Yeah, everybody is crazy and Bush is the only sane one.
jimmac, that is absolutely not the point I was making. It doesn't even have anything to do with Bush personally. In that spirit, let's make this hypothetical.
Let's say you and I are opposing each other in a local election. For the sake of argument, we'll say were running for Mayor of BRussellville. Hypothetically, I run an attack ad in the local newspaper that shows your image next to an image of a dog licking himself, with the caption "candidate jimmac is a ball licker". This of course causes complete outrage, just as the "unofficial" MoveOn.org ad contest did. In turn, you rightfully run an ad the next day, this time with my photo. Next to my photo, the ad details all of the viscious attacks I've made on you, including the picture of the dog licking himself and the caption I put with it. Your intent is of course to create an ad that screams "Look what SDW does!!!...look at the venom and vitrol!".
You would be justified in this course of action. However, what happens next is unthinkable. I turn around and run another ad...this time I snip out my image that you placed next to your ad, which of course is based on my first ad. My final ad then reads "Jimmac called me a ball licker....Look! That's my image next to that dog! The implication is clear!"
Ironically, the absurdity of the above example does not begin to approach the absurdity of opining that Bush is comparing Kerry to Hitler. I say again that Bush's campaign has used [b]existing materialb/b] nearly verbatim (especially in the case of the Hitler material). Even the title of the spot is "This is not a time for pressimism and rage". I've watched the spot several times, and while there are clear and unmistakeable breaks between the Hitler sequences and the Democratic speeches, those same Hitler sequences easily morph themselves into images of Bush himself.
It is FRIGHTENING to see the depths Democrats will go to try to defy reality.
The Bush side does it and I thought that's the kind of crap we hate so much. So now it's okay for us to do it?
All I see is Democrats/Left demanding 100% loyalty ZERO tolerance for either a middle of the road viewpoint or some reasoned, honest self-criticism.
The equation is always "if you criticize any Democrat or the Left then you must therefore be pro-Bush". This precisely the kind of redneck "Yer either with us or against us" Bush mentality I was trying to get AWAY from.
You know what? I'm done. Really. I'm not voting. I'll leave the country. I've simply had it with today's Democrats. really. One less vote for Kerry, you saw it here first folks.
Can you provide some examples of this zero tolerance? There's constant disagreement among democrats. Pro-war/anti-war, free-trade/fair-trade, pro-Kerry/Dean/Lieberman/Clark, Clintonistas vs. the Deaniacs, moveon-ers vs. the DLC. There's a ton of disagreement among Democrats.
jimmac was responding to SDW's statement that "Gore has gone insane," which is the Republican talking points right now.
Can you provide some examples of this zero tolerance? There's constant disagreement among democrats. Pro-war/anti-war, free-trade/fair-trade, pro-Kerry/Dean/Lieberman/Clark, Clintonistas vs. the Deaniacs, moveon-ers vs. the DLC. There's a ton of disagreement among Democrats.
jimmac was responding to SDW's statement that "Gore has gone insane," which is the Republican talking points right now.
Have a cup of coffee, and you'll feel better.
Well, it's true that the Republicans are having a field day with Gore. But honestly, I liked the old Gore better. You don't think he sounds a little nuts?
Is his behavior appropriate for a former VP?
When Gore finally conceded in 2000 (the second concession, that is), he was described by many as being "maganimous" and Presidential. Though I didn't support him, I couldn't help but to agree. He was eloquent and humble and articulate. Had he run his campaign that way, he'd be President today. After his Dean endorsement, it would seem that he feels the Dean approach is the best one. Or, perhaps he really is off his lithium
[B]jimmac, that is absolutely not the point I was making. It doesn't even have anything to do with Bush personally. In that spirit, let's make this hypothetical.
Let's say you and I are opposing each other in a local election. For the sake of argument, we'll say were running for Mayor of BRussellville. Hypothetically, I run an attack ad in the local newspaper that shows your image next to an image of a dog licking himself, with the caption "candidate jimmac is a ball licker". This of course causes complete outrage, just as the "unofficial" MoveOn.org ad contest did. In turn, you rightfully run an ad the next day, this time with my photo. Next to my photo, the ad details all of the viscious attacks I've made on you, including the picture of the dog licking himself and the caption I put with it. Your intent is of course to create an ad that screams "Look what SDW does!!!...look at the venom and vitrol!".
You would be justified in this course of action. However, what happens next is unthinkable. I turn around and run another ad...this time I snip out my image that you placed next to your ad, which of course is based on my first ad. My final ad then reads "Jimmac called me a ball licker....Look! That's my image next to that dog! The implication is clear!"
Ironically, the absurdity of the above example does not begin to approach the absurdity of opining that Bush is comparing Kerry to Hitler. I say again that Bush's campaign has used existing materialb/b] nearly verbatim (especially in the case of the Hitler material). Even the title of the spot is "This is not a time for pressimism and rage". I've watched the spot several times, and while there are clear and unmistakeable breaks between the Hitler sequences and the Democratic speeches, those same Hitler sequences easily morph themselves into images of Bush himself.
Well if it's any consolation I don't think Bush is like Hitler per say. Hitler despite his being just basically wrong about certain concepts and ethics was a intelligent man. Yes he was a monster but he was an intelligent one.
Not to start a war, but Bush has done 1000 things that aren't appropriate for an active President. To try and limit what someone (Gore) does is inherently wrong. Your ideas about how a former VP should act are not based in reality. People, all people, should stand up for what they believe. All people should fight when they see an injustice.
MoveOn.org quickly removed the advertisement from its site. But it resurfaces in the Bush-Cheney campaign's compendium of clips, and the result appears to liken Mr. Gore's and Mr. Dean's shouting to Hitler's.
Please remember, Hitler clips are in the public domain. To claim that these clips came from the moveon.org ad is absurd. Did moveon.org go back 60 years into the past and film these clips of Hitler themselves?
Please remember, Hitler clips are in the public domain. To claim that these clips came from the moveon.org ad is absurd. Did moveon.org go back 60 years into the past and film these clips of Hitler themselves?
The ones used have fragments from the moveon.org web address still on them . . .\
Putting Hitler into some perspective: before World War 2, Hitler especially until he was virtually handed the position of Chancellor by Hindenburg, was not the genocidal maniac that we know him to be today, and the Nazi Party policies, despite the label of "National Socialist" were anything and everything but socialist in practise.
To quote: "Brought to power by Germany's leading businessmen and bankers, Hitler served the interests of his "enablers." His first major initiative was to dissolve the labour unions and to throw the Communists, and many militant Socialists, into prisons and the first concentration camps, which were specifically set up to accommodate the overabundance of left-wing political prisoners.
This ruthless measure not only removed the threat of revolutionary change, embodied by Germany's Communists, but also emasculated the German working class and transformed it into a powerless "mass of followers" Gefolgschaft, to use Nazi terminology, which was unconditionally put at the disposal of their employers, the Thyssens and KruppsWorkers".
Hitler was loved by the big business communities of Germany, Britain and especially the US: Many major US firms openly supported Hitler including:
*Henry Ford of Ford Motors:_ Hitler borrowed passages from Ford's book The International Jew to use in Mein Kampf and had a picture of Ford on the wall of his office.
*Union Banking Corporation, New York (George Bush?s great-grandfather was president of the Corporation)
*WA Harriman and Co., the American shipping and railway company (George Bush?s grandfather was vice-president)
*Irenee du Pont, head of the American firm General Motors; he advocated the creation of a super-race by spinal injections to enhance children of ?pure? blood.
And that is not taking into consideration the parallel incidents of the burning of the Reichstag in 1933 with September 11, 2001.
On Feb. 28, 1933, the day after the fire, Hitler's dictatorship began with the enactment of a decree "for the Protection of the People and the State," which dispensed with all constitutional protection of political, personal, and property rights. Though the ensuing elections still did not give the Nazis an outright majority, they were able to persuade the Reichstag to pass an Enabling Act (March 23) whereby all its legislative powers were transferred to the Reich Cabinet by a vote of 444 to 94, so sanctioning the dictatorship.
Before September 11, George W. Bush was unpopular, and his presidency was going nowhere. After September 11, it was gung ho all the way with a plethora of pre-prepared, pre-planned legislation, policies and military actions, which could never have gained approval were in not for the public and spectacularly visible disasters in New York and Washington DC.
I have watched that movie of Bush with those kids at the Tallahassee school a number of times, and that extraordinary, bemused expression on his face is so telling. Ari Fleischer (former press sec.) even had a large white sign at the back of the classroom which said: "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET".
So what am I implyimg here: If Hitler was the classic rightwinger, the archetypal promoter of fascism i.e. the merging of corporate and state power, then probably a comparison of his PRE-WW2 policies to the extremist views of GW Bush and cabinet would be far more appropriate than those of the mild, centrist platform of John Kerry.
Not to start a war, but Bush has done 1000 things that aren't appropriate for an active President. To try and limit what someone (Gore) does is inherently wrong. Your ideas about how a former VP should act are not based in reality. People, all people, should stand up for what they believe. All people should fight when they see an injustice.
Now hold on. I understand you vehemently disagree with Bush's policies. That's fine and I accept it. We can debate policy all day. What I'm talking about is Gore's screaming "He betrayed this country!". I'm talking about his personal demeanor. I'm sorry, but screaming that the current commander-in-chief betrayed the country while we have troops fighting a war borders very, very closely on treason. It's quite obvious with Gore's endorsment of Dean that he thinks he should have gone "that way" during 2000.
Please remember, Hitler clips are in the public domain. To claim that these clips came from the moveon.org ad is absurd. Did moveon.org go back 60 years into the past and film these clips of Hitler themselves?
They ARE taken VERBATIM from the MoveOn spot, complete with shots of BUSH morphing into Hitler. Public domain my ass.
Now hold on. I understand you vehemently disagree with Bush's policies. That's fine and I accept it. We can debate policy all day. What I'm talking about is Gore's screaming "He betrayed this country!". I'm talking about his personal demeanor. I'm sorry, but screaming that the current commander-in-chief betrayed the country while we have troops fighting a war borders very, very closely on treason. It's quite obvious with Gore's endorsment of Dean that he thinks he should have gone "that way" during 2000.
Bullshit!!! Here, I posted this in another thread where speaking out against the self styled "war time" president was deamed to be treasonous.
A couple of documents I really dig. You should look into them sometime.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Quite tossing the word treason around because it simply doesn't fit. Using treason her fits as well as a square peg into a round hole.
I'm sorry, but screaming that the current commander-in-chief betrayed the country while we have troops fighting a war borders very, very closely on treason.
No, it's not "very, very" close to "treason." Not at all. Nowhere near it. People who even SUGGEST that criticizing Bush = treason seriously need to think about what they're saying.
Aside: If having troops on the ground means that people can't criticize the president, then you'd better call for the heads of everyone who said Clinton bombed this or that to distract attention from Monica-gate.
At long last your journey from Earth is complete. Congratualtions.
Seriously, let's examine this post of yours.
Quote:
Putting Hitler into some perspective: before World War 2, Hitler especially until he was virtually handed the position of Chancellor by Hindenburg, was not the genocidal maniac that we know him to be today, and the Nazi Party policies, despite the label of "National Socialist" were anything and everything but socialist in practise.
He may not have been genocidal, but he was extremely, extremely anti-semetic, blaming the jews for all of Germany's ills. Hitler tried to take power by force in 1923...but failed. Hitler's rise was not as simple and peaceful as you claim. Much of it had to do with the economic conditions that caused the Nazi's rise to power.
Quote:
Before September 11, George W. Bush was unpopular, and his presidency was going nowhere.
From Earth to Mars. Bush's popularity had been fairly high, and his approval rating was never below 50%. In fact, his approval was near 60% at times. He pushed through a monumental tax cut as his first major legislative victory.
Quote:
So what am I implying here: If Hitler was the classic rightwinger, the archetypal promoter of fascism i.e. the merging of corporate and state power, then probably a comparison of his PRE-WW2 policies to the extremist views of GW Bush and cabinet would be far more appropriate than those of the mild, centrist platform of John Kerry.
Attention. sammi jo has left the solar system. Any comparison of Bush to Hitler simply makes you look like an ass.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Jimmac has left the planet...
If Hitler hadn't been intelligent he couldn't have taken advantage of the economically desperate Germany of the late 1930's. Intelligence doesn't always equal good.
Bush on the other hand makes bad press for himself all the time.
Jimmac, when you say Hitler and Bush are not alike and the only thing you follow it up with is the difference in their intelligence then you are in the level of arguments saying that the only thing that differenciate them their intelligence. If you are saying that you have definetly left the planet.
A small intellectual exercise for you: In what other ways, if any, do Hitler and Bush differenciate eachother?
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah, everybody is crazy and Bush is the only sane one.
jimmac, that is absolutely not the point I was making. It doesn't even have anything to do with Bush personally. In that spirit, let's make this hypothetical.
Let's say you and I are opposing each other in a local election. For the sake of argument, we'll say were running for Mayor of BRussellville. Hypothetically, I run an attack ad in the local newspaper that shows your image next to an image of a dog licking himself, with the caption "candidate jimmac is a ball licker". This of course causes complete outrage, just as the "unofficial" MoveOn.org ad contest did. In turn, you rightfully run an ad the next day, this time with my photo. Next to my photo, the ad details all of the viscious attacks I've made on you, including the picture of the dog licking himself and the caption I put with it. Your intent is of course to create an ad that screams "Look what SDW does!!!...look at the venom and vitrol!".
You would be justified in this course of action. However, what happens next is unthinkable. I turn around and run another ad...this time I snip out my image that you placed next to your ad, which of course is based on my first ad. My final ad then reads "Jimmac called me a ball licker....Look! That's my image next to that dog! The implication is clear!"
Ironically, the absurdity of the above example does not begin to approach the absurdity of opining that Bush is comparing Kerry to Hitler. I say again that Bush's campaign has used [b]existing materialb/b] nearly verbatim (especially in the case of the Hitler material). Even the title of the spot is "This is not a time for pressimism and rage". I've watched the spot several times, and while there are clear and unmistakeable breaks between the Hitler sequences and the Democratic speeches, those same Hitler sequences easily morph themselves into images of Bush himself.
Originally posted by johnq
Where did you come up with that?
It is FRIGHTENING to see the depths Democrats will go to try to defy reality.
The Bush side does it and I thought that's the kind of crap we hate so much. So now it's okay for us to do it?
All I see is Democrats/Left demanding 100% loyalty ZERO tolerance for either a middle of the road viewpoint or some reasoned, honest self-criticism.
The equation is always "if you criticize any Democrat or the Left then you must therefore be pro-Bush". This precisely the kind of redneck "Yer either with us or against us" Bush mentality I was trying to get AWAY from.
You know what? I'm done. Really. I'm not voting. I'll leave the country. I've simply had it with today's Democrats. really. One less vote for Kerry, you saw it here first folks.
Can you provide some examples of this zero tolerance? There's constant disagreement among democrats. Pro-war/anti-war, free-trade/fair-trade, pro-Kerry/Dean/Lieberman/Clark, Clintonistas vs. the Deaniacs, moveon-ers vs. the DLC. There's a ton of disagreement among Democrats.
jimmac was responding to SDW's statement that "Gore has gone insane," which is the Republican talking points right now.
Have a cup of coffee, and you'll feel better.
Originally posted by BRussell
Can you provide some examples of this zero tolerance? There's constant disagreement among democrats. Pro-war/anti-war, free-trade/fair-trade, pro-Kerry/Dean/Lieberman/Clark, Clintonistas vs. the Deaniacs, moveon-ers vs. the DLC. There's a ton of disagreement among Democrats.
jimmac was responding to SDW's statement that "Gore has gone insane," which is the Republican talking points right now.
Have a cup of coffee, and you'll feel better.
Well, it's true that the Republicans are having a field day with Gore. But honestly, I liked the old Gore better. You don't think he sounds a little nuts?
Is his behavior appropriate for a former VP?
When Gore finally conceded in 2000 (the second concession, that is), he was described by many as being "maganimous" and Presidential. Though I didn't support him, I couldn't help but to agree. He was eloquent and humble and articulate. Had he run his campaign that way, he'd be President today. After his Dean endorsement, it would seem that he feels the Dean approach is the best one. Or, perhaps he really is off his lithium
Originally posted by SDW2001
[B]jimmac, that is absolutely not the point I was making. It doesn't even have anything to do with Bush personally. In that spirit, let's make this hypothetical.
Let's say you and I are opposing each other in a local election. For the sake of argument, we'll say were running for Mayor of BRussellville. Hypothetically, I run an attack ad in the local newspaper that shows your image next to an image of a dog licking himself, with the caption "candidate jimmac is a ball licker". This of course causes complete outrage, just as the "unofficial" MoveOn.org ad contest did. In turn, you rightfully run an ad the next day, this time with my photo. Next to my photo, the ad details all of the viscious attacks I've made on you, including the picture of the dog licking himself and the caption I put with it. Your intent is of course to create an ad that screams "Look what SDW does!!!...look at the venom and vitrol!".
You would be justified in this course of action. However, what happens next is unthinkable. I turn around and run another ad...this time I snip out my image that you placed next to your ad, which of course is based on my first ad. My final ad then reads "Jimmac called me a ball licker....Look! That's my image next to that dog! The implication is clear!"
Ironically, the absurdity of the above example does not begin to approach the absurdity of opining that Bush is comparing Kerry to Hitler. I say again that Bush's campaign has used existing materialb/b] nearly verbatim (especially in the case of the Hitler material). Even the title of the spot is "This is not a time for pressimism and rage". I've watched the spot several times, and while there are clear and unmistakeable breaks between the Hitler sequences and the Democratic speeches, those same Hitler sequences easily morph themselves into images of Bush himself.
Well if it's any consolation I don't think Bush is like Hitler per say. Hitler despite his being just basically wrong about certain concepts and ethics was a intelligent man. Yes he was a monster but he was an intelligent one.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Is his behavior appropriate for a former VP?
Not to start a war, but Bush has done 1000 things that aren't appropriate for an active President. To try and limit what someone (Gore) does is inherently wrong. Your ideas about how a former VP should act are not based in reality. People, all people, should stand up for what they believe. All people should fight when they see an injustice.
The NYTimes is on the beat: Hitler Reappears in '04 Campaign, This Time in Bush Ad
MoveOn.org quickly removed the advertisement from its site. But it resurfaces in the Bush-Cheney campaign's compendium of clips, and the result appears to liken Mr. Gore's and Mr. Dean's shouting to Hitler's.
Succinctly stated!
Originally posted by Existence
Please remember, Hitler clips are in the public domain. To claim that these clips came from the moveon.org ad is absurd. Did moveon.org go back 60 years into the past and film these clips of Hitler themselves?
The ones used have fragments from the moveon.org web address still on them . . .
To quote: "Brought to power by Germany's leading businessmen and bankers, Hitler served the interests of his "enablers." His first major initiative was to dissolve the labour unions and to throw the Communists, and many militant Socialists, into prisons and the first concentration camps, which were specifically set up to accommodate the overabundance of left-wing political prisoners.
This ruthless measure not only removed the threat of revolutionary change, embodied by Germany's Communists, but also emasculated the German working class and transformed it into a powerless "mass of followers" Gefolgschaft, to use Nazi terminology, which was unconditionally put at the disposal of their employers, the Thyssens and KruppsWorkers".
Hitler was loved by the big business communities of Germany, Britain and especially the US: Many major US firms openly supported Hitler including:
*Henry Ford of Ford Motors:_ Hitler borrowed passages from Ford's book The International Jew to use in Mein Kampf and had a picture of Ford on the wall of his office.
*Union Banking Corporation, New York (George Bush?s great-grandfather was president of the Corporation)
*WA Harriman and Co., the American shipping and railway company (George Bush?s grandfather was vice-president)
*Irenee du Pont, head of the American firm General Motors; he advocated the creation of a super-race by spinal injections to enhance children of ?pure? blood.
And that is not taking into consideration the parallel incidents of the burning of the Reichstag in 1933 with September 11, 2001.
On Feb. 28, 1933, the day after the fire, Hitler's dictatorship began with the enactment of a decree "for the Protection of the People and the State," which dispensed with all constitutional protection of political, personal, and property rights. Though the ensuing elections still did not give the Nazis an outright majority, they were able to persuade the Reichstag to pass an Enabling Act (March 23) whereby all its legislative powers were transferred to the Reich Cabinet by a vote of 444 to 94, so sanctioning the dictatorship.
Before September 11, George W. Bush was unpopular, and his presidency was going nowhere. After September 11, it was gung ho all the way with a plethora of pre-prepared, pre-planned legislation, policies and military actions, which could never have gained approval were in not for the public and spectacularly visible disasters in New York and Washington DC.
I have watched that movie of Bush with those kids at the Tallahassee school a number of times, and that extraordinary, bemused expression on his face is so telling. Ari Fleischer (former press sec.) even had a large white sign at the back of the classroom which said: "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET".
So what am I implyimg here: If Hitler was the classic rightwinger, the archetypal promoter of fascism i.e. the merging of corporate and state power, then probably a comparison of his PRE-WW2 policies to the extremist views of GW Bush and cabinet would be far more appropriate than those of the mild, centrist platform of John Kerry.
Originally posted by Anders
Ladies and Gentlemen, Jimmac has left the planet...
I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of...agree with you there. Yeaaah.
Originally posted by bunge
Not to start a war, but Bush has done 1000 things that aren't appropriate for an active President. To try and limit what someone (Gore) does is inherently wrong. Your ideas about how a former VP should act are not based in reality. People, all people, should stand up for what they believe. All people should fight when they see an injustice.
Now hold on. I understand you vehemently disagree with Bush's policies. That's fine and I accept it. We can debate policy all day. What I'm talking about is Gore's screaming "He betrayed this country!". I'm talking about his personal demeanor. I'm sorry, but screaming that the current commander-in-chief betrayed the country while we have troops fighting a war borders very, very closely on treason. It's quite obvious with Gore's endorsment of Dean that he thinks he should have gone "that way" during 2000.
Originally posted by Existence
Please remember, Hitler clips are in the public domain. To claim that these clips came from the moveon.org ad is absurd. Did moveon.org go back 60 years into the past and film these clips of Hitler themselves?
They ARE taken VERBATIM from the MoveOn spot, complete with shots of BUSH morphing into Hitler. Public domain my ass.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Now hold on. I understand you vehemently disagree with Bush's policies. That's fine and I accept it. We can debate policy all day. What I'm talking about is Gore's screaming "He betrayed this country!". I'm talking about his personal demeanor. I'm sorry, but screaming that the current commander-in-chief betrayed the country while we have troops fighting a war borders very, very closely on treason. It's quite obvious with Gore's endorsment of Dean that he thinks he should have gone "that way" during 2000.
Bullshit!!! Here, I posted this in another thread where speaking out against the self styled "war time" president was deamed to be treasonous.
A couple of documents I really dig. You should look into them sometime.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Quite tossing the word treason around because it simply doesn't fit. Using treason her fits as well as a square peg into a round hole.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm sorry, but screaming that the current commander-in-chief betrayed the country while we have troops fighting a war borders very, very closely on treason.
No, it's not "very, very" close to "treason." Not at all. Nowhere near it. People who even SUGGEST that criticizing Bush = treason seriously need to think about what they're saying.
Aside: If having troops on the ground means that people can't criticize the president, then you'd better call for the heads of everyone who said Clinton bombed this or that to distract attention from Monica-gate.
At long last your journey from Earth is complete. Congratualtions.
Seriously, let's examine this post of yours.
Putting Hitler into some perspective: before World War 2, Hitler especially until he was virtually handed the position of Chancellor by Hindenburg, was not the genocidal maniac that we know him to be today, and the Nazi Party policies, despite the label of "National Socialist" were anything and everything but socialist in practise.
He may not have been genocidal, but he was extremely, extremely anti-semetic, blaming the jews for all of Germany's ills. Hitler tried to take power by force in 1923...but failed. Hitler's rise was not as simple and peaceful as you claim. Much of it had to do with the economic conditions that caused the Nazi's rise to power.
Before September 11, George W. Bush was unpopular, and his presidency was going nowhere.
From Earth to Mars. Bush's popularity had been fairly high, and his approval rating was never below 50%. In fact, his approval was near 60% at times. He pushed through a monumental tax cut as his first major legislative victory.
So what am I implying here: If Hitler was the classic rightwinger, the archetypal promoter of fascism i.e. the merging of corporate and state power, then probably a comparison of his PRE-WW2 policies to the extremist views of GW Bush and cabinet would be far more appropriate than those of the mild, centrist platform of John Kerry.
Attention. sammi jo has left the solar system. Any comparison of Bush to Hitler simply makes you look like an ass.
Originally posted by Anders
Ladies and Gentlemen, Jimmac has left the planet...
If Hitler hadn't been intelligent he couldn't have taken advantage of the economically desperate Germany of the late 1930's. Intelligence doesn't always equal good.
Bush on the other hand makes bad press for himself all the time.
Our one saving grace perhaps.
A small intellectual exercise for you: In what other ways, if any, do Hitler and Bush differenciate eachother?