To me they’re just both irrational politicians who killed lots of people on offense while establishing dictatorship. Neither seem very comparable to Satan. A Google search for “Bush Hitler” yields 555,000 hits. Apparently many people are making this comparison ("Bush Satan" returns only 244,000). Here Carl Bernstein compares Bush to Nixon. That saves Bernstein from Godwin's Law.
But obviously you and American society has an emotive-intellectual complex. This is most vivdly shown in this quote: You compare bush to hitler for the inflammatory, dramatic value of it and nothing more. Obviously you took the comparison as a emotional tirade not one of real merit. Yet it is you who has yet to show us how it is just that, an emotional tirade? You have rejected our comparison for what reason? I know, maybe because your “shitty” intellect cannot grasp the concept of history. You keep on repeating “Asshat” as a term to deflect real conversations, and it’s really quite pathetic. So I urge you to use “Asshat” more so we can all laugh at your intellectual and creative ineptitude. Who are you trying to kid here child? Perhaps it's your ignorance of American culture, or at least of the common knowledge of pretty much everyone I've ever spoken to. You see, invoking "hitler" is equivalent to invoking "satan". Now in order for your argumentation to jive with the "slave morality" of your fellow Americans, you have to reject the first part of the argument you made. Essentially you must say that the comparison doesn’t bother you on emotional grounds (which they do). You have to say that comparing Hitler is not like comparing to Satan, that’s stupid and emotional. If you state that, then please give a reasoned argument as to why the comparison is false. We’ve been waiting for a very long time indeed, and hopefully you can avoid those typical and useless replies that go on forever. You sir are the anti-intellectual here, not me. You are the one who seems to take ques from Ricki Lake, and it shows. I suggest you watch "Blues Clues" with your kids, because you are in desperate need of one.
Wrong. "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." --U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93 Now you see how uttery retarded the comparison is, yes? Honestly, I expected the level of rational discourse in this forum to be somewhat above what the vitriolic suburban white kids blabbing platitudes tends to be, but it seems I overestimated. You're taking one or a few infinitesimal traits of the entire administration and extrapolating them to ridiculous proportions just to say "nyah nyah, Bush supports X and Hitler supported X, therefore Bush = Hitler". It's quite sophomoric, really. Exactly, and if we could just leave it at this, I'll generally agree with you. But saying such things really doesn't accomplish much other than dragging the debate down to a quibbling over semantics and technicalities.
Exactly, and if we could just leave it at this, I'll generally agree with you. Well fine then, as long as it's over. All we were trying to say is that those Hitler-Bush comparisons are valid. They obviously evoke an emotional response by all of us, and anyone who denies that is obviously lying. The comparison is a fair one, like I said I could compare Kerry to Peron I'd bet. *edit* Also, "nyah nyah, Bush supports X and Hitler supported X, therefore Bush = Hitler". no one has said they are the same, we are stating that there are consistencies in their actions, and their reaction to a cause. No one here has said "Bush = Hitler", apart from Wes. All we are saying is that there are comparisons that simply cannot be ignored.
Yes, they both breath. I believe they were also both males, over 5 feet and alive at the time they were leading. Impressive.
That’s taken out of context. She doesn’t support a repeal of the 2nd amendment, rather she supports a ban on assault weapons. That's given by her actions. She probably said something like, “An assault weapon is too dangerous in the hands of a criminal. Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” But the gun nuts grabbed onto the misstep for all it's worth. With Bush and Hitler, however, their actions are similar in many respects.
Yes, they both breath. I believe they were also both males, over 5 feet and alive at the time they were leading. More then you'll ever be. I think I deserve a *KOWTOW* from you, considering I shamed you again... now go frolic with your brethren:Your fellow intellectual slaves! You have nothing but your chains to lose. Thanks Wes for telling me how utterly wasteful your existence truly is. Thanks also for disproving the comparisons; I think your cognitive surrender is complete. Impressive. I know, being Human is great! Me thinks this thread has far outlived its usefulness, and thus should be closed.
It's quite simple, you lying child: If you knew that in general society: "hitler = satan" and then you endorse the comparison "bush ~ hitler", without prefacing your statement with "I don't mean bush is satan, I'm talkin about political comparisons (most of which you listed in your first post are invalid)" and then you get indignant when accused of "playing the hitler card" by someone saying "You compare bush to hitler for the inflammatory, dramatic value of it and nothing more", you are obviously doing exactly that and trying to pretend it's not happening. Your lame, shallow, idiotic ruse exposed, you have little resources but to post little cartoons and tripe like "Thanks Wes for telling me how utterly wasteful your existence truly is." Tell me then, simpleton: Why is the comparison necessary? WHY? If Bush's actions are bad enough, they should stand as horrific on their own. Perhaps though, if you compare him to Hitler, you get the added psychological impact of demonizing him, you lying little bitch. This is no defense of Bush, this is a esposure of your disgusting lies. Deal with yourself so as to improve child, or you'll be stuck as the asshat you are for the rest of your life. You're doing exactly what I said, you know it, but you can't admit it because you've already "claimed victory". Do you know how you "win" by participating in a thread in sciforums????? Do you?????? I don't think you do so I'll help you. Learn something (sometimes even something besides facts and figures can improve you)
I'll leave you with a link to your definition and give you the last word. Yes I edited heavily, as I thought I was un-necessarily vitriolic. Pardon to cause you to delete your posts.
You are merely exposing the emotive-intellectual complex I was talking about before. I have to see a real cognitive and rational refutation of my comparisons to Hitler. It is rather simple Wes: Why is the comparison necessary? WHY? If Bush's actions are bad enough, they should stand as horrific on their own. Perhaps though, if you compare him to Hitler, you get the added psychological impact of demonizing him, You think like that, I don't. The more hyperbolic you get the more obvious it get's that you are rejection the comparison based on emotional, not intellectual reasons. You get the added psychological effect not me; I see an accurate comparison btwn the two. Should I stop an intellectual discussion with my peers because you find it uncomfortable? If you found it as such, then refrain from calling people “asshats” that is anti-intellectual and I for one wasn’t going to let that happen. But I realize that you want me to insult you and argue with you. You obviously get a high, and thus why give you the satisfaction? Why is the comparison necessary? Simple because it stands as a warning to the impressionable generation of Americans. Sure Bush isn't Hitler, but what we are trying to say is that the path leads to the same road, destruction. You're doing exactly what I said, and it shows Wes in your last posts. So I suggest for the sake of this conversation that we merely stop and agree to disagree. If you can handle that... because this is my last post here. Adieu. This thread should be closed, it serves no purpose other then a ad hom match.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." --U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95 Please, dude. Feinstein is the touchy-feely antigun weenie's wet dream and the Bill of Rights' worst nightmare. She's made it protrusively obvious in the past that banning subsets of weapons and pushing for overall comprehensive firearm registration and qualification restrictions are merely preambles to an eventual abolition of all individual rights to firearm ownership. There's a reason why it's more than your stereotypical whacko militia nutjobs who can't stand her consistent defecation on the 2nd ammendment. Banning a specific subset of weapons is tantamount to repealing the 2nd ammendment anyway. That said, as you remember I am not honestly comparing her to Stalin, because this is my point: Yeah, there's a lot of authoritarian shit Bush has done while in office that I don't agree with. He spends so much he's done more for the overall fiscal liberal agenda than Clinton ever did in his eight year tenure. He's got the whole religious right and homophobia thing going, and he's consequently hindered scientific progress on a number of fronts more than any executive should. But he is NOT Hitler reincarnated. Like it or not, he was Constitutionally elected, and from the looks of it it would seem his days in office will be up soon. We have the a little safeguard called term limits here in the United States that prevents something like this from happening. After he's out it's going to be interesting hearing you guys fab up some other tinfoily theories in order to justify your marginal world views. Edit: That would be one where none of us do.
Actually Stokes, if that were possible, I'd be willing to give up my firearms. But since I know that the bad guys will always have them, I'd like to keep mine. But really, that is the subject for another thread. The original intent of this thread isn't to compare Bush to Hitler. As I said before, the author is asking his brother in law how bad things would have to get before he would renounce his support of Bush and his policies. And I honestly wonder about many of my fellow Americans. I really don't think that there was anything special about the German people that allowed Nazism to take over. In their defense, I view the economic chaos of the depression, and the reparations from the treaty of Versaille, as having allowed those madmen into power. Much like a weakened immune system might allow an infection that a healthy body could fight off. Though I don't think it is very likely even now, our collective reaction to the events of the past few years has served to remind me that a similar madness could very well take over this country. Unlikely is very far from impossible. The sort of people that write death threats to Ted Rall would be right at home with an authoritarian regime, I have little doubt of that. Luckily they are a small minority. But not small enough. Bush's advisors used a masterful propaganda campaign to convince most Americans that Iraq was a threat. They did so to achieve a goal that they believed would justify the lying, and the expense in both lives, and money. Now that we know that Iraq didn't pose a threat, we did it to liberate the Iraqi's. In my opinion, this bait and switch alone is reason enough for GW and his puppeteers to face criminal charges. But in the real world of everyday Americans, barely a ripple. Term limits, and all other constitutional guarantees could be suspended with the swipe of a pen. One or two more big terroist attacks on the U.S. (chem, biological, a dirty bomb, or heaven help us, a genuine nuke) could provide both the justification, and the collective desire for security to pull it off. I don't lie awake at night worrying about this, but times such as these serve to remind me that it could happen.
But he is NOT Hitler reincarnated. No one has even came close to saying that...so you’re right. There is no argument against that, no one here is going to disagree with you: Sure Bush isn't Hitler, but what we are trying to say is that the path leads to the same road, destruction. That is what we are trying to say, Stokes historical precedent sets as such. So please at least try to understand our position.
I find it funny that the people who hate guns are the same leftist people who fear the government. How Ironic that the only thing that would prevent the Government from becoming a dictatorship is our ownership of guns.
Guns cannot stop the U.S. from becoming a dictatorship. What could your hunting rifle (or even bazooka) do against our tanks and planes? Nothing. We are not a dictatorship by the simple fact that our military is composed of citizens that wish to secure their own freedoms and would not infringe on their own rights. Dictatorship has almost happened several times in our nation's history.
GW=Hitler? Don't make me laugh. Hitler had style what has George got? He don't even run the country far as I can tell. Dee Cee
"What could your hunting rifle (or even bazooka) do against our tanks and planes" Plenty. Your hunting rifle (lets not forget we have .50 Cal rifles here in the US) could easily make a plane or chopper inopperable. Lets not forget that Planes and Tanks need fuel and fuelers are not armored. Then you have to have pilots and tankers etc..etc.. and they are all people. The US Military is not designed to take out Civilians. Look how much trouble they are having taking out 1 guy and a 1,000 of his followers? Urban combat sucks. You think they could handle a full blown Revolution? While they may have the equipment to TRY to handle it, you have to have people to pilot those vehicles. When our forces become fully Automated, then I would worry.
Don't kid yourself. If there was an actual reason to take over the entire population, then yes, the armed forces could very easily do it. Remember Europe after WWII? What good did their weapons do against the Soviets? Nothing. They threw down their weapons and surrendered. You also have to take mass psychology into account: how many of these obese morons would actually pick up a gun and fight back? Do they even care about their freedoms that they take for granted? The military could shut down all of the nation with a keyboard. They could flash demoralizing messages on your televsion screens. They could find ANYONE. It is very unlikely that this situation would ever happen. If the entire population rebelled the military would have to mow down civilians, something that I doubt anybody would ever want to do. But it could be done.
