NationStates Jolt Archive

http://unfunnyhbush.ytmnd.com/

I know this is a joke and I don't believe he is related to Hitler but I have a hunch some people here believe he is. Do you?

Bush is a lousy painter.

Bush is a lousy painter.

Aye, all that crack and heroin he used never had quite the same effect on him as they had on Isaac from Heroes. Why do I mention this so gratuitously? Because I was just torrentedly introduced. So there.

Well, in terms of restriction of personal freedoms, I'd say he's getting there, but prejudicially he isn't much like Hitler. (Loves Israel, hates the poor [and I don't believe Hitler hated the poor, correct me if I'm wrong]. However, in terms of disliking those of different ethnicities and not liking gays, he's getting there. Obviously not there yet, but if he had maybe 10 more years in office, he might get there. Fortunately he does not.)

He is related to the Queen of England.

Well, in terms of restriction of personal freedoms, I'd say he's getting there, but prejudicially he isn't much like Hitler. (Loves Israel, hates the poor [and I don't believe Hitler hated the poor, correct me if I'm wrong]. However, in terms of disliking those of different ethnicities and not liking gays, he's getting there. Obviously not there yet, but if he had maybe 10 more years in office, he might get there. Fortunately he does not.)

Even the things Bush has done are nothing compared to what Hitler did; hell, I'd say Abraham Lincoln and FDR restricted way more freedoms than Bush has. Hell, by this point in his regime Hitler had already lost WWII (if we assume the entry of the US/Soviets ended it for him) and the Holocaust was in full swing. Bush is a jackass, but nothing like Hitler.

Of course, FDR and Lincoln were also highly competent, but that's besides the point.

I suddenly feel sorry for anyone related to Hitler. Poor sonsofbitches have to carry that burden around with them forever.

You fucking asshat you have no idea what you've just done.

lol ya of korse lol i mean bush suks and hitler suxxors so they must be related lolz stalin 2 and mao and pol pot and mandela lol he he ^-^

Bush is bad, but to compare him with Hitler...

Hitler=madman, rascist, capable leader in some sick way
Bush=bad politician, worse leader

Even the things Bush has done are nothing compared to what Hitler did; hell, I'd say Abraham Lincoln and FDR restricted way more freedoms than Bush has. Hell, by this point in his regime Hitler had already lost WWII (if we assume the entry of the US/Soviets ended it for him) and the Holocaust was in full swing. Bush is a jackass, but nothing like Hitler.

Of course, FDR and Lincoln were also highly competent, but that's besides the point.

Okay, Bush isn't Hitler, but saying Lincoln and FDR were closer in terms of restricting freedoms is just ridiculous. We don't even know to what extent Bush has used his domestic spying apparatus on us, the FBI has been slapped down more than once on its use of National Security Letters, and we won't even get into his egregious se of signing statements.

No, but someone else (http://www.giveupblog.com/hitlercoulterquiz.html) certainly comes nearer.

Well, Hitler is dead. The same can be said for Bush's brain. So there are certain parallels...

A Hitler:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2006/08/10/Hitler372.jpg

George Bush is not, contrary to what seems to be possible popular belief, a landscape painting.

Okay, Bush isn't Hitler, but saying Lincoln and FDR were closer in terms of restricting freedoms is just ridiculous. We don't even know to what extent Bush has used his domestic spying apparatus on us, the FBI has been slapped down more than once on its use of National Security Letters, and we won't even get into his egregious se of signing statements.

C'mon Lincoln! Your not going to take that from Hitler are you?! (http://lincolnvshitler.ytmnd.com/) :p

At least he can kill scientology. (http://cannibalhitler.ytmnd.com/)

How a man from a right wing ideology is similar to a man from a far left ideology is beyond me.

No, but he is almost as facist.

How a man from a right wing ideology is similar to a man from a far left ideology is beyond me.

www.politicalcompass.org

Okay, Bush isn't Hitler, but saying Lincoln and FDR were closer in terms of restricting freedoms is just ridiculous. We don't even know to what extent Bush has used his domestic spying apparatus on us, the FBI has been slapped down more than once on its use of National Security Letters, and we won't even get into his egregious se of signing statements.

Lincoln cracked down on domestic dissent and violate the right of habeas corpus. I mean, FDR rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them in concentration camps for God's sale...Bush has never done anything close to that. Don't forget the ridiculously racist propaganda during the war and the use of restrictions on freedom of the press. Hell, he also tried to pack the Supreme Court to railroad through his laws.

Bush has done more than any president not facing a major international or civil war, but when put in context there are people far worse than him in our nation's history.

Saying he is Hitler is a little silly. His policies fall more in line with Mussolinist fascist/corporatist ideology, I would go more with Vichy France than Naxi Germany for a comparison.

Lincoln cracked down on domestic dissent and violate the right of habeas corpus. I mean, FDR rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them in concentration camps for God's sale...Bush has never done anything close to that. Don't forget the ridiculously racist propaganda during the war and the use of restrictions on freedom of the press. Hell, he also tried to pack the Supreme Court to railroad through his laws.

Bush has done more than any president not facing a major international or civil war, but when put in context there are people far worse than him in our nation's history.

Bush has gotten rid of habeas protections with some help from Congress--supposedly only for enemy combatants, but since he can call anyone an enemy combatant...--and you might want to ask Muslims post 9/11 and illegal immigrant families in prisons in Texas if they feel anything like the Japanese during WWII. In short, Bush has outdone both Lincoln and FDR combined, all while being more incompetent than any other president in history.

Lincoln cracked down on domestic dissent and violate the right of habeas corpus. I mean, FDR rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them in concentration camps for God's sale...Bush has never done anything close to that. Don't forget the ridiculously racist propaganda during the war and the use of restrictions on freedom of the press. Hell, he also tried to pack the Supreme Court to railroad through his laws.

Bush has done more than any president not facing a major international or civil war, but when put in context there are people far worse than him in our nation's history.

Ummm Bush has concentration camps, ever hear of gitmo?

Bush has gotten rid of habeas protections with some help from Congress--supposedly only for enemy combatants, but since he can call anyone an enemy combatant...--and you might want to ask Muslims post 9/11 and illegal immigrant families in prisons in Texas if they feel anything like the Japanese during WWII. In short, Bush has outdone both Lincoln and FDR combined, all while being more incompetent than any other president in history.

Not on the same scale; they're bad, but still far removed from what happened in WWII or during the Civil War. There have been acts of racism and aggression against Muslims and illegal immigrants, but they are not state-sanctioned and state-encouraged in the same way that they were under FDR did during WWII.

And Lincoln's removal wasn't just for enemy combatants, it was for everyone; he outright violated it without any real approval or oversight.

<< Well, in terms of restriction of personal freedoms, I'd say he's getting there, but prejudicially he isn't much like Hitler. (Loves Israel, hates the poor [and I don't believe Hitler hated the poor, correct me if I'm wrong]. However, in terms of disliking those of different ethnicities and not liking gays, he's getting there. Obviously not there yet, but if he had maybe 10 more years in office, he might get there. Fortunately he does not.) >>

20 more years in office and he still wouldn't come close to Hitler. Not saying this directed at you, but I really get tired of hearing Bush and others being compared to Hitler and the Nazis. Until, or unless someone murders millions of people, they will never come close to being Hitler or the Nazis. Period.

Ummm Bush has concentration camps, ever hear of gitmo?

That holds prisoners of war, not American citizens. The circumstances surrounding Gitmo may be bad, and those prisoners should be released ASAP, but they are not in the same situation as the Japanese during WWII.

The concentration-camp scheme under FDR directly targeted one ethnic group with the intent of holding them and isolating them from the rest of the population for their "protection". There was no reason for them to be in those camps other than their ethnicity. It was an act of targeted racism and nothing more.

Ummm Bush has concentration camps, ever hear of gitmo?

Exactly right, I have numerous documentaries about that place and every one of them paints it as a brutal torture chamber, some of the stuff done their is just horrible and undignified. Not to mention that just before the place opened Bush said 'The are all killers', he has pretty much decided their guilt from day one. A total disregard of Geneva Conventions regarding POW's and torture.

In this way Bush's treatment of the people in Gitmo is the essense of 'if your not with us, your against us', it's if your not on our side, your not only our enemy, you dont even classify as an enemy, you don't even classify as a criminal, you dont get civil, military or criminal trials, your below even that, it's basically 'your on our side or you don't exist'.

Aye, all that crack and heroin he used never had quite the same effect on him as they had on Isaac from Heroes. Why do I mention this so gratuitously? Because I was just torrentedly introduced. So there.

Alright, I can understand not liking Bush, but why does everybody say he's evil? What about Bill Clinton?

People say "Bush lied", because they THINK he did. Maybe there were weapons of mass destruction, and they got moved, which is the most obvious solution to this. Maybe Bush was just wrong.

But we KNOW that Clinton lied--"I did not have sexual relations with that woman". That was a lie. But no one ever talks about that, do they?

I'm sorry for the rant; I just like pointing out the obvious.

That holds prisoners of war, not American citizens. The circumstances surrounding Gitmo may be bad, and those prisoners should be released ASAP, but they are not in the same situation as the Japanese during WWII.
You think the only people in gitmo are actual prisoners of war? I can see why you are ok with it then.

<< And Lincoln's removal wasn't just for enemy combatants, it was for everyone; he outright violated it without any real approval or oversight. >>

Lincoln didn't require oversight or approvel, nor did he violate it. He suspended it within his Constitution rights as President. Below is the direct passage from the Constitution.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Note that during the Civil war we were in fact experiencing a case of rebellion AND public safety was an issue.

Not on the same scale; they're bad, but still far removed from what happened in WWII or during the Civil War. There have been acts of racism and aggression against Muslims and illegal immigrants, but they are not state-sanctioned and state-encouraged in the same way that they were under FDR did during WWII.

And Lincoln's removal wasn't just for enemy combatants, it was for everyone; he outright violated it without any real approval or oversight.

Oh, the acts of racism and aggression against Muslims and illegals have been carried out by the state--they just haven't gotten a lot of play in the news. But in the weeks following 9/11, I was actually in contact with my fellow students in the Translation program, Arab students who had family members swept up in the first nets who were held without bail, without trial, and without the ability to talk to either a lawyer or their families. They were held, at best, on specious immigration charges, and often just on suspicion. And the stories I read about illegal immigrants--whole families, even infants, held in prison--make me think of the Japanese. As far as habeas is concerned, it is in effect suspended for everyone, since Bush claims the right to name anyone, even US citizens, enemy combatants.

That holds prisoners of war, not American citizens. The circumstances surrounding Gitmo may be bad, and those prisoners should be released ASAP, but they are not in the same situation as the Japanese during WWII.

But the Japanese in US concentration camps were not sexually tortured against their will or placed conditions as inhumane as Hitler's or the Gitmo. The Japanese were simply put there but they weren't starved, deprived of sleep or oppressed to an extent that Jews or Gitmo prisoners are.

I'm no terrorist but America was the head nation who was renouned for helping out in world situations but now their army is notorious for raping everything they can in the vicinity, village girls/boys, POWs, women in the army, nearby civs. They've got to ovoid atrocities in order to maintain international opinion and they haven't done that which is why everyone hates the US right now.

That holds prisoners of war, not American citizens. The circumstances surrounding Gitmo may be bad, and those prisoners should be released ASAP, but they are not in the same situation as the Japanese during WWII.

If they were POWs, that would be an improvement. They don't even have that meager level of recognition.

Goddamn it, stop comparing this crap.

Lincoln was a misguided cocksucker
FDR was a limp-legged cocksucker
Bush is an incompetent cocksucker

There. Done. Bahh.

<< I'm no terrorist but America was the head nation who was renouned for helping out in world situations but now their army is notorious for raping everything they can in the vicinity, village girls/boys, POWs, women in the army, nearby civs. They've got to ovoid atrocities in order to maintain international opinion and they haven't done that which is why everyone hates the US right now. >>


Uh, no. The U.S. Army is nowhere near this bad. They have rogue soldiers who rape, as does EVERY Army in the World. Why we're hated is because we invade and occupy other Counties at our Commander's whim. Don't attack our soldiers just because Bush is worthless.

If they were POWs, that would be an improvement. They don't even have that meager level of recognition. The Japanese lost Citizenship and all their property. They weren't considered pows either they didn't have a title. After it was all over they had to completely rebuild their lives. I haven't heard of any Arabs lose any of their belongings, they are just forced to be in prison.

I think he's closer to Alfred E. Neuman. "What, me worry?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman

No, President Bush is not a nazi.... but his grandfather was....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush

But the Japanese in US concentration camps were not sexually tortured against their will or placed conditions as inhumane as Hitler's or the Gitmo. The Japanese were simply put there but they weren't starved, deprived of sleep or oppressed to an extent that Jews or Gitmo prisoners are.

Gitmo is nothing like Auschwitz. Not even close.

Instead they suffered loss of property and total loss of their rights as citizens of the United States. And there was abuse, and racial violence, and the fact that they were rounded up and imprisoned with no trial and no guarantee of release. It was a complete and egregious abuse of the rights of US citizens.

They might not have been tortured or killed but that's probably more because the US won the war rather than any generosity on the government's part.

I'm no terrorist but America was the head nation who was renouned for helping out in world situations but now their army is notorious for raping everything they can in the vicinity, village girls/boys, POWs, women in the army, nearby civs. They've got to ovoid atrocities in order to maintain international opinion and they haven't done that which is why everyone hates the US right now.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with Bush. The military's actions are reflective of problems in the military and its inability to cope with the situations it has been placed in to.

Now, Bush's actions contribute to these things, but in and of themselves he is not responsible for them.

*yawn*

Geez,
only
dumbasses
would
instigate
nonsense.

"Please stop calling people Hitler when you disagree with them. It demeans you, it demeans your opponent, and to be honest... it demeans Hitler! That guy worked too many years, too hard, to be that evil, to have any Tom, Dick, and Harry come along and say 'hey, you're being Hitler.' NO! You know who was Hitler? HITLER!"

At least John Stewart says so! (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0605/jon_stewart_holo.php3) :D

<< I'm no terrorist but America was the head nation who was renouned for helping out in world situations but now their army is notorious for raping everything they can in the vicinity, village girls/boys, POWs, women in the army, nearby civs. They've got to ovoid atrocities in order to maintain international opinion and they haven't done that which is why everyone hates the US right now. >>


Uh, no. The U.S. Army is nowhere near this bad. They have rogue soldiers who rape, as does EVERY Army in the World. Why we're hated is because we invade and occupy other Counties at our Commander's whim. Don't attack our soldiers just because Bush is worthless.

But they raped people in the Philipines, they raped tons of POWs, they raped Iraqi men women and children and even their own personnel, stuff like this keeps appearing in the news and articles. I mean lets face it, if the Brits or Aussies did it it would go first page to. Lets face it, many American troops are sussed on having sex with anything in the vicinity. And if you don't beleive me ask a woman in the military if she carries a knife with her at all times, why and then ask her how many female troops have died from not going to the loo or from dehydration because bending over the drinking fountain makes them vulnerable. This was in CS monitor, the whole rape issue is such a big one every female unit is doing what it takes not to be the next victim with even their superiors against them and we hear about what happens when the troops go into a village or a country and what they do to the people under their "protection" and their POWs.

<< But they raped people in the Philipines, they raped tons of POWs, >>

That was decades ago, not now.

<< they raped Iraqi men women and children and even their own personnel, >>

No, "they" didn't. A FEW rogues have done it, but not more than a handful of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that have gone to Iraq. You deliberately malign hundreds of thousands of innocent soldiers when you make statements like that.

<< stuff like this keeps appearing in the news and articles. I mean lets face it, if the Brits or Aussies did it it would go first page to >>

It DOES happen, and I've seen it. That said, it's much more in vogue to print about the Americans than it is about the Brittish, French, or anyone else.

<< Lets face it, many American troops are sussed on having sex with anything in the vicinity. And if you don't beleive me ask a woman in the military if she carries a knife with her at all times, why and then ask her how many female troops have died from not going to the loo or from dehydration because bending over the drinking fountain makes them vulnerable. >>

LOL You believe this??? I've known women in the American military and this has never been the case with ANY of them.

<< This was in CS monitor, the whole rape issue is such a big one every female unit is doing what it takes not to be the next victim with even their superiors against them and we hear about what happens when the troops go into a village or a country and what they do to the people under their "protection" and their POWs. >>

I hate to break this to you, but not on is the CS Monitor a questionable source at best, but most Christian sites and new sources lie or exagerate about "sin" wherever they can. Show me this in a reputable news source and we'll see. ::chuckle::

<< But they raped people in the Philipines, they raped tons of POWs, >>

That was decades ago, not now.

<< they raped Iraqi men women and children and even their own personnel, >>

No, "they" didn't. A FEW rogues have done it, but not more than a handful of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that have gone to Iraq. You deliberately malign hundreds of thousands of innocent soldiers when you make statements like that.

<< stuff like this keeps appearing in the news and articles. I mean lets face it, if the Brits or Aussies did it it would go first page to >>

It DOES happen, and I've seen it. That said, it's much more in vogue to print about the Americans than it is about the Brittish, French, or anyone else.

<< Lets face it, many American troops are sussed on having sex with anything in the vicinity. And if you don't beleive me ask a woman in the military if she carries a knife with her at all times, why and then ask her how many female troops have died from not going to the loo or from dehydration because bending over the drinking fountain makes them vulnerable. >>

LOL You believe this??? I've known women in the American military and this has never been the case with ANY of them.

<< This was in CS monitor, the whole rape issue is such a big one every female unit is doing what it takes not to be the next victim with even their superiors against them and we hear about what happens when the troops go into a village or a country and what they do to the people under their "protection" and their POWs. >>

I hate to break this to you, but not on is the CS Monitor a questionable source at best, but most Christian sites and new sources lie or exagerate about "sin" wherever they can. Show me this in a reputable news source and we'll see. ::chuckle::

CS monitor isn't a Christian site, it barely has anything to do with Christianity, saying it's not credible for any other reason other than the word Christian in the name is as sick as going nazi and burning everything that has anything to do with Jews. The Philippine rape incident was just this year.

Not even close.

The Shrub is like Hitler?

Not even close.

For one thing, Hitler was a gifted orator.

Bush looks like he might be a fun guy to hang out with. I'd hate to have as the president of my country though. Oh wait..... =(

I cant believe threads like this still get made.

I think its a good example of how the worst human tragedy ever to occur, can be forgotten, and its real impact has become easily misunderstood by the dull-witted.

People who are stupid attempt to compare anyone obviously bad, or evil to Adolf Hitler. This is only done becuase Hitler is now infamously evil to most people. However, they do not remember, or never really learned, why exactly Hitler was so goddamn evil, nor do they really know the depth of his madness.

George Bush is the asshole son of a billionaire who became president.
Hes a Texas hick, who drank and partied his way through life all the way to a Governorship entirely on the coat-tails of his father, and some very shrewd and very greedy evil fuckheads. These same evil fuckheads made him president, and in exchange for that, Bush has made them all a LOT of fucking money with war profiteering and insane oil prices.
Hes also started a war in Iraq, that will end with civil war and a lot of dead muslims before its over.

Hitler was a megalomanical dictator who believed he could create a race of genetically superior humans, by eliminating "lesser blood" from the genepool.
He is responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of dead people, and very nearly conquered the fucking planet!

Do these two things sound similar?

If you've answered "yes" to the above question, please put a bullet into your own brain, after killing any children you may have already created.

Hitler was a megalomanical dictator who believed he could create a race of genetically superior humans, by eliminating "lesser blood" from the genepool.
He is responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of dead people, and very nearly conquered the fucking planet!

Do these two things sound similar?

If you've answered "yes" to the above question, please put a bullet into your own brain, after killing any children you may have already created.
Clever.

Clever.

I like to think so.

I think its a good example of how the worst human tragedy ever to occur, can be forgotten, and its real impact has become easily misunderstood by the dull-witted.


Pfft. 6 million dead in death camps and that's called the worst human tragedy ever?

Boy, you need some perspective here. The black plague took out some 75 million people and it's hardly ever remembered. The holocaust is a drop in the bucket of human tragedy.

Hitler=psychopath, Bush=moron.


See, they're totally different.

Pfft. 6 million dead in death camps and that's called the worst human tragedy ever?

Boy, you need some perspective here. The black plague took out some 75 million people and it's hardly ever remembered. The holocaust is a drop in the bucket of human tragedy.

The Black Death was a plague spread by natural factors beyond human control and without any intent or malice behind it. There was nothing anyone could do.

The Holocaust was calculated, industrialized killing of specific groups of people using the sheer force of human hatred to catalyze the process and cause an entire nation to turn a blind eye to the robbery, repression, torture, enslavement and death. It showed the sheer power that hatred could have and the ability of human beings to dehumanize their fellow men and women so totally that they could murder them without empathy or compassion.

If you don't see the difference...

Seems Vetalia beat me to it.

The Black Death was a plague spread by natural factors beyond human control and without any intent or malice behind it. There was nothing anyone could do.

Stalin's purges and deliberate famine caused what? 20 million deaths or so? What were they called? Wreckers, traitors and whatnot.

Genghis Khan and his subsequent war leaders slaughtered the inhabitants of countless cities that didn't resisted. He and his soldiers didn't seem to have any problem with that. Oh yes, they also used plague infested bodies as early bioweapons, catapulting them into besieged cities. The Black Death was certainly spread with malice in some parts of the world.

I've no idea how many people died from Japanese brutality during their occupation of China, but given the numerous atrocities attributed to them, such as the Rape of Nanking, it is unlikely that they saw their victims as anything but human. Mass slaughter, rape, torture for personal amusement, killing for amusement, along with tacit approval by Japanese Command. Not as clean as the Germans, but a lot more brutal.

Institutionalized hatred culminating in mass slaughter and brutality is hardly anything new.

Institutionalized hatred culminating in mass slaughter and brutality is hardly anything new.

And? That somehow makes the Holocaust less significant?

As much as I despise Bush, his administration and his policy (particularly foreign *cough* Iraq *cough*), he is nowhere near as evil as Hitler was. Also, Hitler was a dictator; Bush is a puppet.

I don’t think it would be fair to call Bush a Nazi either; he is an elitist (but then again, USA has been elitist as far as I know), but it’s definitely not the same as being a Nazi.

And? That somehow makes the Holocaust less significant?

No. It just doesn't make it the worst tragedy in human history. People get too caught up in it to get some perspective of how widespread this sort of attitude is. If the holocaust was supposed to teach us anything, most of humanity has forgotten that lesson by now.

Sort of like environmentalists getting too caught up with greenhouse gases that they tend to ignore widespread destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks.

Forest for the trees.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is both giving too much credit to Bush and insulting Hitler.

It's like when everyone was on that "George Lucas called Bush Darth Vader" trip. Again giving too much credit to Dubya while insulting Darth Vader.

I've always found it more appropriate to compare Dear Leader to Jar-Jar Binks. They're both clueless hicks with speech impediment who were somehow put into high enough office where they allowed the true evil to take control of the government.

I think he wants to be to the US what Hitler was to Germany

I think he wants to be to the US what Hitler was to Germany

Nah, say what you will of Hitler, at least his goal was to create a greater (as in bigger) Germanic empire of sorts. I get the feeling Bush is just doing things like a kid with toys.

The concentration-camp scheme under FDR directly targeted one ethnic group with the intent of holding them and isolating them from the rest of the population for their "protection". There was no reason for them to be in those camps other than their ethnicity. It was an act of targeted racism and nothing more.

It didn't target one ethnic group. Germans and Italians were also detained, and for longer than the Japanese after the war ended. I'm not a huge FDR fan, but it's not right to say that race was the only justification. The Japanese were a misunderstood group at the time, and some contemporary sources support a more sympathetic reading of FDR's motives and his suspicion of them as a potential fifth column.

Bush is not Hitler.... That's because I don't like Bush :p

And? That somehow makes the Holocaust less significant?

Less significant in terms of suffering and deaths, yes, that's a cold hard fact.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is both giving too much credit to Bush and insulting Hitler.

It's like when everyone was on that "George Lucas called Bush Darth Vader" trip. Again giving too much credit to Dubya while insulting Darth Vader.

I've always found it more appropriate to compare Dear Leader to Jar-Jar Binks. They're both clueless hicks with speech impediment who were somehow put into high enough office where they allowed the true evil to take control of the government.

LOL, you got the root of it!

Well Bush is a racist and he's built many concentration camps but still... bush is brainless and a terrible leader. Hitler however sick he was, was still a very good leader and very smart, although... he did make very bad mistakes...

Well Bush is a racist and he's built many concentration camps but still... bush is brainless and a terrible leader. Hitler however sick he was, was still a very good leader and very smart, although... he did make very bad mistakes...

He's built many concentration camps? Which ones?

No. Germans actually supported Hitler. :p

Hitler had better facial hair.

Bush is not Hitler.... That's because I don't like Bush :p
Eine Volk
Eine Reich
Eine Fuhrer?
(SP)

Ein Volk
Ein Reich
Ein Fuhrer?
(SP)

I think.

No. Germans actually supported Hitler. :p
Only 38% of those by elections, or summin.

But still they went to war for him and we kicked their butts!:p

I think.
Could be, i wasn't sure about the e's...
Of course Fuhrer gets spelt a few different ways too...

Hitler had better facial hair.
It's close.
http://www.buckfush.com/images/gotwar2.jpg

Pfft. 6 million dead in death camps and that's called the worst human tragedy ever?

Boy, you need some perspective here. The black plague took out some 75 million people and it's hardly ever remembered. The holocaust is a drop in the bucket of human tragedy.

Actually it was about 10-13 million (by using low and high estimates) people were eradicated in camps.

No. It just doesn't make it the worst tragedy in human history. People get too caught up in it to get some perspective of how widespread this sort of attitude is. If the holocaust was supposed to teach us anything, most of humanity has forgotten that lesson by now.

Sort of like environmentalists getting too caught up with greenhouse gases that they tend to ignore widespread destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks.

Forest for the trees.

The large environmental organisations do not ignore that. The smaller ones have to focus on only a single issue.

No. Germans actually supported Hitler. :p

Only 38% of those by elections, or summin.

But still they went to war for him and we kicked their butts!:p

Yeah it was rather low. The reason why they went to war was the fact that there was a large nationalist sentiment and were heavily effected by propaganda.

Well Bush is a racist and he's built many concentration camps but still... bush is brainless and a terrible leader. Hitler however sick he was, was still a very good leader and very smart, although... he did make very bad mistakes...

Hitler was an alright peacetime statesman but not a very good wartime person (incrediably bad stategic descisions, started the purges of german society before he had complete control over the mainland, etc).