NationStates Jolt Archive

Since there's already a topic on this and too many people seem to think Hitler and Bush are similar, I wanted to add a poll. How ideologically alike do you consider Bush and Hitler to be (poll coming)?

Not enough to be significant; I mean, you could compare Hitler with any politician, FDR or LBJ even, depending on how you define what exactly constitutes ideological similarity. He's about as Hitlerlike as any politician, in reality.

Hitler was a very competent leader and a great orator who focused the hatred of the German people on one religous minority to distract them from problems at home.

So I'd say 33%

Oh dear... I'm not very good with numbers, so I'll just stay here and watch the flames, OK?

*Hides*

Hitler at first was a great leader. He improved Germany's economy, ran programs to help the nation's poor find jobs, ect. Bush has yet to do any of these things so therefore I voted 0%

Next up, watch as they compare Bush to Stalin!

Hitler at first was a great leader. He improved Germany's economy, ran programs to help the nation's poor find jobs, ect. Bush has yet to do any of these things so therefore I voted 0%

yep that is exactly why the unemployment rate is 4.6%

Next up, watch as they compare Bush to Stalin!

Nahhh!

Shrub to Idie Amin ;)

yep that is exactly why the unemployment rate is 4.6%

It's 4.6% too high.

I don't believe Bush has ever singled out and attempted to kill off minoritys before.

Hitler was a great statesman; he managed to convince the German Parliament to give him emergency powers when none were necessary. His "final solution" was to aim the frustration at something, though why he didn't pick the Allies as a principle source of his ire is a good question (since they were the ones who had done it with the Treaty of Versailles and everything). Maybe they were too untouchable to the average German citizen.

I think the only thing Bush has in common with Hitler is that they're both crap in managing wars.

I second that, but he does have the virulent xenophobia going on, as well as fanatical nationalism... soo, kinda like Hitler, but not all the way.

Hitler was a very competent leader


Sure he was.

"fight to the last man, never retreat"

Hitler: hates Jews, loves Germany
Bush: hates Moslims, loves America

Hitler at first was a great leader. He improved Germany's economy, ran programs to help the nation's poor find jobs, ect. Bush has yet to do any of these things so therefore I voted 0%
lol your funny,
it's not that he had great economic policies creating jobs, he simply illegaly increased his army creating a gap in the job market filled by anyone not in the army, same as in the US and the UK. All he had was a good stage presence and was just crazy enough for the times. As for Bush, I do beleve the job market is great, I'm 17, with no formal work exp and I got a job in 3 hours.

Hitler: hates Jews, loves Germany
Bush: hates Moslims, loves Germany
you're either stupid or gullable, choose.

I think Steven Colbert's analysis of Bush's Hitlerism is excellent.

It can be found at the following site, under the name "nazis"
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/the_word/index.jhtml?start=1

0% - 10%

economically, Hitler was closer to Clinton (heavier taxes, more socialism than Bush) than he is to Bush.

And last time I checked, we weren't rounding up law-abiding American citizens and torturing/murdering them.

Or trying to conquer the world militarily.

etc.


We have the nuke.

Bush hasn't pushed the big red button.

Would Hitler have?

We used it once in lieu of an invasion of Japan that likely would have claimed 1,000,000+ lives.

Hitler might have used it to Conquer the world (what was left of it, anyway).

Bush might not be a great statesman, but he's not a sociopath like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Milosevich or Saddam.

you're either stupid or gullable, choose.
Sorry, I made a *spelling* error. Fixed it.

...I'm disappointed. No one has said Bush was a Fascist yet.

Which is good, seeing as if he was... You wouldn't be able to say that and get away with it.

As such, he's slightly Authoritarian in the way that most Rightists are (morally authoritative), but only in that regard. Speaking in terms of political freedoms, he's very unlike Hitler.

As far as economic policy, in a country as enormous as the United States, you will never have zero unemployment. Unemployment in an economy is actually needed, to a degree, in order to deter idleness. Human beings need threats in order to perform.

Sorry, I made a *spelling* error. Fixed it.
...its not the spelling that’s ridicules, its the idea.

I think the disregard for the people of their respective country, willingness to lie to support their agenda, the flag waving super patriotism and nationalism, and the trumped up retaliations against a specific group of people set them on very parallel lines.
Bush’s lack of oratory powers and intelligence are not enough to sway the argument away from the dangerous similarities in my opinion.
One of the greatest dangers of the Nazi regime was the common citizens apathy to do anything. Lets not repeat these mistakes and pay attention to what’s happening in front of us now, lest we repeat history.

Hitler: hates Jews, loves Germany
Bush: hates Moslims, loves America
He does not.
I stand for Bush all the way and I agree with the person who said that Hitler can be compared to FDR and LBJ.
I voted 0%.

Well, Bush and Hitler are really only similar in the fact that I hate them both. . . but I think Hitler is still winning that race. Other than that ... well wasn't Hitler supposed to actually be pretty inteligent? That takes Bush out of the running for similarities ... I think they are both black marks on their respective country's reputations. In the end I can only hope that Bush doesn't actually end up killing as many people ... :headbang:

To Assertions that Bush is not a man of intellect: Do your homework ;)

Seriously, just dig around for SAT scores, grade performances... then compare them to your golden boy Kerry, or anyone else, for that matter... I just compared them to Kerry's because of the election... you should be mildly surprised.

Hitler had an estimated 160 IQ. I highly doubt Bush has anywhere close to that.

Hitler had an estimated 160 IQ. I highly doubt Bush has anywhere close to that.

The operative word is estimated. Until they can resurrect Hitler and make him take a test, the claim serves no purpose.

IQ arguments are a weak way to show the shrub is an artard.

As far as I’m concerned their IQs don’t matter, their politics do...

Well to me it's obvious that Hitler has more raw intelligence then Bush does. I'm not saying I agree with what he did with his intelligence... I detest it, but even so, he was admittantly a very smart man, however evil. With all the trouble Hitler caused in his day, Bush would never have been able to pull that off back then. No way. Bush has the potential to cause more trouble today, but that I believe is only in due to the already overwealming power of the United States, militarily, technologically, and economically. If Bush had to start where Hitler did, he never would have gotten away with what Hitler did. Hitler was also alot more charismatic. In today's society, almost everyone associates Hitler with evil, but back then, in his country, he was their idol. He had a way about conviencing people to like him and do what he wanted, and was smart enough to do it efficiently and not let them be the wiser until it was too late.

Hitler had an estimated 160 IQ. I highly doubt Bush has anywhere close to that.

One, I love how you just leave it at that, and refuse to take a proactive approach to this.

Two, you're very right. Bush's IQ is actually about 120-130. This puts him a noteworthy thirty-forty IQ points below Hitler. However, Hitler was also a very brilliant man, Bush, although intelligent by designation that average IQ is 100, will never be remembered as a "political genius".

He is still, in reality, not a dumb man.

As far as I’m concerned their IQs don’t matter, their politics do...

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! ;)

As much as I hate president Bush, the idea of comparing this nitwit to a political genius/monster like Hitler is ridiculous and shows your glaring lack of education. Pick up a history book once in a while. How about comparing Simon Bolivar to Emperor Hirohito? or Ghandi to Napoleon? Ridiculous...:rolleyes:

0% - 10%

economically, Hitler was closer to Clinton (heavier taxes, more socialism than Bush) than he is to Bush.

And last time I checked, we weren't rounding up law-abiding American citizens and torturing/murdering them.

Or trying to conquer the world militarily.

etc.


We have the nuke.

Bush hasn't pushed the big red button.

Would Hitler have?

We used it once in lieu of an invasion of Japan that likely would have claimed 1,000,000+ lives.

Hitler might have used it to Conquer the world (what was left of it, anyway).

Bush might not be a great statesman, but he's not a sociopath like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Milosevich or Saddam.Haha, you can always be counted on for your caricature of levity. Thanks.

Despite my utter contempt for Adolf Hitler, I did say that there is SOME similarity between him and George W. Bush. Both support a strong military. Both are right-wing. Hitler was one of the most evil men that ever existed, but his political views were not alien to all others.

For the record, I do respect Bush, and think that the bad job he has been doing is the result of circumstances (economic slump, 9/11, Hurricane Katrina) and a few bad mistakes (not sending enough troops into Iraq for instance).

As for Hitler... well, if you ask me to think of something I hate, Hitler is the first thing that comes to mind.

And I have difficulty believing that Hitler had an IQ of 160. HE ATTACKED RUSSIA IN THE FALL!

*Godwins this thread*

*Godwins this thread*Bah - that spoilsport always brings a f*cking plague or napalm to a pillow fight.

He gots no class.

Bah - that spoilsport always brings a f*cking plague or napalm to a pillow fight.

He gots no class.
Either way, this thread's been overdone.
Oh, and I do have class - it's the communists who don't have any class ;)

*Godwins this thread*

Damnit, why did this thread degrade into an argument about Hitler!? No...

Either way, this thread's been overdone.
Oh, and I do have class - it's the communists who don't have any class ;)
No, i meant the other guy, not you, having no class. that "god" winning the thread thing.
BTW, nyuk.

Bush has an ideology? I must've missed it.

Bush has an ideology? I must've missed it.
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." —Shrubyato a group of Amish, Lancaster, PA (not far from Corneliu) -July 9, 2004

Look for the tattoo on the back of his neck (the one he was hiding in the debates) that reads:
A fyn Duw a fydd
And look out for the owl tattoo.

I said 20-30% merely because all politicians ever have had at least 10% of the same beliefs (Not letting people run around killing other people, undermining the government, etc.). They both run towards the conservative end, but to say that they have the same ideology would be a false comparison, with obvious political motives.

And look out for the owl tattoo.
Did the owl tattoo look like this (http://tinypic.com/8whxf6.jpg)? :D

Damnit, why did this thread degrade into an argument about Hitler!? No...

Perhaps because the initial premise was so absurd nobody could stay with it for long.

Did the owl tattoo look like this (http://tinypic.com/8whxf6.jpg)? :D
A LOT like that, except with brown highlights.
Psst, watch it. Don't attract too much attention!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/1370.gif
---

He's kinda like 20% since he hasn't helped this country get any better but only making it worse. The only similarity I can think of really is how he is charasmatic to some people. But I think that Bush is really more like Augustus Caeser. Read: http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95sep/augustus.html

Anyone who thinks Bush is like Hitler lacks intelligence and should do the human race a favor by removing themselves from it.

When you compare Bush to Hitler, always remember that the fascists have been developing their ideology and methods. It's not like they'll do the same mistakes again. Hitler based much of his tactics on glorifying the "proper" German people and hating, even murdering the rest. Today, the situation is a bit different, because you can push a button and shoot a cruise missile at the hated people.

Both Bush and Hitler are strictly speaking fascists. They both believe that the natural state of a country is to be in a war, that politics is and ought to be done by military power and intimidation, and that the attention to problems at home can be diverted by scaring the people with foreign threats, real or imagined. The tactics are the same.

But the difference is that Bush is incompetent and knows it, so he delegates most of his initiative to more competent subordinates. Hitler believed that he was the leader, which ultimately led to his demise. There's no such downfall of an empire in sight for the neocons that Bush represents. They survive better by decentralization.

Not that I oppose the Iraq war.

It's really a shame that the right wing of the most right-wing (democratic) country in the world is doing all this and increasing public spending. As a right-winger, I see this as a turn for the worse, since the former leading country of the free world is turning into a violent "Father Knows Best" state.

He's kinda like 20% since he hasn't helped this country get any better but only making it worse. The only similarity I can think of really is how he is charasmatic to some people. But I think that Bush is really more like Augustus Caeser. Read: http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95sep/augustus.html
how is free elections and self government worse? you must make your mother cry don't you.

Hitler was moderate on economics Bush is not he is very much a "invisable hand" capitalist.

Hitler is an Big time Authoritarian. Bush is not.

The two have very few in common so i said that it was 10-20%.

Note that isnt necessarily a bad thing. I voted for Bush in the election. Id rather have a president with more things incommon with Hitler than Lenin or Stalin.

Hitler was moderate on economics Bush is not he is very much a "invisable hand" capitalist.

Hitler is an Big time Authoritarian. Bush is not.

The two have very few in common so i said that it was 10-20%.

Note that isnt necessarily a bad thing. I voted for Bush in the election. Id rather have a president with more things incommon with Hitler than Lenin or Stalin.
Thanks to you, personally, then, for making things worse for everyone but the corporate interest.
Coal in your stocking.

hey i strongly disagree with his economics i hate NEO-CONS but im a religous right and whichever canidate its the most strict on gay rights and abortion rights gets my vote.

Following God's word > Economics and class struggle

you can disagree thats what democracy is all about

hey i strongly disagree with his economics i hate NEO-CONS but im a religous right and whichever canidate its the most strict on gay rights and abortion rights gets my vote.
Do you actually know what he said about gay marriage in '04?
________________________________________
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
--

This might be an example of why voting for him was a poor choice.

Following God's word > Economics and class struggle

you can disagree thats what democracy is all about
Well i'll disagree since this is an example of what theocracy is all about. It's all about being a direct threat to individual responsibility, as obviously is a cornerstone of democracy.
Good example.

I said Gay Rights Kerry wanted to give Homosexuals equal rights and the same tax benifits as married couples.

Neither are very good but bush is better and thats how my vote went down

And you can blame me all u want but my vote meant nothing cause i live in the NE where kerry won the electorial college.

Separation of chuch and state does not mean separation of christian voters and democracy!!!!

Separation of chuch and state does not mean separation of christian voters and democracy!!!!
I didn't say it did. I was inferring that your priorities towards social and political policy smacked of theocratic minset, which definitely is antithetic to democracy.

i disagree

You can't possibly compare them. Thats inhuman.

Sure I don't LOVE bush as a president, but comparing him to Hitler? Where does that get fun?

Hitler murdered milllions of people just for their religious beliefs,

Bush hasn't killed one person for their religious beliefs.

Thats just crazy.

C'mon now.

I said Gay Rights Kerry wanted to give Homosexuals equal rights and the same tax benifits as married couples.

Neither are very good but bush is better and thats how my vote went down

And you can blame me all u want but my vote meant nothing cause i live in the NE where kerry won the electorial college.
I don't need to blame just you. The thing is, you should have some shame.
The statement, for example, about "bush is better" implies you didn't really research the issue.
Unless you meant in the corporate/theocratic principle arena, then you would be right.
But Kerry is a better public speaker, a better soldier, a better looker :eek: ( i should qualify - i'd prefer to go forward with my visage comparisons than backwards ... Kerry=Frankenstein, Bush=simian genetic dead-end) and a far cry better thinker under pressure. Also, at least Kerry took some risks in his life instead of having everything handed to him.

i disagree
That's fair.
I suppose we will on a few issues, but probably not every one.

Bush is just an idiot who's doing everything the rest of the idiots in his idiotic party want. Idiots.

But seriously, the man thoroughly sucks at all issues domestic.
Hitler was far more competent. And definitely more honest.

But of course, Bush is not a genocidal maniac, so he's not as bad.

Bush is just an idiot who's doing everything the rest of the idiots in his idiotic party want. Idiots.

But seriously, the man thoroughly sucks at all issues domestic.
Hitler was far more competent. And definitely more honest.

But of course, Bush is not a genocidal maniac, so he's not as bad.
I'm sure the plants on his ranch don't see it that way! :eek:

Both Bush and Hitler are strictly speaking fascists. They both believe that the natural state of a country is to be in a war, that politics is and ought to be done by military power and intimidation, and that the attention to problems at home can be diverted by scaring the people with foreign threats, real or imagined. The tactics are the same.

You, comrade, are a funny man.

In all of my research on Fascism (and I did research it thoroughly; I considered myself, at one point, a Fascist, but now am a born-again Libertarian), the three things you mention are only PART of a much larger picture of Fascism. True, three ways a Fascist leader keeps power are perpetual war, military/police intimidation, and focus on foreign threats. That's only half of an enormous list in the How To Keep Power book.

And it is George Bush's lack of attention in these areas which keep him away from the Fascist label.

You see, Fascism is defined as the counter-revolution of the Liberalistic principals of the Enlightenment. As such, the PRIMARY characteristics of Fascism are, in fact, denial of rights asserted as innate human privelages. These rights are things such as Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press (organized Freedom of Speech), and Freedom of Thought.

If George Bush EVER closes down Internet sites for being "unpatriotic", if he ever publishes a list of banned words (the irony here, of course, is that the Leftists have already done this, but that's another story), or ban privatized press groups, then label him a Fascist. Really, the soliditary PROOF that he's not a Fascist is the fact that we're discussing it right now. If he WERE a Fascist, we could only sing praise about him.

Meanwhile, the three tactics of retaining powers that you mentioned are not characteristic of Fascism in the following regards:

Perpetual War: Simply put, the war we're fighting really isn't a full-blown WAR. If Bush wanted to wage a perpetual war, he could find one. However, because of the fact that he has NOT done something along the lines of "declare war on those Chinese sons'a'bitches", we know that it is not perpetual war he's looking for. For more along these lines, see point three.

Military Intimidation: ...Where. I can't FIND it. Afghanistan? Taliban... Terrorist agency... Terrorist ATTACK... Yeah, I say that was more "common sense" than "intimidation". Iraq? ...Hm... Admittedly, that could be taken, to a degree, as military intimidation. However, if America were an "intimidating" player on the world field... Why does North Korea even exist at this point? Iran? Saudi Arabia? If Bush were such an "intimidating" leader, why do we pay money for oil? The U.S. could WIPE OUT the Middle East. But we don't. Why? Easy, America is a relatively benign country.

Focus on Foreign Threats: If these threats are real, this is less Fascism and more Interest-of-Self-Preservation. If they're imaginary, well, they're imaginary. But remember this: there are two standing monuments to the threat. We refer to the general area they occupy as "Ground Zero". The threat still exists; it must be shown that terrorism in ANY form in ANY country is intolerable. Until the U.S. incinerates the "paper tiger" image it has with the enemy, it will never be safe.

Bush is just an idiot who's doing everything the rest of the idiots in his idiotic party want. Idiots.

But seriously, the man thoroughly sucks at all issues domestic.
Hitler was far more competent. And definitely more honest.

But of course, Bush is not a genocidal maniac, so he's not as bad.


Hitler was honest? Wow... That’s news to me. Is that why most of the German population said they didn't know about the mass extermination of the 11 million people?

And I will add that the entire Republican Party isn't supporting Bush.

Also, if anyone is under the impression that President Bush hates Muslims, you are sadly mistaking. If he hated Muslims he wouldn't have supported selling off ports to companies in Muslim countries (an issue that a lot of Republicans didn't support Bush on). Not to mention him always having Saudi Arabians over to Crawford... Now, this is for oil, but if he "hated" Muslims they wouldn’t be hanging out with him at Crawford.

I don't need to blame just you. The thing is, you should have some shame.
The statement, for example, about "bush is better" implies you didn't really research the issue.
Unless you meant in the corporate/theocratic principle arena, then you would be right.
But Kerry is a better public speaker, a better soldier, a better looker :eek: ( i should qualify - i'd prefer to go forward with my visage comparisons than backwards ... Kerry=Frankenstein, Bush=simian genetic dead-end) and a far cry better thinker under pressure. Also, at least Kerry took some risks in his life instead of having everything handed to him.

We don't need a good public speaker, we need a good president.

We don't need a good soldier, we need a good president.

We don't need a... Christ, I won't even give that one the dignity.

And if Mr. Kerry is such a good "thinker under pressure"... Explain to me his vote FOR the Iraq War? If he can't even deal with PEER pressure, what makes you think he can handle mental stress?

...As for that last point, regarding things NOT being handed to him... I have a few choice words: The Heinz Fortune.

We don't need a good public speaker, we need a good president.Well, halfsies there.

We don't need a good soldier, we need a good president.I see why you're a Bush fan there! WooT! He couldn't even finish his DODGE!

We don't need a... Christ, I won't even give that one the dignity.Your dignity? Meh. At least you admit by default :)

And if Mr. Kerry is such a good "thinker under pressure"... Explain to me his vote FOR the Iraq War? If he can't even deal with PEER pressure, what makes you think he can handle mental stress?That's where your dignity leads you, a misunderstanding of the actual situation compounded with rightwing talking point bullsh*t. The kind of dignity that requires a special gait.
Why don't you look that up before you espouse more ignorance about it? Or task me and i'll help.
As for him handling peer pressure, i'll point you in the direction of Bush's public appearences - and his "Decider" speech. 'Nuff said, but there's more if ya want it.
Yeah, i'll still stand by him being better in every single regard i mentioned.
Further, Bush is a terrible f*cking president.


...As for that last point, regarding things NOT being handed to him... I have a few choice words: The Heinz Fortune.Hey, he DID have to marry her. Bush had it given to him.
ALL OF IT.
So you made a poor choice with your words. Try again. Or don't. I don't think you're ready for this line of thinking.
Regards, ~

If George Bush EVER closes down Internet sites for being "unpatriotic", if he ever publishes a list of banned words (the irony here, of course, is that the Leftists have already done this, but that's another story), or ban privatized press groups, then label him a Fascist. Really, the soliditary PROOF that he's not a Fascist is the fact that we're discussing it right now. If he WERE a Fascist, we could only sing praise about him.
My point is, that perhaps the neocons have realized that total control is unnecessary. They've realized that they can tolerate a very high number of dissenting opinions and it still doesn't hamper their ability to do whatever they wish one bit.

The U.S. political standings are so divided that there's no "general public", with the connotations of opinionlessness, at all. There are people who read or watch "liberal" news and people who read or watch "conservative" news. It's not all that special even in Western countries, I think, but it has an important implication: you can optimize your propaganda towards your own (dominant) conservative voters, and simply ignore the rest. The neocons know that most Americans wouldn't accept gay marriage etc., so the neocons are able to sustain the scare tactics using devices such as the "gay marriage threat" (when federal finances are failing). This just shows that democracy doesn't necessarily lead to discussion, and that democracy can shoot itself in the foot, too.

Perpetual War: Simply put, the war we're fighting really isn't a full-blown WAR.
That's the point. They want a "grey area" or a war underneath, which fuels uncertainty. The Cheney-Bush family is essentially an oil mafia. Peace is profitable. War is profitable. Uncertainty is both.

Military Intimidation: ...Where. I can't FIND it. Afghanistan? Taliban... Terrorist agency... Terrorist ATTACK... Yeah, I say that was more "common sense" than "intimidation". Iraq? ...Hm... Admittedly, that could be taken, to a degree, as military intimidation.
Again, I must distinguish between how things are and how I'd like them to be. Personally, I had nothing against the U.S. vanquishing Saddam. It's not like either are angels. But, the fact remains, that Bush and other neocons believe that the U.S. ought to exert its influence on other countries by intimidation. The adverse results can be seen in Iran.

The threat still exists; it must be shown that terrorism in ANY form in ANY country is intolerable. Until the U.S. incinerates the "paper tiger" image it has with the enemy, it will never be safe.
The nasty thing about the U.S. policy is that there's not going to be a defined endpoint. The USA is going to be in a state of war indefinitely.

It's 4.6% too high.
There has been and always will be an unemployment rate. It's actually one of the lowest in the world. Compare to the nations of Europe, which tend to be far higher.

Hitler: hates Jews, loves Germany
Bush: hates Moslims, loves America
Bush hates Muslims? Please prove that statement.

If George Bush EVER closes down Internet sites for being "unpatriotic", if he ever publishes a list of banned words (the irony here, of course, is that the Leftists have already done this, but that's another story), or ban privatized press groups, then label him a Fascist.
http://www.popmatters.com/columns/osman-springer/060427.shtml

and

http://news.com.com/Bush+administration+objects+to+.xxx+domains/2100-1028_3-5833764.html

and

http://news.com.com/Bush+administration+opposes+U.N.+Net+control/2100-1028_3-5905586.html

Woohoo! Join in the fun! :D

Well, halfsies there.

...Okay, we can play that way, skippy.

I see why you're a Bush fan there! WooT! He couldn't even finish his DODGE!

Actually, it's really a question of "I hate Kerry more than I hate Bush, but I still hate them both."

Your dignity? Meh. At least you admit by default :)

...So... Because I refuse to consider physical appearance as a qualification for an office of power... I'm somehow... irrational. Okay, sure thing, skippy.

That's where your dignity leads you, a misunderstanding of the actual situation compounded with rightwing talking point bullsh*t. The kind of dignity that requires a special gait.
Why don't you look that up before you espouse more ignorance about it? Or task me and i'll help.
As for him handling peer pressure, i'll point you in the direction of Bush's public appearences - and his "Decider" speech. 'Nuff said, but there's more if ya want it.
Yeah, i'll still stand by him being better in every single regard i mentioned.
Further, Bush is a terrible f*cking president.

I'd like to take this moment to re-emphasize what my opponent has said:

OMFGZ I AM TEH ANGRY SOCIALIST GRRR

Ultimately, that's all I got out of it.

I mean... I'm really looking here for something vaguely resembling an argument... Hm... Failure to refute my point... Other than personal attacks... My friend, that referred to as a "Logical Fallacy", namely, the fallacy of "changing the subject" by "attacking the person"... But you don't know that, because you're the stereotypical closet-revolutionary, as emphasized by your own hate-filled ranting at anyone daring to oppose your opinion...

You follow my point regarding "peer pressure" by pointing at Bush's (lack of) ability of public speaking... a point, by the way, that you conceded to way up there. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, you half-conceded.

Hey, he DID have to marry her. Bush had it given to him.
ALL OF IT.
So you made a poor choice with your words. Try again. Or don't. I don't think you're ready for this line of thinking.
Regards, ~

Hey. Hey. Guess what. Bush won the elections. Twice. I hate to break it to you, but THAT wasn't given to him. Bush was also elected as governor of Texas. THAT wasn't given to him. Admittedly, he is a part of The Lucky Sperm Club; however, he has still worked his way to Presidency.

And I just remembered this:

Bush wants to ban the "unethical" stem cell research

while

Hitler's party denounced Einstein's relativity as a "evil Jewish science".

...Okay, we can play that way, skippy.My oh my what a clever comeback. Typical right wing bullsh*t, namecalling. Good for you. Good volley. Gotta lotta fans already.



Actually, it's really a question of "I hate Kerry more than I hate Bush, but I still hate them both."Perhaps. I'm not a Kerry fan but i'm quite capable of recognizing the difference.



...So... Because I refuse to consider physical appearance as a qualification for an office of power... I'm somehow... irrational.Your lack of rationality isn't limited to your misinterpretation of my post, but at least you're trying.



I'd like to take this moment to re-emphasize what my opponent has said:Appeal to the masses - ah, rally 'round the flagpole. Exactly what a person should expect from the weakest argument yet.

OMFGZ I AM TEH ANGRY SOCIALIST GRRR

Ultimately, that's all I got out of it.That's all you put into it. Funny, that.

I mean... I'm really looking here for something vaguely resembling an argument... Hm... Failure to refute my point... Other than personal attacks... My friend, that referred to as a "Logical Fallacy", namely, the fallacy of "changing the subject" by "attacking the person"... But you don't know that, because you're the stereotypical closet-revolutionary, as emphasized by your own hate-filled ranting at anyone daring to oppose your opinion...Holy moly do you have a hypocrite trinity here! You're astoundingly talented at fluffing yourself up! Do you and your ego need a room?
Pay more attention, as i said - task me, i'll help. But only when you're ready to learn and renounce your dangerously egotistical garbage.

You follow my point regarding "peer pressure" by pointing at Bush's (lack of) ability of public speaking... a point, by the way, that you conceded to way up there. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, you half-conceded.You don't understand my answers OR your own posts? Perhaps you need the name "top" from spin - or O'Reilly.



Hey. Hey. Guess what. Bush won the elections. Twice. I hate to break it to you, but THAT wasn't given to him. Bush was also elected as governor of Texas. THAT wasn't given to him. Admittedly, he is a part of The Lucky Sperm Club; however, he has still worked his way to Presidency.First off, many, MANY threads have shown what actually happened the first election - see Katherine Harris. And yes, he barely "won" the (wait, what does "won" mean again?) second election, but it sure as hell wasn't a "mandate". As for the governorship, again you're not quite right. Surprise.

Perpetual War: Simply put, the war we're fighting really isn't a full-blown WAR. If Bush wanted to wage a perpetual war, he could find one. However, because of the fact that he has NOT done something along the lines of "declare war on those Chinese sons'a'bitches", we know that it is not perpetual war he's looking for. For more along these lines, see point three..


Ummm WAR ON TERROR? How will we win this one, how will we know if we even made progress? Who and what define terrorism? Is it suicide bombers, insurgents, someone who blows up an abortion clinic? What other countries are we going to attack next in this "war"? If this and the "war" on drugs don’t count as perpetual, what does?:headbang:

Ummm WAR ON TERROR? How will we win this one, how will we know if we even made progress? Who and what define terrorism? Is it suicide bombers, insurgents, someone who blows up an abortion clinic? What other countries are we going to attack next in this "war"? If this and the "war" on drugs don’t count as perpetual, what does?:headbang:
Psst ... the guy's a troll, a one-trick pony! Don't worry about 'em!
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sprachlos/speechless-smiley-011.gif

Just think its funny that the 0-10% is the same as his approval rating...

Just think its funny that the 0-10% is the same as his approval rating...
So'd ya catch Rummy publicly declaring that there really weren't any WMD's in their search, and the reporter nailing him on having said there were, and how Rummy says he never said that, but he had? The Daily Show covered it quite well.

They always cover things quite well.

I said 10-20%, though perhaps that's a bit high. And even if they had the same ideology, there's no comparison, since Hitler was a far better public speaker (and probably had a better grasp of English)

BTW - here's some footage of it ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/050506rumsfeldlies.htm

The Bush adminastration balked at the WMD issue, say it ant so...

Watch this it's funny
http://www.devilducky.com/media/45151/

Ah, from a slightly less biased source ....


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/269394_rumsfeld08.html?source=mypi

That's wonderful, Straughn. I always like reading your posts.

That's wonderful, Straughn. I always like reading your posts.
Hey, thank you! *bows*
You must not have read enough of them then, i always manage to offend someone if i'm 'round long enough! ;)

I wouldn't even know about it if it hadn't been for The Daily Show.
Libruhl media my arse.

hitler was definately smarter than george bush. george bush needs the jews so he cant kill them. but other than that fairly similar. does dubya paint? have a fixation on one of his female cousins?

How dare this debate even be taking place. We are American citizens and we are debating whether or not Bush has things in common with Hitler. This is absolutely insane and is another attempt by the cooky left wing to try and take down our President. Why dosen't this sick left wing fringe of the Democratic party move to San Francisco since nobody has souls there anyway.

How dare this debate even be taking place. We are American citizens and we are debating whether or not Bush has things in common with Hitler. This is absolutely insane and is another attempt by the cooky left wing to try and take down our President. Why dosen't this sick left wing fringe of the Democratic party move to San Francisco since nobody has souls there anyway.
Yeah, even Michael "Savage" Weiner resides there, and given all that special attention he likes to give the city, he still resides there and gets his boat plugged on a shoal every now and again. And loves his small dogs.
And his mother.
And eating.
And on occasion he'll hint at his tempestuous and sensual relationship to Allen Ginsburg (ooh - fun fact - what's Weiner's boy's name?)
And he's a Reagan conservative.

nobody has souls in san francisco. ok. :rolleyes:
hitler wanted to control the world, bush wants to control the world.
ok so there arent the concentration camps but there are various secret detention centres where who knows what goes on.
what sort of democracy does not debate you right wing fascist madman:mad:

How dare this debate even be taking place. We are American citizens and we are debating whether or not Bush has things in common with Hitler. This is absolutely insane and is another attempt by the cooky left wing to try and take down our President. Why dosen't this sick left wing fringe of the Democratic party move to San Francisco since nobody has souls there anyway.

How dare we exercise our right to free speech?! It is supporters like you that would be first to line up in the SS. Maybe instead of San Francisco we should be moved to camps? If this is the best argument against, we can stop the thread now.

How dare this debate even be taking place. We are American citizens and we are debating whether or not Bush has things in common with Hitler.Reag, you may not have noticed this... but this forum is hosted in the UK, half-run by Australians and Canadians, and has active members from dozens of nations.

When you assume...

Reag, you may not have noticed this... but this forum is hosted in the UK, half-run by Australians and Canadians, and has active members from dozens of nations.

When you assume...
:D

It's been said that if everything is hitler, than nothing is hitler. The more we compare things to the attrocities commited by the nazis the less significance what they did takes. Is bush a dick?? sure... is he a fool? perhaps is he better fit to sell used cars or shoes? likely, however hitler he is not, not even close, not by a long shot, we aren't even talking abou the same game let alone the same ball park.... it's very annoying that every little thing that some pinko commie left wing hippie who hasn't showered in the last 5 years finds offensive, they are immediately compared to hitler and the nazis..... ya'll need to stop smoking you weed and maybe watch the history channel to find out what a real tyrant did, Bush isn't a tyrant he's just some clueless religous oil salesman who had enough money to buy the post of president of the united states of america. VIVA DEMOCRACY!!! it sucks..... but its the best we got

It's been said that if everything is hitler, than nothing is hitler. The more we compare things to the attrocities commited by the nazis the less significance what they did takes. Is bush a dick?? sure... is he a fool? perhaps is he better fit to sell used cars or shoes? likely, however hitler he is not, not even close, not by a long shot, we aren't even talking abou the same game let alone the same ball park.... it's very annoying that every little thing that some pinko commie left wing hippie who hasn't showered in the last 5 years finds offensive, they are immediately compared to hitler and the nazis..... ya'll need to stop smoking you weed and maybe watch the history channel to find out what a real tyrant did, Bush isn't a tyrant he's just some clueless religous oil salesman who had enough money to buy the post of president of the united states of america. VIVA DEMOCRACY!!! it sucks..... but its the best we got
You're not gonna start smiting us with air conditioners, are you? :eek:

Bush is leaning towards fascism. No, he hasn't rounded up and executed his political enemies or anything, but the promotion of ultranationalism and justifying wars and limitations of civil liberties for ideological reasons while they in reality are completely political/economical is partly similar to what was done in Germany and Italy in the 30's.

Anyways, I have never understood why comparing is so wrong. It's stupid to say that "Bush=Hitler II", but comparing them, finding similarities and talking about them is in my opinion only a good thing.

It's been said that if everything is hitler, than nothing is hitler. The more we compare things to the attrocities commited by the nazis the less significance what they did takes. Is bush a dick?? sure... is he a fool? perhaps is he better fit to sell used cars or shoes? likely, however hitler he is not, not even close, not by a long shot, we aren't even talking abou the same game let alone the same ball park.... it's very annoying that every little thing that some pinko commie left wing hippie who hasn't showered in the last 5 years finds offensive, they are immediately compared to hitler and the nazis..... ya'll need to stop smoking you weed and maybe watch the history channel to find out what a real tyrant did, Bush isn't a tyrant he's just some clueless religous oil salesman who had enough money to buy the post of president of the united states of america. VIVA DEMOCRACY!!! it sucks..... but its the best we got

Why is it some people think insulting the other side is debate? Instead of trying to come up with a snide comment on we the posters, why not come up with facts or issues to support your argument. Many seem to ignore the many innocent Iraqi's that have been killed or injured in our "Operation".

It's 4.6% too high.
Well, many Economists will tell you that the natural rate of unemployment is 5%; so 4.6% is an excellent score (would mean "real" unemployment is actually negative; this is known as an economy operating at beyond full employemtn level). A natural rate exists because there will always be people "in between" jobs, people who just got fired, people who just quit ect. People in this category are estimated to be 5% at any given time.

How dare this debate even be taking place. We are American citizens and we are debating whether or not Bush has things in common with Hitler. This is absolutely insane and is another attempt by the cooky left wing to try and take down our President. Why dosen't this sick left wing fringe of the Democratic party move to San Francisco since nobody has souls there anyway.

Debate is the American spirit.

Hitler: hates Jews, loves Germany
Bush: hates Moslims, loves America


I just had 2 answer this.

U R right about Hitler, but you are wrong about Bush.

Bush does *not* hate Muslims. I could show U pics of him kissing the Princes right on the mouth. But, maybe that only proves about Arab prince billionares and not Muslims in general. But really really he does not hate Muslims. He only really hates anybody that disagree with him. U kno, like liberals.

Bush does *not* love America. He does not do the things that somebody who loves their country would do. What R those things? B a super patriot in protecting the environment. Make all Americans richer and more healthy by not letting jobs go overseas and support medical coverage 4 everybody.

Bush is very simple. Bush * loves * money. That is the center of him.
Everything he does comes from that. The Saudi Princes help make his family rich. He give the favor by support them against revolt in Saudi Arabia part of which is Bin Laden, and so like the Muslim say, the friend of my enemy is my enemy, and that why Bin Laden bring that Saudi fight over here.

Hiter was very simple. Hitler loved Germany. That was the center of him.
Everything he did comes from that. He was a super patriot. Expand Germany, get rid of the not Germans. Show the world that Germany could not B pushed around. Sacrifice a million people without hesitation if helps Germany 2 B powerful.

Saddam is very simple 2. Saddam loves Irak. And that was the center of him.
Everything he did comes from that. He was a super patriot. Make the 3rd biggest army the world. Show the world that Irak could not B pushed around. Sacrifice a million people without hesitation if helps Irak 2 B powerful.

Bill Gates loves power. He does not love money, which is big surprise 2 everybody. If he loved money he would have not risk things and protected the money he made, but he did all kinda risks with everything he had many times and so, the unexpected result? *LOL* Success and richest man in the world. Get very friendly now with China.

Suzy :)

0% - 10%

economically, Hitler was closer to Clinton (heavier taxes, more socialism than Bush) than he is to Bush.



Many of Hitler's victims were Socialists and Communists. His political party was called The National Socialist party, but this was just used as a front to help him get into power and to appeal to German workers who were devestated at the time. He publicly denounced wealthy business owners, but privately assured them that they would retain their wealth. Any of Hitler's ties to socialism were simply power schemes or horrible manipulations of socialist views in order to fit his real agenda of genocide.
My point is not to equate Bush with Hitler, but to defend socialism, and dispute the misconception that Hitler was truly a socialist.

lol your funny,
it's not that he had great economic policies creating jobs, he simply illegaly increased his army creating a gap in the job market filled by anyone not in the army, same as in the US and the UK. All he had was a good stage presence and was just crazy enough for the times. As for Bush, I do beleve the job market is great, I'm 17, with no formal work exp and I got a job in 3 hours.When the Germans invaded the Rhineland, they did so with 30,ooo troops and very little resources.

He ensured that the worlds first autobahn system was built. He started the production of volkswagon.

Bush cannot even send in workers to hurricane disaster areas to begin rebuild.

at least hitler tried to better his country.. bush is just a retard. im getting tired of hearing people call him hitler like.the only modern day hitler was saddam...in every way... bush is a retard more of a jimmy carter / lbj.. bush actually gives orders to the border patrol to give a report to the mexicans on easy entry points in our borders.BUSH = RALPH WIGGUM. OH FUCK DEMS WHILE IM AT IT. IM INDEPENDENT...

at least hitler tried to better his country.. bush is just a retard. im getting tired of hearing people call him hitler like.the only modern day hitler was saddam...in every way... bush is a retard more of a jimmy carter / lbj.. bush actually gives orders to the border patrol to give a report to the mexicans on easy entry points in our borders.BUSH = RALPH WIGGUM. OH FUCK DEMS WHILE IM AT IT. IM INDEPENDENT...Well, actually Hitler tried to make his country worse. He gave orders to dismantle German infrastructure in the last days of WWII to avoid anything falling into the hands of the allies and to punish the Germans for "failing the struggle" he initiated. Luckily, Albert Speer, the armaments minister at the time, didn't follow the orders.

Hitler wanted to remove all Jews, and Jewish blood from Germany, and ultimately share control of Europe with Italy, and anyone else who would roll over.
He wanted to create a race of superhuman Germans and believed by breeding out all "impure blood", he could accomplish this.

In other words, Hitler was the most dangerous nutbag in history.

Bush...is a dumbfuck yokel that had the good fortune to be born into a fabulously wealthy family, and the son of a former president, and bought two elections, through deciet and lies.

Bush is not insane, just a lying douchebag with an agenda he doesnt feel he needs to share eith the nation who elected him.

However..lets compare by evil deeds:

Hitler:
Scammed and lied his way into office.
Invaded Poland,
started Second World War,
orchestrated the death of millions of innocent Jews, gypsies, etc.....
Responsible for the deaths of millions.

Bush:
Scammed and lied his way into office.
Invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
Started "War on Terrorism".
Indirectly, and directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

There are indeed similarites, and sadly a good number of them.

However, Bush isnt Hitler....hes just a lying douchebag.

i really want some fried chicken.

The fundamental difference between the two is quite large. Hitler was dominated by a hatred of jews, communisists and other peoples that the germans felt had contributed to their defeat in WW1, plus vast economic pressures due to the depression led to a rise in fervant nationalism that the Nazis exploited.

Now bush on the other hand is a man living under his daddy's shadow, who had the presidency bought for him. his only desire is to extend his families personal power and influence as well as that of his cronies and business 'friends'

It's not Bush who is evil, he's just a dumbass patsy who, I believe, truely believes in what he is told to say. It's those corporations who operate solely for profit with no limitations...

Just thought I'd set the matter straight here. Hitler was democratically elected, he never lied and cheated his way to power as he was voted there by the german people. however his actions once in office were to nominate himself as chancellor permanently thus it negated any bonus for the democratic process.

Anyone get the feeling that congress will be asked to pass a law removing the maximum number of terms a president can serve?

Hitler was democratically elected, he never lied and cheated his way to power as he was voted there by the german people.
Actually, he did lie and cheat - to Hindenburg, that is. The NSDAP was never elected fair and square, as in they never got a majority, they had to form a coalition. Hitler was appointed by decree from Hindenburg, not by Parliament.

It's a long story, but it'd be fair to say that even Bush's first election was more democratic than that.

It started with the burning of the Reichstag...

http://www.popmatters.com/columns/osman-springer/060427.shtml

and

http://news.com.com/Bush+administration+objects+to+.xxx+domains/2100-1028_3-5833764.html

and

http://news.com.com/Bush+administration+opposes+U.N.+Net+control/2100-1028_3-5905586.html

Woohoo! Join in the fun! :D

:D

First article: Explains problems with both maintaining AND relinquishing control. Not an article about CENSORSHIP... :D

Second article: Bush attempting to cater to the wants of the American People by slightly hindering the redlight district by preventing them from adding ".xxx" to domain names... Yeah, that's blatant CENSORSHIP. :D

Third article: Related back to the ".xxx" thing, basic decision is "who should control Internet, U.N. or U.S.", NOT "Free the Internet". I mean, I'm quoting here: "During a series of meetings organized by the United Nations, ministers from dozens of other countries including China and Cuba have raised objections and demanded more influence--a prospect that worries free-speech advocates and business groups who are concerned about more regulation and a more hostile climate for electronic commerce in the future." :D

What, did you just Google "Bush Controlling The Internet" and provided three random URLs? :D

OH, and one last thing...

:D :D :D :D

My oh my what a clever comeback. Typical right wing bullsh*t, namecalling. Good for you. Good volley. Gotta lotta fans already.

...Wow. You were offended by the word skippy. A word said not so much in anger as in playful competition, finding someone to argue with. Meanwhile, I find the hypocrisy incredible, as would anyone else who happens upon this thread...

Your lack of rationality isn't limited to your misinterpretation of my post, but at least you're trying.

Apparently, I am missing something. I refused to consider physical appearance as grounds for a presidential qualification. I said that it was slightly irrelevant, and didn't give that quality dignity, whilst you did. And I'M the problem... Righto!

Appeal to the masses - ah, rally 'round the flagpole. Exactly what a person should expect from the weakest argument yet.

I took Public Forum Debate, when you're attacking a point, you say that. It's become habit for me.

That's all you put into it. Funny, that.

Hey, kids! Let's go over what Demigod Straughn considers wit! Here we have:
-The kind of dignity that requires a special gait..."
-"Coal in your stocking."
-"Do you and your ego need a room?"

Straughn, if you have any more of your brilliant moments, come tell me, alright? You're an inspiration.

Holy moly do you have a hypocrite trinity here! You're astoundingly talented at fluffing yourself up! Do you and your ego need a room?
Pay more attention, as i said - task me, i'll help. But only when you're ready to learn and renounce your dangerously egotistical garbage.

I could be missing something, but the only hypocrisy I can detect in my introduction of logical fallacies would be the fact that I called you "Skippy". Which, by the way, I call nearly everyone and everything. It never was an insult of any form.

Meanwhile, the particular section I was quoting was void of argument. It consisted almost entirely of attacks on me, with the entire "Bush's failure as a public speaker" thrown in there for good measure.

My point was essentially that Kerry failed to make a judgment call, what makes you think he could make a right one. That was about it. I have yet to recieve a response going against this tried-and-true method of pattern recognition.

You don't understand my answers OR your own posts? Perhaps you need the name "top" from spin - or O'Reilly.

Oh, look. Another terribly clever witicism. Add that one to the list above.

Meanwhile... "Halfsies there". You half-conceded to my "You don't need a good speaker, you need a good president" point. And I took that and applied it to where I could apply it.

First off, many, MANY threads have shown what actually happened the first election - see Katherine Harris. And yes, he barely "won" the (wait, what does "won" mean again?) second election, but it sure as hell wasn't a "mandate". As for the governorship, again you're not quite right. Surprise.

...As far as the "What does 'won' mean" comment, don't start debating semantics. Come out as President in the election, there, done.

Meanwhile, digging around for Katherine Harris, I pretty much unearthed baseless allegations that Ms. Harris purposefully prevented helpless minorities from voting.

Meanwhile, I took the time to find a third-party source, and I will now refer to it to make a point about the 2000 election:

From http://members.verizon.net/~vze3fs8i/air/whowon.html...

"We used six different methods to determine the winner based on the number of votes cast for the four major candidates in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia.
The first method (listed as "current" in the table below) is that used today in the United States, where the winner of the popular vote in a state receives all the state's electoral votes. George W. Bush wins using this method with 271 electoral votes (1 more than necessary).
In the next method ("popular"), the 538 electoral votes are distributed according to how many votes each candidate received nationwide. No one achieved a majority (270 electoral votes) using this method.
Many pundits expressed the opinion that votes for Ralph Nader resulted in Al Gore losing the election. To test this theory, we gave all of Nader's votes to Gore and all of Buchanan's votes to Bush ("two-way"). This resulted in Gore taking Florida and New Hampshire from Bush, giving Gore victory with a total of 296 electoral votes.
A few pundits expressed the opinion that Pat Buchanan harmed George W. Bush's election chances. To test this theory, we gave all of Buchanan's votes to Bush but let Nader keep his votes ("three-way"). This resulted in Bush taking Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin from Gore, giving Bush a total of 301 electoral votes.
Some pundits believe that the winner-take-all method of assigning a state's electoral votes is needlessly destabilizing. To test this, we apportioned a fraction of each state's electoral votes to each candidate, depending on the percentage of the popular vote each received ("fractional"). We then rounded each candidate's nationwide results to the nearest whole electoral vote. None of the candidates received a majority of the electoral votes using this method.
The final method assigned two electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and apportioned the other (whole) electoral votes to each of the candidates depending on their percentage of the vote in that state ("proportional"). Using this method, George W. Bush obtained 272 electoral votes, two more than necessary for victory."

The article goes on to say that "Republican candidate George W. Bush won the election at the 45.5% confidence level. Democratic candidate Al Gore won the election at the 36.6% confidence level. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader won the election at the 6.40E-301 % confidence level. We were unable to calculate the confidence level of Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan's victory."

It's no secret that the 2000 election was close. Speculation as to who "really" won will never die. However, we have to assume that if anyone found out beyond a reasonable doubt that Gore really did win, it would have been within the months before George Bush was officially appointed to the office. However, every claim to conspiracy or scandal has been successfully refuted, and here we are today.

That's our only choice, really. With the little information we have, anything else is impractical.

Regarding your comments to the 2004 election, "barely" is a relative term. I do think, however, that he won beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is a mandate from the masses.

As far as your comments in relation to an apparent lack of Bush's status as governor of Texas, I have no idea what you're talking about. He was governor of Texas. There. If you have some information I'm not aware of, please tell.

I have one desire, and that's to be right. I'd hate to not know about something, something that you appear to know about.

Ummm WAR ON TERROR? How will we win this one, how will we know if we even made progress? Who and what define terrorism? Is it suicide bombers, insurgents, someone who blows up an abortion clinic? What other countries are we going to attack next in this "war"? If this and the "war" on drugs don’t count as perpetual, what does?:headbang:

Easy. The War on Terror isn't really a war.

This isn't really the full-blown military operation that most people associate with "war". Consider the following:

-If the U.S. were at war, then why did they allow a member of the Taliban regime we're currently fighting to attend Yale University? Would World-War II Great Britain allow a member of the National Socialist Party to attend Oxford?
-If the U.S. were at war, then why did they just hand ports over to countries with a thirty year history of funding enemies of the United States? Would America hand over New York harbor to China during the Vietnam War?

I'm just saying. The "war" America is in doesn't resemble a war so much as a string of military operations that seem, at best, an attempt to police the world.

It is rather like the "War on Drugs", except the "War on Terror" has been making some progress. They both, in a sense, aren't necessarily hostile policies as much as attempts to end violence/corruption in the world which we share.

Next, I'd like to point out that we haven't been attacking countries. I'm just saying, if we WERE attacking countries, why would we still be in Iraq and Afghanistan? As opposed to attacking countries, we're attacking terrorist groups as well as sources of funding for terrorists. From there, we try to build an environment in the country that isn't a breeding ground for American hatred.

As far as concern defining "terrorism" goes, it is a fairly relevant term. However, the CIA does have a working definition of "terrorism", being:

"The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism."

And now, for one final point. One, sorry for the disorganization of this rant; I'm a little tired. Two, the fact that this perpetual "war" doesn't suit the needs of Fascism. Fascism relies on "perpetual war" as a source of the populace's hatred; namely, hatred directed at the enemy. Really, the only people Bush wants Americans to hate are people who declare daily their intention of killing Americans. You can call that Fascism, I call it Self-Preservation.

Psst ... the guy's a troll, a one-trick pony! Don't worry about 'em!
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sprachlos/speechless-smiley-011.gif

Aw. You make me sad.

...I'm disappointed. No one has said Bush was a Fascist yet.

Bush isn't clever enough to be a fascist.

Yeah, even Michael "Savage" Weiner resides there, and given all that special attention he likes to give the city, he still resides there and gets his boat plugged on a shoal every now and again. And loves his small dogs.
And his mother.
And eating.
And on occasion he'll hint at his tempestuous and sensual relationship to Allen Ginsburg (ooh - fun fact - what's Weiner's boy's name?)
And he's a Reagan conservative.

And that was just mean. Shame on you.

Yeah, even Michael "Savage" Weiner resides there [San Francisco], and given all that special attention he likes to give the city, he still resides there and gets his boat plugged on a shoal every now and again. And loves his small dogs.
And his mother.
And eating.
And on occasion he'll hint at his tempestuous and sensual relationship to Allen Ginsburg (ooh - fun fact - what's Weiner's boy's name?)
And he's a Reagan conservative.

Sounds like a nice chap on a sunday afternoon... What exactly is your point? :confused:

Sounds like a nice chap on a sunday afternoon... What exactly is your point? :confused:

It's Straughn. He doesn't need a point to lash out at someone :P

Bush is not at all like Hitler was. Bush does not encourage us to kill all (or any) muslims. we are only fighting the terrorists, and somebody has to do it so why not the world's most influential country? Everyone else in the in the world is scared to stand up for themselves. Hitler was an instigator, Bush is merely standing up for our way of life.

According to the poll, Bush is 37.58% similar to Hitler. Not that far off, I guess.

Easy. The War on Terror isn't really a war.

This isn't really the full-blown military operation that most people associate with "war". Consider the following:

-If the U.S. were at war, then why did they allow a member of the Taliban regime we're currently fighting to attend Yale University? Would World-War II Great Britain allow a member of the National Socialist Party to attend Oxford?
-If the U.S. were at war, then why did they just hand ports over to countries with a thirty year history of funding enemies of the United States? Would America hand over New York harbor to China during the Vietnam War?

I'm just saying. The "war" America is in doesn't resemble a war so much as a string of military operations that seem, at best, an attempt to police the world.

It is rather like the "War on Drugs", except the "War on Terror" has been making some progress. They both, in a sense, aren't necessarily hostile policies as much as attempts to end violence/corruption in the world which we share.

Next, I'd like to point out that we haven't been attacking countries. I'm just saying, if we WERE attacking countries, why would we still be in Iraq and Afghanistan? As opposed to attacking countries, we're attacking terrorist groups as well as sources of funding for terrorists. From there, we try to build an environment in the country that isn't a breeding ground for American hatred.

As far as concern defining "terrorism" goes, it is a fairly relevant term. However, the CIA does have a working definition of "terrorism", being:

"The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.

—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism."

And now, for one final point. One, sorry for the disorganization of this rant; I'm a little tired. Two, the fact that this perpetual "war" doesn't suit the needs of Fascism. Fascism relies on "perpetual war" as a source of the populace's hatred; namely, hatred directed at the enemy. Really, the only people Bush wants Americans to hate are people who declare daily their intention of killing Americans. You can call that Fascism, I call it Self-Preservation.


First the Taliban was not a terrorist party; it was a recognized government, so there is no problems letting them get into an American college.

Second, You point out how we ARE NOT attacking countries by pointing out the two we attacked and than maintained a presence in?

What progress have we made in the "war on terror"?

And the government with everything to gain from the war defines (loosely I might add) what terror is.

And you say this doesn’t meet the needs of fascism due to lack of hatred, I have seen and heard many hatful things done towards Muslims since 9/11.

Since there's already a topic on this and too many people seem to think Hitler and Bush are similar, I wanted to add a poll. How ideologically alike do you consider Bush and Hitler to be (poll coming)?
I personally dont think Bush is even close to Hitler.
And the preseption of muslims being attacked just because of being muslim is wrong. If you actually do some research, the muslim community has the largest amount of Terrorist organizations.
(Even wikipedia terrorist organizations if you want. it seperates them by religion.)

I personally dont think Bush is even close to Hitler.
And the preseption of muslims being attacked just because of being muslim is wrong. If you actually do some research, the muslim community has the largest amount of Terrorist organizations.
(Even wikipedia terrorist organizations if you want. it seperates them by religion.)

But to make a comment like this about an entire populace of people based on a small percentage of their beliefs is part of the problem.

Wellll. I guess so. *Backs away from recent statement.)

I put down 10-20%.
Hitler was a genius. Bush is an nowhere near a genius.

Hitler just was messed up in the head.
The only place i agree with Bush is on the War on Iraq.

He falls far from my standards on his beliefs on religion, enviroment, and energy.

true, Hitler belived everyone should be nazi or dead. Bush only wants to do what he wants despite the consequences it has on his people, he's nowhere near being hitler.

bush just wants money for his oil empire thats the whole reason we are in iraq, to drive up oil prices for his profit

hitler was a fantastic leader and one of the greatest german ever he just did outright terrible things

jews:mp5: mind controlled nazis

Hitler: hates Jews, loves Germany
Bush: hates Moslims, loves America
One of the first things Bush said after 9/11 was "Islam is a religion of peace", so he doesn't hate them really.

One of the first things Bush said after 9/11 was "Islam is a religion of peace", so he doesn't hate them really.
He may still hate them. Bush himself isn't known by any stretch of the imagination to be keen on endorsing peaceful means or peaceful solutions.
:(
War is peace
stopmeifyou'veheardthisb4

Debate is the American spirit.
Erm ...
....to vulgarize and falsify until the bare lie shines through .... :(

It's Straughn. He doesn't need a point to lash out at someone :P
You know me like i know the back of your head.


http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/fouet.gif

:D

First article: Explains problems with both maintaining AND relinquishing control. Not an article about CENSORSHIP... :DYou don't apparently get it. Your angle has been one of not connecting what is obviously there, so there's a context. Sorry it isn't in right-wing soundbite form. No, i'm not, actually.

Second article: Bush attempting to cater to the wants of the American People by slightly hindering the redlight district by preventing them from adding ".xxx" to domain names... Yeah, that's blatant CENSORSHIP. You bold a lot of words you don't seem to know the meaning to. The wants of the American people? Do you want to review his current ratings, skippy?

Third article: Related back to the ".xxx" thing, basic decision is "who should control Internet, U.N. or U.S.", NOT "Free the Internet". I mean, I'm quoting here: "During a series of meetings organized by the United Nations, ministers from dozens of other countries including China and Cuba have raised objections and demanded more influence--a prospect that worries free-speech advocates and business groups who are concerned about more regulation and a more hostile climate for electronic commerce in the future." Free speech advocates? Like Bush, perhaps?
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_156530.html
Given the FCC influence recently, PLUS the bullsh*t the administration likes to provide as "fact" for public usage,
"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
oh yes there's a date and a place but you appear too confused on the subject to react rationally. You probably got distracted by the ACLU quote earlier and didn't get further.
There ought to be limits to freedom.
--at a Press conference at the Texas State House, May 21, 1999
....
Further, here's another nugget about why other people would be concerned about U.S. intervention on information on the net -

"We know where they [WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad
and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Rumsfeld: ...it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction
there.

McGovern: You said you knew where they were.

Rumsfeld: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and...

McGovern: You said you knew where they were. Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast,
south, west of there. Those are your words.

Rumsfeld: My words-my words were that-no-no, wait a minute--wait a minute.
Let him stay one second. Just a second....

McGovern: You said you knew where they were.

Rumsfeld: I did not.

Rumsfeld: You’re getting plenty of play, sir.

McGovern: I’d just like an honest answer.

Rumsfeld: I’m giving it to you.

McGovern: Well we’re talking about lies and your allegation there was
bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

Rumsfeld: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

McGovern: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam
Hussein had no rule. That’s also…

Rumsfeld: He was also in Baghdad.

McGovern: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital.

Man, it's a good thing BOTH videos are available on the 'net and on The Daily Show.


What, did you just Google "Bush Controlling The Internet" and provided three random URLs? You'd never really know, would you? It doesn't seem to be your keener interest to investigate your bullsh*t. :(
Take your smilies back, and i'll up you one.
:D :D :D :fluffle:

...Wow. You were offended by the word skippy. A word said not so much in anger as in playful competition, finding someone to argue with. Meanwhile, I find the hypocrisy incredible, as would anyone else who happens upon this thread...
I suppose that if i called you "crimson-lipped skinned-knee knobgobbler" in the same effect, you won't feel particularly offended. Perhaps that might not even be a particularly unattractive monniker. That would be, of course, if i were to call you that. I probably won't - too many letters. Perhaps that's the real reason you like to call people skippy - because your "humour" is so far beyond the average :rolleyes: It's good for you to act so sophisticated. I've noted how popular that'll make you. That reminds me, some people care to spend far, FAR too much $ for a painting of a Campbell's Soup can.

Apparently, I am missing something.I suspect you could find it if you supported stem cell research, wanna guess what? Here's a hint - try to stay away from too much smoke, liquor, loud music, and cranial trauma. Maybe i'm too late, you could have been born into it.
I refused to consider physical appearance as grounds for a presidential qualification. I said that it was slightly irrelevant, and didn't give that quality dignity, whilst you did. And I'M the problem... Righto!Yes, you have a sense of humour in one post and then directly following, you're serious! Yes, consistency suits ... erm nevermind. You're give the appearance of being a flip-flopper. That's good, that kind of flexibility will work well here. You might even get an appearance of being fair and balanced.

I took Public Forum Debate, when you're attacking a point, you say that. It's become habit for me.Ah a reflex - works as a good strategy if you prefer emotional and irrational debates.
You should get a refund.

Hey, kids!Appeal to the crowd, hmmm, what did your "public forum debate" say about argument integrity there? :p
Let's go over what Demigod Straughn considers wit! Here we have:
-The kind of dignity that requires a special gait..."
-"Coal in your stocking."
-"Do you and your ego need a room?"

Straughn, if you have any more of your brilliant moments, come tell me, alright? You're an inspiration.Ah finally something where we don't have to fluff each other with cheese graters! :fluffle:
BTW, a demigod? What kind of sacrifice (other than dignity) are you offering? :D

I could be missing somethingThere's a pattern developing here ... better ignore it like the other 51 warnings to the FAA.
but the only hypocrisy I can detect in my introduction of logical fallacies would be the fact that I called you "Skippy". Which, by the way, I call nearly everyone and everything. It never was an insult of any form.Well, as disingenuous as this sounds, it's nice that you don't want to appear to be insulting to me in a fashion that might invoke my consulting somebody about a perceived issue.

Meanwhile, the particular section I was quoting was void of argument. It consisted almost entirely of attacks on me, with the entire "Bush's failure as a public speaker" thrown in there for good measure.Meh. You take it too personally i think ... wait, how'd you put it?
Which, by the way, I (behave towards) nearly everyone and everything. It never was an insult of any form.Wow, that really cleared things up! You've even inferred as much to another poster later on!
blackkettlepotblackkettlepotblackkettlepot
Oh, btw, for someone who likes to toss around the idea that they have some formidable net discourse skill, you're acting a bit green to the rather predictable consequence of jumping on another posters' response to someone else.

My point was essentially that Kerry failed to make a judgment call, what makes you think he could make a right one. That was about it. I have yet to recieve a response going against this tried-and-true method of pattern recognition.Or a good line about where e goes after c.
All grammar assault aside, i really would have preferred a different candidate than Bush's own cousin to choose from. Still, Kerry has consistently been more responsible than Bush in most ways, given their respective records.

Oh, look. Another terribly clever witicism. Add that one to the list above.What's the point of that? The magic dies. :gundge:

Meanwhile... "Halfsies there". You half-conceded to my "You don't need a good speaker, you need a good president" point. And I took that and applied it to where I could apply it.That's the problem. You took the wrong half. As in, only half of the statement is agreeable.
:rolleyes:
Obviously to suit your version of "argument".


As far as the "What does 'won' mean" comment, don't start debating semantics. Come out as President in the election, there, done.You don't know the definition of "won"? How hard can it be on the internet to find that? And perhaps you should dig a little harder about what actually happened.

Meanwhile, digging around for Katherine Harris, I pretty much unearthed baseless allegations that Ms. Harris purposefully prevented helpless minorities from voting.Unearthed? Nope. Clear. Further, not baseless. She halted the recount and handed it - peachy how much she supported Bush for in that particular race. Perhaps you'll look it up, perhaps not. No points for you there.

Meanwhile, I took the time to find a third-party source, and I will now refer to it to make a point about the 2000 election:

From http://members.verizon.net/~vze3fs8i/air/whowon.html...

"We used six different methods to determine the winner based on the number of votes cast for the four major candidates in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia.
The first method (listed as "current" in the table below) is that used today in the United States, where the winner of the popular vote in a state receives all the state's electoral votes. George W. Bush wins using this method with 271 electoral votes (1 more than necessary).
In the next method ("popular"), the 538 electoral votes are distributed according to how many votes each candidate received nationwide. No one achieved a majority (270 electoral votes) using this method.
Many pundits expressed the opinion that votes for Ralph Nader resulted in Al Gore losing the election. To test this theory, we gave all of Nader's votes to Gore and all of Buchanan's votes to Bush ("two-way"). This resulted in Gore taking Florida and New Hampshire from Bush, giving Gore victory with a total of 296 electoral votes.
A few pundits expressed the opinion that Pat Buchanan harmed George W. Bush's election chances. To test this theory, we gave all of Buchanan's votes to Bush but let Nader keep his votes ("three-way"). This resulted in Bush taking Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin from Gore, giving Bush a total of 301 electoral votes.
Some pundits believe that the winner-take-all method of assigning a state's electoral votes is needlessly destabilizing. To test this, we apportioned a fraction of each state's electoral votes to each candidate, depending on the percentage of the popular vote each received ("fractional"). We then rounded each candidate's nationwide results to the nearest whole electoral vote. None of the candidates received a majority of the electoral votes using this method.
The final method assigned two electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in each state, and apportioned the other (whole) electoral votes to each of the candidates depending on their percentage of the vote in that state ("proportional"). Using this method, George W. Bush obtained 272 electoral votes, two more than necessary for victory."

The article goes on to say that "Republican candidate George W. Bush won the election at the 45.5% confidence level. Democratic candidate Al Gore won the election at the 36.6% confidence level. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader won the election at the 6.40E-301 % confidence level. We were unable to calculate the confidence level of Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan's victory."One source, yes. But many other sources give different results. I'll extend my appreciation for actually providing substance here.
There's plenty of reason from news and threads here for a person not to just go along with the idea that one source will do it. It comes up every other month, it would appear. I am not particularly interested in rehashing this, though, but given the proper incentive (for example, calling me "skippy" might do it) i may go to my archives and throw a bit out. I wouldn't count on it though.

It's no secret that the 2000 election was close. Speculation as to who "really" won will never die. However, we have to assume that if anyone found out beyond a reasonable doubt that Gore really did win, it would have been within the months before George Bush was officially appointed to the office. However, every claim to conspiracy or scandal has been successfully refuted, and here we are today.

That's our only choice, really. With the little information we have, anything else is impractical.

Regarding your comments to the 2004 election, "barely" is a relative term. I do think, however, that he won beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is a mandate from the masses.No it isn't. That's why the argument keeps coming up. You're not upholding your own statements.

As far as your comments in relation to an apparent lack of Bush's status as governor of Texas, I have no idea what you're talking about. He was governor of Texas. There. If you have some information I'm not aware of, please tell.
Quote me. Your version of "paraphrasing" is as accurate as the "halfsies" assertion. Not working.
I have one desire, and that's to be right. -wing.
The rest ... what did you say prior about "dignifying"?

Aw. You make me sad.
Well, i'd fluffle you, but the length of your posts implies you'd want some kind of commitment :p

How 'bout some Lewis?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/025.gif
Remember, the flapping dickie is A-material. So sayeth the clown.

One, sorry for the disorganization of this rant; I'm a little tired.
Well, at least one of your hands is! :p

And that was just mean. Shame on you.
When you say "mean", are you putting it in the context of his radio show's attitude?
BTW, i'll tell you right now that appealing to my sense of "shame" is .... wasting your time/annoying the pig :)

Sounds like a nice chap on a sunday afternoon... What exactly is your point? :confused:
:rolleyes:

Should have sign that says "beware of Straughn"
lol

It's 4.6% too high.

Might want to take a class on macroeconomics- there's a certain level of unemployment, called full employment, which is where the highest level of sustainable production occurs. Any lower tends to cause short lived expansion, followed by a recession (it was under full employment during part of Clintion's tenure). 4.6% is right around full employment, and, I might add, the lowest it's been since the recession.

Hitler: hates Jews, loves Germany
Bush: hates Moslims, loves America

Actually he's said more than once that Islam isn't to blame...

hitler was a fantastic leader and one of the greatest german ever he just did outright terrible things

jews:mp5: mind controlled nazis

WTF! a great german! are you being sarky?? he led the german people into a war they could not win and it resulted in millions of dead germans and the loss of historical provinces (east prussia, Silesia, sudetenland) and a country devastated and discredited. Are you german? because i do not think a german would make such a comment, if you want to know who are great germans then refer to people like Beethoven, Strauss, Hegel, Brandt, etc these in my view constitute great germans not some little egomaniac from the alps!

NAZI GEGEN RAUS

Hitler: hates Jews, loves Germany
Bush: hates Moslims, loves America


I think it's fair to say one of the few peoples who have never endured persecution and genocide in the scale of the Jews are the Muslims. In fact, for the better part of 800 years, it was the Ottoman Empire, to provide an example, which despotically ruled the Balkans and murdered an odd million Armenians in the East.

To say Bush hates Jews is a victimist stance that serves only as apologism to further agression in a spiral of violence. Bush does not hate Muslims. Muslims are not enduring persecution or harassment. This is a reality which must be accepted in order to slow down a spiral of violence (read Reaction to Mohammed cartoons - a tad hypocritical considering the violent anti-semite cartoons published simultaneously and previously in Saudi newspapers).

WTF! a great german! are you being sarky?? he led the german people into a war they could not win and it resulted in millions of dead germans and the loss of historical provinces (east prussia, Silesia, sudetenland) and a country devastated and discredited. Are you german? because i do not think a german would make such a comment, if you want to know who are great germans then refer to people like Beethoven, Strauss, Hegel, Brandt, etc these in my view constitute great germans not some little egomaniac from the alps!

NAZI GEGEN RAUS

I agree with you, but I think he refers to the reconstruction of Germany since 1933. He built the friggin' Autobahn. Which does not make him a great German more than Pol Pot is a great Cambodian.

EDIT: Oh, and Hitler was Austrian ( @guy who says he was a great German), born in Linz.

I agree with you, but I think he refers to the reconstruction of Germany since 1933. He built the friggin' Autobahn. Which does not make him a great German more than Pol Pot is a great Cambodian.

The reconstruction was impressive but it was people like Speer that masterminded this not Adolf. While Hitlers crimes against the minorities and conduct of the war are well documented there is also his championing of the industrial leaders (Krupp, Siemens, etc) and chrushing of the workers movement (at the time one of the largest in europe), in this respect he and Bush are similar in as much that Bush is the Paladin of Big Business.

bush just wants money for his oil empire thats the whole reason we are in iraq, to drive up oil prices for his profit

hitler was a fantastic leader and one of the greatest german ever he just did outright terrible things

jews:mp5: mind controlled nazis
...wha? he went to Iraq to make Iraqi oil avalible to the United States to drive up prices? have you ever taken a economics course? or thought about the crap your spouting? more supply makes higher prices...you must live in a very niffty world.

100% because he's a polititian, less 15% because he isn't as smart. All successful polititians behave in accordance to the best and most efficient way to attain and maintain power. If slaughtering Jews would save his approval rating, Bush would do it, and if he didn't he would be replaced by someone who would. Such is the nature of politics.

100% because he's a polititian, less 15% because he isn't as smart. All successful polititians behave in accordance to the best and most efficient way to attain and maintain power. If slaughtering Jews would save his approval rating, Bush would do it, and if he didn't he would be replaced by someone who would. Such is the nature of politics.
True, but is that where the similarity ends?? Bush is a product of american politics while Hitler and the Nazi party were not the product of German politics, hell the Nazi's started out as a Bavarian separatist party who had a monarchist bent (Support for the Wittelbach kings of Bayern), Bush is a puppet for the republican party and there varied backers while Hitler had to court the Big businees families while contending with the hostility of the established politiccal classes who were largely aristocratic (a hang over from the second reich).

...wha? he went to Iraq to make Iraqi oil avalible to the United States to drive up prices? have you ever taken a economics course? or thought about the crap your spouting? more supply makes higher prices...you must live in a very niffty world.

Than why are gas prices going up, and up, and up?

0% - 10%

economically, Hitler was closer to Clinton (heavier taxes, more socialism than Bush) than he is to Bush.

And last time I checked, we weren't rounding up law-abiding American citizens and torturing/murdering them.

Or trying to conquer the world militarily.

etc.


We have the nuke.

Bush hasn't pushed the big red button.

Would Hitler have?

We used it once in lieu of an invasion of Japan that likely would have claimed 1,000,000+ lives.


weren't they ready to surrender anyway?

/insert obligatory "SIEG HEIL!" non-joke here

Should have sign that says "beware of Straughn"
lol
*curtseys*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/057.gif

First the Taliban was not a terrorist party; it was a recognized government, so there is no problems letting them get into an American college.

The Taliban were a major source of funding and recruits for Al Qaeda. That is generally known information.

Second, You point out how we ARE NOT attacking countries by pointing out the two we attacked and than maintained a presence in?

Yep. If we were attacking those countries, we'd be after civilians too. But, we're not killing women and children intentionally. Why? We're attacking organizations that fund and support terrorists... We can't help that there's no country called "Al Qaeda" or "Terrortopia". If there were, it'd be great. But there's not, so we have to operate on an organization by organization, host-country by host-country basis.

What progress have we made in the "war on terror"?

The breeding ground for terrorism is hatred. The Islamo-Fascist regimes of the Middle East were spawning pools of such hate; we've turned two of them into liberated countries, soon to be open, functioning democracies.

I believe that in twenty years, people will see what this "War on Terror" has done.

And the government with everything to gain from the war defines (loosely I might add) what terror is.

Do you wish to provide a better definition than the one I've provided? Let's hear it.

And you say this doesn’t meet the needs of fascism due to lack of hatred, I have seen and heard many hatful things done towards Muslims since 9/11.

Many? A handful of isolated incidents here and there, my good friend. All committed by what has more or less unanimously been agreed upon as uneducated hicks. There IS no sponsored aim for hatred towards Muslims.

Likewise, don't pretend that a few isolated cases of Muslims preaching hatred for the West are non-existent. For every Dixie Goober, there's a Jihad Joe.

You know me like i know the back of your head.


http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/fouet.gif

You make me doubleplus unhappy.

The Taliban were a major source of funding and recruits for Al Qaeda. That is generally known information.

Yes, but a government non the less. Sadi Arabia is also a known supporter of terrorism, as is Iran, and many others. Which will we "liberate" next?



Yep. If we were attacking those countries, we'd be after civilians too. But, we're not killing women and children intentionally. Why? We're attacking organizations that fund and support terrorists... We can't help that there's no country called "Al Qaeda" or "Terrortopia". If there were, it'd be great. But there's not, so we have to operate on an organization by organization, host-country by host-country basis.

When did Iraq support terrorism? What Terrorist organization is next, the IRA, The red army? With this reasoning we could attack almost any country at any time. And if there were a "terrortopia, would its women and children be fair game?


The breeding ground for terrorism is hatred. The Islamo-Fascist regimes of the Middle East were spawning pools of such hate; we've turned two of them into liberated countries, soon to be open, functioning democracies.

I believe that in twenty years, people will see what this "War on Terror" has done.

By forcing "democracy" on them and making them "free"? Have you seen the way they are using their votes? They are not going to have a free democratic government for a long time, if and when they do its going to be their choice, not ours. Did we "free" Libya?



Do you wish to provide a better definition than the one I've provided? Let's hear it.

I've never heard of a Christian right wing who bombs an abortion clinic defined as a terrorist, yet by your definition they would be. Or the KKK, or many other organizations could be defined terrorists by these definition 's, who gets to choose which ones on our list in the "War on terror"?


Many? A handful of isolated incidents here and there, my good friend. All committed by what has more or less unanimously been agreed upon as uneducated hicks. There IS no sponsored aim for hatred towards Muslims.

Likewise, don't pretend that a few isolated cases of Muslims preaching hatred for the West are non-existent. For every Dixie Goober, there's a Jihad Joe.

The government has not sponsored hatred towards Muslims, but has not seemed overly protective of there either. Most of the reports focus on the Middle East, not the other countries that pose problems and future threats.

I suppose that if i called you "crimson-lipped skinned-knee knobgobbler" in the same effect, you won't feel particularly offended. Perhaps that might not even be a particularly unattractive monniker. That would be, of course, if i were to call you that. I probably won't - too many letters. Perhaps that's the real reason you like to call people skippy - because your "humour" is so far beyond the average :rolleyes: It's good for you to act so sophisticated. I've noted how popular that'll make you. That reminds me, some people care to spend far, FAR too much $ for a painting of a Campbell's Soup can.

What did Andy Warhol ever do to you?

Either way, the point remains. Most people don't take offense at skippy, so I assumed that you wouldn't. If it's that offensive, I'll be sure to avoid referring to you as skippy from now on.

I suspect you could find it if you supported stem cell research, wanna guess what? Here's a hint - try to stay away from too much smoke, liquor, loud music, and cranial trauma. Maybe i'm too late, you could have been born into it.

And that one just hurt. You're good at personal attacks, I've got to admit.

Yes, you have a sense of humour in one post and then directly following, you're serious! Yes, consistency suits ... erm nevermind. You're give the appearance of being a flip-flopper. That's good, that kind of flexibility will work well here. You might even get an appearance of being fair and balanced.

Sorry for being a human being.

Ah a reflex - works as a good strategy if you prefer emotional and irrational debates.
You should get a refund.

Not a reflex, a habit. Virtually, the two are the same. However, I did not perceive the apparent annoyance my habit would cause.

Appeal to the crowd, hmmm, what did your "public forum debate" say about argument integrity there? :p

Sigh. I think I'm detecting a pattern here. Alright, so basically I'm not supposed to refer to ANYONE outside of our argument... real or imaginary... Alright, alright, have it your way.

Ah finally something where we don't have to fluff each other with cheese graters! :fluffle:
BTW, a demigod? What kind of sacrifice (other than dignity) are you offering? :D

Okay, okay, okay. I'll stop the personal attacks if you do, alrighty?

There's a pattern developing here ... better ignore it like the other 51 warnings to the FAA.

Fifty-one is such an obscure number.

Well, as disingenuous as this sounds, it's nice that you don't want to appear to be insulting to me in a fashion that might invoke my consulting somebody about a perceived issue.

...Okay, Straughn, you win this one. I can't find an issue in this quote to counter. There's no assertion relating to whether Bush is Fascist or not. It's completely unrefutable.

Wow, that really cleared things up! You've even inferred as much to another poster later on!
blackkettlepotblackkettlepotblackkettlepot
Oh, btw, for someone who likes to toss around the idea that they have some formidable net discourse skill, you're acting a bit green to the rather predictable consequence of jumping on another posters' response to someone else.

One, I'm not asserting in any way that I have "formidable net discourse skill." I came to the NationStates forums because I thought it would be a nice past-time to casually debate issues with like-minded people. That's it. This is a HOBBY. I don't live to jump onto NationStates every day and see how I can attack some random Internet passerby. I come to see who stands where and why; and, if need be, readjust my own stance on various issues.

Or a good line about where e goes after c.

Yeah... Ha, silly me.

All grammar assault aside, i really would have preferred a different candidate than Bush's own cousin to choose from. Still, Kerry has consistently been more responsible than Bush in most ways, given their respective records.

Records in what specifically? In terms of putting forth policies, yes, Bush has had more failed policies than Kerry. He's also put forth more policies period. In terms of Congress attendance, that's just stupid, seeing as Mr. Bush was never a member of congress. In terms of military service, yes, there are sources pointing out Bush as incredible and Kerry as credible. There are also sources pointing the oppposite direction.

My point being, what record specifically?

What's the point of that? The magic dies. :gundge:

The magic was dead from the get-go.

That's the problem. You took the wrong half. As in, only half of the statement is agreeable.
:rolleyes:
Obviously to suit your version of "argument".

In that case, I simply took it the wrong way. In that case, I'll ask you this: isn't it more important to have a president capable of serving in office well, serving the needs of the people and protecting them, or capable of giving brilliant speeches?

You don't know the definition of "won"? How hard can it be on the internet to find that? And perhaps you should dig a little harder about what actually happened.

Please. Enlighten me. How did Bush cheat the system this time?

Unearthed? Nope. Clear. Further, not baseless. She halted the recount and handed it - peachy how much she supported Bush for in that particular race. Perhaps you'll look it up, perhaps not. No points for you there.

Of course there's a hypothetical chance that she cheated the ballots. There's also a hypothetical chance that she didn't. The only evidence for the former is circumstantial evidence that would never stand in a legal court. The problem with the Internet, I can find websites that say whatever I want them to say. "We faked the Moon Landing!" "We Really DID Go to the Moon!" "We ACTUALLY Went to MARS!" "Yeti is Real" "No He Isn't!" "Bush Cheated the Election! Twice!" "He Won the Election! Twice!" I have one HELL of a time sifting through garbage and fact.

Now, obviously, you're probably thinking to yourself, "Excuse for bias!" Well, I'm a reasonable person. Example, I'm about to concede my "Bush Supports Free Speech" thing in a minute. I'm more concerned about being right than winning an argument.

Really, who knows the truth about that first election. It's up to speculation.

One source, yes. But many other sources give different results. I'll extend my appreciation for actually providing substance here.
There's plenty of reason from news and threads here for a person not to just go along with the idea that one source will do it. It comes up every other month, it would appear. I am not particularly interested in rehashing this, though, but given the proper incentive (for example, calling me "skippy" might do it) i may go to my archives and throw a bit out. I wouldn't count on it though.

I didn't plan on sitting there and digging around for more than one source. I figured that it was a given that I could find more sources that said the same thing. Time to clarify this...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/568829/posts

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=65000576

Okay, there. Done. I can find as many as you want.

No it isn't. That's why the argument keeps coming up. You're not upholding your own statements.

In my book, a mandate from the masses is a popular vote over 51%. Bush had that, Bush gets the mandate. It's all really a manner of perspective.

Quote me. Your version of "paraphrasing" is as accurate as the "halfsies" assertion. Not working.

"As for the governorship, again you're not quite right."

Now, I have been known to draw odd conclusions. But, whenever I stated Bush's status as a former governor, you responded with this. This led me to believe that my statement was debatable. To which I said, "No, he was most definitely elected governor of Texas at one point in time."

-wing.
The rest ... what did you say prior about "dignifying"?

I want to be in the right in a debate. I thought that was common sense. I'm not trying to glorify anything. I just want to be in the right.

Actually, I heard that the Taliban did NOT fund Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda was in fact a major source of funding for the Taliban.

Don't recall where I read that. But if it is true... a government that RECIEVES funding from terrorists? That can't be good.

Yay! It's back!
:rolleyes:

You make me doubleplus unhappy.
Well, i'm sure there's some kind of mutual appreciation we can come to ...

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/sadhug_tweetz.gif

What did Andy Warhol ever do to you?Personally, not a lot. "Professionally", he's of the same calibre of self-absorption that resulted in the Disco riots. :mad:

Either way, the point remains. Most people don't take offense at skippy, so I assumed that you wouldn't. If it's that offensive, I'll be sure to avoid referring to you as skippy from now on.It is a common tactic to reassess one's moniker as a power shift in debates between one philosophical POV and another. It had appeared that that was where you were going with it, i responded in kind.

Sorry for being a human being.?
:confused:
How do you prove that now?

Not a reflex, a habit. Virtually, the two are the same. *SJS hmmms ...*
However, I did not perceive the apparent annoyance my habit would cause.Well, most of the other people who i've gotten into one fashion of "debate" or another with certainly knew what kind of response they'd get by the namecalling. I suppose i could take offense to being likened to peanut butter, but i'm that much more likely to turn the situation grotesque. ;)

Sigh. I think I'm detecting a pattern here. Alright, so basically I'm not supposed to refer to ANYONE outside of our argument... real or imaginary... Alright, alright, have it your way.Really, there was only one other person responding to you ... are you trying to get their attention?

Okay, okay, okay. I'll stop the personal attacks if you do, alrighty?Don't worry about it. I don't even know you personally. That's why i had that other quote earlier. :)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10943801&postcount=129

Fifty-one is such an obscure number.There's two ways i'm likely to take your statement - as a reference to NOT knowing what i'm talking about, or as a way of actually knowing what i'm talking about and your wit actually was pretty shiny on this one.
Should i let that remain a mystery? I'll give you points if you want them. ;)

...Okay, Straughn, you win this one. I can't find an issue in this quote to counter. There's no assertion relating to whether Bush is Fascist or not. It's completely unrefutable.Wasn't the point.

One, I'm not asserting in any way that I have "formidable net discourse skill." I came to the NationStates forums because I thought it would be a nice past-time to casually debate issues with like-minded people. That's it. This is a HOBBY. I don't live to jump onto NationStates every day and see how I can attack some random Internet passerby. I come to see who stands where and why; and, if need be, readjust my own stance on various issues.So are you debating with like-minded people, or me, whom you really don't know how i think? If nothing else, some of this discourse might lead one to believe we're not like-minded.
?
Also, you name-dropped first about your "resume". *shrug*

Records in what specifically? In terms of putting forth policies, yes, Bush has had more failed policies than Kerry. He's also put forth more policies period. In terms of Congress attendance, that's just stupid, seeing as Mr. Bush was never a member of congress. In terms of military service, yes, there are sources pointing out Bush as incredible and Kerry as credible. There are also sources pointing the oppposite direction.
My point being, what record specifically?
How many actual initiatives were put forth from Kerry vs. Bush on attempting to be responsible for the positions of authority and profession held. If you would indulge, point out where Bush had "credible" military service ... i'd understand you not, since it would be a huge waste of time.

The magic was dead from the get-go.Oh i wouldn't say that, you're still here ... ;) *giggle*
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/love/1112.gif


In that case, I simply took it the wrong way. In that case, I'll ask you this: isn't it more important to have a president capable of serving in office well, serving the needs of the people and protecting them, or capable of giving brilliant speeches? It's not even the speeches, he's a terrible president. You use the term "capable", i refute it. He hasn't done it well. He's f*cking terrible. He's doing for the country that same thing that Jonestown did for Kool-Aid. That's not even a joke. You'd think, given his charisma, it'd be one of the few things he gets right - and instead, you have a plethora of genetic trash and psychological equivalent in the U.S. suddenly going in vogue with "nookyaler" being a "regional dialect" :rolleyes:
Yes, making the world more dangerous AND dumber. Thanks a f*cking lot.




Please. Enlighten me. How did Bush cheat the system this time?I never said both times. I pointed out the first time. Perhaps you'll look it up more if you need to know more.
Or punch up my archives, you might find something on it.

I'm more concerned about being right than winning an argument.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/13.gif
...and there do we have the sweetmeat?

lt's all really a manner of perspective.
Hmmm. So are you casually debating with "like-minded" people here?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/13.gif

I want to be in the right in a debate. I thought that was common sense. I'm not trying to glorify anything. I just want to be in the right.Again, i must ...
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/13.gif

*pokes thread with a stick*

Are either of you debating the issue anymore? Or are you ranting about each others' debate tactics?

*pokes thread with a stick*Here, this might come in useful :
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/265.gif

Are either of you debating the issue anymore? Or are you ranting about each others' debate tactics?
Actually, the latter, it would appear.
Yarvolk took it upon his/herself to assault me after an issue i made with an earlier poster, and it kinda wound itself down to this. Kind of predictable, really.
As for the OP, well, that might have been covered at length.
What page is this anyway?

I'm forced to put 0-10 percent
Bush on his own has no occupational skillz, a very questionable amount of intelligence, no conceivable wit, a charisma dwarfed by his earz, was raised into politics, and was done so in the most pampered, luxurious conditionz, although he still persisted in being a jackass with coke and liquor well into his time, carrying his teenaged self-concept of invisibility along with him into his middle age.
Hitler, on the other hand, was an intelligent, charismatic (despite his unsavoury very non-Aryan physical appearance, which is one of his few similaritiez to Bush) politician who never had anyone leading him to anything n'or was given much in his young life.
Hitler's biggest advantage was that he rose from nothing, which is exactly where no-one expects a dictator to rise from. In Bush's case, all we get is one less middle initial than his predecessor. I'm not saying I'd rather have Hitler as my dictator than Bush as my president- that's be insane. However, I am crediting Hitler as a true evil genius, who worked from very little to control over an entire country with a renewed economy and praise from all sidez. That's impressive! Bush just sort of ended up where he's at- and barely managed to even end up. I mean, come on, man! It's my second language before two other languagez and I still speak it better than him!

This is the one of the stuipidest threads I have ever seen. The responses to the poll clearly show an ignorance of History. Bush 100% like hitler LMAO.. first logic should hit you with the words "NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY"... Bush Capitalist "free markets".... Hitler Facist "goverment controlled monopolies"

So that Destroys any economic shit all you morons might think. that somehow makes it 100%.

I suggest you idiots read Mein Kamf and Hitlers second biography. Learn what Hitler actually was. This poll clearly shows your ignorance A... Of History or B of anything political. People like u should just be ignored for stuipidity.

I'm forced to put 0-10 percent
Bush on his own has no occupational skillz, a very questionable amount of intelligence, no conceivable wit, a charisma dwarfed by his earz, was raised into politics, and was done so in the most pampered, luxurious conditionz, although he still persisted in being a jackass with coke and liquor well into his time, carrying his teenaged self-concept of invisibility along with him into his middle age.
Hitler, on the other hand, was an intelligent, charismatic (despite his unsavoury very non-Aryan physical appearance, which is one of his few similaritiez to Bush) politician who never had anyone leading him to anything n'or was given much in his young life.
Hitler's biggest advantage was that he rose from nothing, which is exactly where no-one expects a dictator to rise from. In Bush's case, all we get is one less middle initial than his predecessor. I'm not saying I'd rather have Hitler as my dictator than Bush as my president- that's be insane. However, I am crediting Hitler as a true evil genius, who worked from very little to control over an entire country with a renewed economy and praise from all sidez. That's impressive! Bush just sort of ended up where he's at- and barely managed to even end up. I mean, come on, man! It's my second language before two other languagez and I still speak it better than him!


If bush is an idiot you have to admit that the democrats in this country are a bunch of morons and tards... According to you they cant even oust a moron for a president.

I'm forced to put 0-10 percent
Bush on his own has no occupational skillz, a very questionable amount of intelligence, no conceivable wit, a charisma dwarfed by his earz, was raised into politics, and was done so in the most pampered, luxurious conditionz, although he still persisted in being a jackass with coke and liquor well into his time, carrying his teenaged self-concept of invisibility along with him into his middle age.
Hitler, on the other hand, was an intelligent, charismatic (despite his unsavoury very non-Aryan physical appearance, which is one of his few similaritiez to Bush) politician who never had anyone leading him to anything n'or was given much in his young life.
Hitler's biggest advantage was that he rose from nothing, which is exactly where no-one expects a dictator to rise from. In Bush's case, all we get is one less middle initial than his predecessor. I'm not saying I'd rather have Hitler as my dictator than Bush as my president- that's be insane. However, I am crediting Hitler as a true evil genius, who worked from very little to control over an entire country with a renewed economy and praise from all sidez. That's impressive! Bush just sort of ended up where he's at- and barely managed to even end up. I mean, come on, man! It's my second language before two other languagez and I still speak it better than him!
Several excellent points. *nods*

...wha? he went to Iraq to make Iraqi oil avalible to the United States to drive up prices? have you ever taken a economics course? or thought about the crap your spouting? more supply makes higher prices...you must live in a very niffty world.
umm... do you drive, bro?
Oil pricez are far beyond their peak. Economists are tearing their hair out over the fix the country is in due to that and castrating themselvez out of shame for their very off-center predictionz.
Bush claimed he was going to "talk to those involved on the inside market" and try to get an insider market so he could tell us wether or not the oil market was being unfair. Wait a second... oil? Isn't HE an oil business owner! Surpriiise! Asshooole! On the other hand, not a very GOOD one. Were it not for the clever business mindz his father sent in to aid him, his business would have failed... [again]. But wait... Cheney said the same thing. Cheney's annual income nearly QUADRUPLEZ Bush's, and nearly all of that is from oil money. His office is two hallwayz down, according to White House maps, from door to door. It's like Bill Gates saying he needed to ask some insiderz to find out wether or not Windowz was illegally monopolizing the computer market. Builderz know their bricks.

If bush is an idiot you have to admit that the democrats in this country are a bunvh og morons and retards... According to you they cant even oust a moron for a president.
No, that's not what they were saying.
Perhaps your reassessment would read more like, "the democrats in this country are incompetent ... they can't even oust a moron for a president".
It's not even that simple if you know what pains have been made to establish the republican majorities where they are.

No, that's not what they were saying.
Perhaps your reassessment would read more like, "the democrats in this country are incompetent ... they can't even oust a moron for a president".
It's not even that simple if you know what pains have been made to establish the republican majorities where they are.


I happen to think republic pains to increase a majority do not exist. it is the work of ideas and alternate media outlets that have increased the republican majority. Maybe im just an idealist but many times its the ideas that win the day on elections not the campaigning. The key is to Get your message out.

If bush is an idiot you have to admit that the democrats in this country are a bunvh og morons and retards... According to you they cant even oust a moron for a president.
That's something of an ignorant statement. What I'm saying is that Bush was led in to his power, where Hitler built his empire stone-by-stone, slab-by-slad, ¿sabes? The Bush Admin. is in its own way an empire of evil geniusez that mocks me daily with the fact that they really aren't way too ingenious, just rich and well-learned enough to play the game with their headz.
This is the one of the stuipidest threads I have ever seen. The responses to the poll clearly show an ignorance of History. Bush 100% like hitler LMAO.. first logic should hit you with the words "NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY"... Bush Capitalist "free markets".... Hitler Facist "goverment controlled monopolies"

So that Destroys any economic shit all you morons might think. that somehow makes it 100%.

I suggest you idiots read Mein Kamf and Hitlers second biography. Learn what Hitler actually was. This poll clearly shows your ignorance A... Of History or B of anything political. People like u should just be ignored for stuipidity.
Wow. Usually I don't stoop to it, but hombre, you be straight-up retarded.
For one, "free markets" versus "government controlled monopolies"? Something seemz wrong about that, and I think it's illustrated by the fact that Bush used the wordz 'free markets' where I somehow doubt that Hitler referred to his strategy as being one of 'government controlled monopolies'. Further, government controlled monopoliez soundz more to me, personally, like Socialism than Fascism, and Hitler was deeply opposed to Socialism and never openly displayed himself as Fascist- he was Adolf, loving Father and Dictator to the People of Germany.
The most 'retarded' thing, however, about your statement (besidez its entire style of address) is that the vast majority of voterz put '0-10%', not '90-100%'.
Or is the worst thing, perhaps, that you seem so supportive of government allowing free speech while simultaneously saying that people in this thread should be shut up by higher powerz so you don't have to hear what they have to say- not that you don't have a choice in the first place?
Oh, one other thing. 'Stupidest' isn't a word.
GIT 'em!

That's something of an ignorant statement. What I'm saying is that Bush was led in to his power, where Hitler built his empire stone-by-stone, slab-by-slad, ¿sabes? The Bush Admin. is in its own way an empire of evil geniusez that mocks me daily with the fact that they really aren't way too ingenious, just rich and well-learned enough to play the game with their headz.

Wow. Usually I don't stoop to it, but hombre, you be straight-up retarded.
For one, "free markets" versus "government controlled monopolies"? Something seemz wrong about that, and I think it's illustrated by the fact that Bush used the wordz 'free markets' where I somehow doubt that Hitler referred to his strategy as being one of 'government controlled monopolies'. Further, government controlled monopoliez soundz more to me, personally, like Socialism than Fascism, and Hitler was deeply opposed to Socialism and never openly displayed himself as Fascist- he was Adolf, loving Father and Dictator to the People of Germany.


The most 'retarded' thing, however, about your statement (besidez its entire style of address) is that the vast majority of voterz put '0-10%', not '90-100%'.
Or is the worst thing, perhaps, that you seem so supportive of government allowing free speech while simultaneously saying that people in this thread should be shut up by higher powerz so you don't have to hear what they have to say- not that you don't have a choice in the first place?
Oh, one other thing. 'Stupidest' isn't a word.
GIT 'em!

While I wont contest language in itself i simply say I write it as a say it at a dinner party. Most people use "Well thats the stuipidest..... (ect.)" While in any formal essay i would write in propper english I really dont give a crap about my language, grammer nor spewlling (evidenced by obviose mistakes)

Hitler was also not deeply opposed to socialism. Read Meinkamf... Central Planning was a key to his entire build up of the Germany economy and war industries. Lets take a lesson from one of Hitlers Idols Musolinii a fellow facist. The key feature of Facism is the consolidation of major industries (im putting my foot out but i remember reading 32??) into corporations under direct control of the state in turn outlawing all competition. This is the basics of Facist economics. Can i suggest the work of Fredrick Hayek for a true understanding of facism and the economics of the third reich.

The truth is you have to look at the name Hitler used to represent his party. THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY..... The term socialist is blatent for his belief in central planning. What he used as a scapegoat for power was the communist ( riechstag burning). While i will stick my foot out here with my own analysis Hitler had goals since the begining for the greatness of Germany so that communist simply become an easy enemy to point at and say kill. Another reason behind hitlers dislike of the communist was because the first communist state the USSR was the nation to which he would have to defeat achieve the" Lebenstraum of the east" (hitlers second book)

I almost forgot.... The reason behind my calling of this thread the Stuipidest id ever seen is due to the fact that a sizable amount of human bodies actually believe Bush is 70% to even 100% like Hitler. That much moronic display in a poll lead me to such a conclusion. Im not ignoring those who wrote 0-50% because are legitimate arguements based in fact. Those High remarks are just completly ignorant of History making the total ignorance of such group in poll self evident. The overwealming ignorance of those 90-100% just cancle out 10 to 1 persons who have understaning of History or Bush's polotics. This blatent ignorance leads to the conclusion of the room being one of the stuipidst

I happen to think republic pains to increase a majority do not exist. it is the work of ideas and alternate media outlets that have increased the republican majority. Maybe im just an idealist but many times its the ideas that win the day on elections not the campaigning. The key is to Get your message out.
Well, i did say "have been made", with intent of conveying transgressions already committed. And i've posted full threads about that issue before - DeLay and gerrymandering issues.

Since there's already a topic on this and too many people seem to think Hitler and Bush are similar, I wanted to add a poll. How ideologically alike do you consider Bush and Hitler to be (poll coming)?

Not even close....

I happen to think republic pains to increase a majority do not exist. it is the work of ideas and alternate media outlets that have increased the republican majority. Maybe im just an idealist but many times its the ideas that win the day on elections not the campaigning. The key is to Get your message out.
I speak with no savagery when I point out that I in no way consider 'FOX' as an 'alternate media outlet', but if anything a monopoly to dwarf the corporate monstrosity known as UPN. Also, earlier today, a Bush campaign official was arrested today for racially suppressing votes in this past election, and a connection is being made to the White House. Further investigationz are promised.

While I wont contest language in itself i simply say I write it as a say it at a dinner party.
Though I'm glad you're being more mature than you were when you entered the thread, anyone at a dinner party thrice referring to Hitler's literature as 'Mein Kamf' I would immediately assume drunk and would aid him in getting to bed so everyone else could eat in peace.

Hitler was also not deeply opposed to socialism. Read Meinkamf... Central Planning was a key to his entire build up of the Germany economy and war industries. Lets take a lesson from one of Hitlers Idols Musolinii a fellow facist. The key feature of Facism is the consolidation of major industries (im putting my foot out but i remember reading 32??) into corporations under direct control of the state in turn outlawing all competition. This is the basics of Facist economics. Can i suggest the work of Fredrick Hayek for a true understanding of facism and the economics of the third reich.
I agree. However, the matter at hand is BUSH <?> HITLER. The Republican Party, at this point in time, supports policiez supportive of the wealthy business ownerz of the country, the very bourgeoisie class that caused the confusion resulting in Marxist-Leninist thought, which hurts the World to this very day- including in my home country of Colombia. Only just earlier today Bush signed an 80 billion dollar tax cut which blatantly goes to the wealthy, apparently in support of the 'trickle-down effect', which, if you don't know it, is an economic method based around the theory that if people with a ridiculous amount of money are given even more money and it's taken out of the pockets of the less fortunate in the form of massive national deficits, that somehow the poor and middle class will end up with more money in their pockets than they started out with. I know, right??!

I almost forgot.... The reason behind my calling of this thread the Stuipidest id ever seen is due to the fact that a sizable amount of human bodies actually believe Bush is 70% to even 100% like Hitler. That much moronic display in a poll lead me to such a conclusion. Im not ignoring those who wrote 0-50% because are legitimate arguements based in fact. Those High remarks are just completly ignorant of History making the total ignorance of such group in poll self evident. The overwealming ignorance of those 90-100% just cancle out 10 to 1 persons who have understaning of History or Bush's polotics. This blatent ignorance leads to the conclusion of the room being one of the stuipidst
Although your English lost me near the end, as far as I can tell, I see your point, and sympathize with it. This is why I disdain being labelled a Liberal or Democrat- if anything, I'm a Progressive, because I have my own personal thoughts and viewz and I do believe that reform ios an absolute necessity in the US. I'm 17 and I came to America when I waas much younger (8 or 9) but I still remember learning the language and to this day (last Friday actually) when I get messed up I speak in a slurred French-Carribean dialect of Spanish, completely confident that all the Anglofonez surrounding me understand what I'm saying. I know I'm an intelligent and open-minded person. I feel a violent rage towardz anyone who will label me, assume my ideaz, and throw me aside due to the ignorance of someone who wordlessly decidez that Bush and Hitler are exactly or almost exactly alike. If anything, that is an insult to Germnay. Or Austria. Whatever. We'll say Germany, since Austria already has a foreign governor by the name of Scwarzennegger to be ashamed of.