Originally Posted by veegez:


I love the people who struggle to find the differences between Bush and Hitler. They are an amusing lot.

Hey Einstein, here's a hint: There are 6-million dead people laying in big holes across Germany directly attributed to one man deciding that all Jews were a race directly responsible for all of the problems on Earth and needed to be exterminated. If this sounds like Bush to you, then the sky is purple in your world.

originally posted by coyotexxx2:
lbrc please, please, for the sake of human kind-go away.

Originally Posted by rgj13:


I think that the statement, "there is no moral equivalence between him and hitler" cannot be supported as persuasively as its opposite. As a thought experiment of sorts, view
this.. I think morality can only be evaluated as a spectrum, not a twin list of absolutes, and, measured in this manner, the actions and policies of these two figures differ in degree, not kind. And the degrees of difference are not particularly stark, either.

Oh, BTW--excellent PG cut--thanks RP!

Originally Posted by javafreek:


sure. glad to oblige.

leaving aside the issue of whether the war was or was not justified, it really pisses me off when bush (or any world leader you happen to intensely dislike) is compared to hitler. you can hate bush all you want, i don't care. but there is no moral equivalence between him and hitler.

Originally Posted by LBRC:
dear michael c,
i would expect that statement from someone from california. wasn't it you the citizen that voted on that referendum for deregulation and a free market. what did your governer do to stop the issue, cry to the government for money after seeing the problems corrected by regulation. i'm sorry, but the other states are not responsible for you states poor voting practices.
as for "king" bush caring about the iraqies- i don't care, just as long as he cares about americans, the rest of the world can keep lining up for our free handouts to keep them going-much like the governer of california.