• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Yes, Bush and Hitler share many similiarities in their actions..

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh jesus here we go again. I am sure if you tried you could do this with just about any politician.

The difference obviously is Hitler was a dictator of a regime that committed genocide on a level rarely seen in human history.

Bush is a leader of a democratic republic that at worst has a few nutjobs running within its ranks that kills innocents, at best makes mistakes in war and innocents get killed.
For all intents and purposes during the "American Brainwashed by the GOP period" as I call it, the Bush Regime was a Dictatorship.

There was no way of stopping any doctrine they felt like doing including starting a false war.
Good god a dictatorship doesnt give up its power through elections.

Libs won't let facts get in the way of garbage spewing out of their mouths :)
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Will you Bushboi's stop arguing against strawmen please? It is not a question of elections but of mindset. The OP's argument is spelled out very clearly point by point. It should be easy for any of you Bushboi's to refute it point by point if you have an argument. Clearly you do not.



 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh jesus here we go again. I am sure if you tried you could do this with just about any politician.

The difference obviously is Hitler was a dictator of a regime that committed genocide on a level rarely seen in human history.

Bush is a leader of a democratic republic that at worst has a few nutjobs running within its ranks that kills innocents, at best makes mistakes in war and innocents get killed.
For all intents and purposes during the "American Brainwashed by the GOP period" as I call it, the Bush Regime was a Dictatorship.

There was no way of stopping any doctrine they felt like doing including starting a false war.
Dictatorship...lmfao. Last I checked everyone did have to run for office in 2004. But other than that small sidenote, it was a DICTATORSHIP.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh jesus here we go again. I am sure if you tried you could do this with just about any politician.

The difference obviously is Hitler was a dictator of a regime that committed genocide on a level rarely seen in human history.

Bush is a leader of a democratic republic that at worst has a few nutjobs running within its ranks that kills innocents, at best makes mistakes in war and innocents get killed.
For all intents and purposes during the "American Brainwashed by the GOP period" as I call it, the Bush Regime was a Dictatorship.

There was no way of stopping any doctrine they felt like doing including starting a false war.
Dictatorship...lmfao. Last I checked everyone did have to run for office in 2004. But other than that small sidenote, it was a DICTATORSHIP.
The only aspect that even comes close to a "dictatorship," in our entire system of government, is the lifetime appointment of SC justices which is decided on by Congress, rather than the general population. Every other member, of both of the remaining branches, is elected by the populace in general elections held every two to four years.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think those of us on the right should start to compare Democrats to Stalin, Mao and other socialists.
Of course you'd believe that. It's a standard Karl Rove/Bushwhacko tactic, straight out of Joseph_Goebbels' propoganda playbook known as the Big Lie.
The phrase Big Lie refers to a propaganda technique which entered mass consciousness with Adolf Hitler's 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf. In that book Hitler wrote that people came to believe that Germany lost World War I in the field due to a propaganda technique used by Jews who were influential in the German press. This technique, he believed, consisted of telling a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe anyone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". The first documented use of the phrase "big lie" is in the corresponding passage: "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility".
Examples include the swiftboat liars attack on John Kerry, orchestrated attacks on the patriotism of Democratic Senator Max Cleland, a former U.S. Senator and American war hero, who lost both legs and his right arm when a grenade exploded during his service in Vietnam, and even John McCain, who was falsely accused of having fathered an illegitimate black daughter (who he actually adopted) and of being "mentally unfit" to be president, because of his years of imprisonment in Vietnam.

That's a reasonably accurate discription of many of your posts, as well. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
Just like the Bush is Hitler people ignore he fact that Hitler killed 6 million Jews and started a war that killed over 63 million people.
No, we just remember that:
  • Bush started a war in Iraq, and the various and changing reasons he gave for doing so have all been proven to be lies.

    Almost 3,000 American troops have died in in his war of lies.
  • Tens of thousands more Americans have been horribly wounded, scarred and disabled for the rest of their lives in that war.
  • Hundreds of thousands more other innocent civilians have been killed wounded in that war.
  • Our nation has gone from a financial surplus to trillions of dollars of present and future indebtedness to pay for that war.
  • The administration has corrupted, compromised and shredded the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens with unwarranted domestic spying and wholesale destruction of the right to Habeus Corpus.
  • The administration has declared itself above Federal and international laws against torture, including the Genevea Conventions.
  • In his "signing statements," Bush has dictatorially declared himself above the very statutes against such abuses he was signing into law.
I believe the entire Bush administration should be tried for murder for every American death in Iraq and possibly for treason for their wholesale attempts to destroy the U.S. Constitution. Then, they should be sent to the International Court in the Hague to be tried for crimes against humanity.

No firing squad required when they're convicted. I'll settle for sending all of them for a few years of paid vacation at the lovley Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes for the thrill packed waterboard ride.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,651
1,883
126
Will you Bushboi's stop arguing against strawmen please? It is not a question of elections but of mindset. The OP's argument is spelled out very clearly point by point. It should be easy for any of you Bushboi's to refute it point by point if you have an argument. Clearly you do not.
I don't think that word means what you think it means :D

There is no OP because the OP cut and paste an article that attempts to compare Bush to Hitler...the very premise of that comparison is ludicrous to the extent it is not worth refuting point for point.

The persona of Hitler evokes a certain response, because Hitler embodies everything that our society considers evil. By attempting to draw comparisons between Hitler and Bush, it follows the logic of:

1. Hitler is evil.
2. Bush is like Hitler.
3. Therefore Bush is evil.

Leaders make bad decisions...Hitler made a whole lot of bad decisions...therefore, you can compare any leader to Hitler and make a compelling argument.

Also, the fact that the Republicans just lost Congress, and America is not reverting to the police state that some of you conspiracy theorists keep fearing, pretty much makes the whole Nazi comparison null and void.

Sure, there are parallels between Nazi fascism and the NeoCon agenda...such parallels exist between any political entity that seeks more power for itself...however, in the end, our republic prevailed and have essentially put a hard stop on the NeoCon agenda gaining any more momentum...Rumsfield is out...the Republicans no longer control Congress...Bush is essentially a lame duck President, and is now in a position of having to finally admit and apologize for his failures.

The Bush Administration is finally hearing the music, and having to take accountability for its actions...I don't recall the Nazis going through the same exercise, largely because unlike the Nazis, the Republicans are being held accountable by the voting populace.

 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
57,053
5,409
126
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh jesus here we go again. I am sure if you tried you could do this with just about any politician.

The difference obviously is Hitler was a dictator of a regime that committed genocide on a level rarely seen in human history.

Bush is a leader of a democratic republic that at worst has a few nutjobs running within its ranks that kills innocents, at best makes mistakes in war and innocents get killed.
For all intents and purposes during the "American Brainwashed by the GOP period" as I call it, the Bush Regime was a Dictatorship.

There was no way of stopping any doctrine they felt like doing including starting a false war.
Good god a dictatorship doesnt give up its power through elections.

Libs won't let facts get in the way of garbage spewing out of their mouths :)

Yeah, you're right. We've taken lots of pages from Rush Analcyst's Neocon playbood. The same one that most of the con commentators use...spin, spin, spin...NEVER let facts confuse the issue...
 

tomywishbone

Golden Member
Oct 24, 2006
1,401
0
0
"... No, we just remember that:
Bush started a war in Iraq, and the various and changing reasons he gave for doing so have all been proven to be lies.

Almost 3,000 American troops have died in in his war of lies.


Tens of thousands more Americans have been horribly wounded, scarred and disabled for the rest of their lives in that war.


Hundreds of thousands more other innocent civilians have been killed wounded in that war.


Our nation has gone from a financial surplus to trillions of dollars of present and future indebtedness to pay for that war.


The administration has corrupted, compromised and shredded the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens with unwarranted domestic spying and wholesale destruction of the right to Habeus Corpus.


The administration has declared itself above Federal and international laws against torture, including the Genevea Conventions.


In his "signing statements," Bush has dictatorially declared himself above the very statutes against such abuses he was signing into law.
I believe the entire Bush administration should be tried for murder for every American death in Iraq and possibly for treason for their wholesale attempts to destroy the U.S. Constitution. Then, they should be sent to the International Court in the Hague to be tried for crimes against humanity.

No firing squad required when they're convicted. I'll settle for sending all of them for a few years of paid vacation at the lovley Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes for the thrill packed waterboard ride... "

:thumbsup:

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Well, one similarity between Hitler and Bush is that they both seem to have(had) supporters that will defend them to the bitter end, no matter what. "Stay the course", "last throes", "spread democracy", etc.

Of course there not the same..... Hitler could give a rousing speech and he even pronounced all his words correctly.

:laugh:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: Corbett
At least this thread proves who the leftist nutjobs are.
... and who the willingly self-deluded, anal neocon tards are. :)
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Comparisons with Hitler---as somewhat the ultimate evil---are easy to use---and sometimes become a tool for war--with the common thesis that if someone had had the foresight to stop the war monger like Hiltler before he gained critical mass--much blood shed would have been avoided---last time that was used was in the run up to the current Iraqi intervention and the Hitler like evil was Saddam.---and Saddam turned out to be a paper tiger who was not a threat to world peace.

But all comparisons with GWB and Hitler fail at the first step---Hitler surrounded himself with competent people and quickly replaced incompetents---and GWB is the exact opposite.
Which is partly why Hitler came very close to winning WW2---after Hitler racked up a long series of early and stunning successes---and GWB flops first pop out of the box.---and GWB will leave the USA with a long legacy of failed domestic and international policies that will take much effort to undo.

GWB---you are no Hitler----but that still does not mean you are not as morally bankrupt---and a very damaging fool in your own right.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Cogman
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Genx87
Good god a dictatorship doesnt give up its power through elections.
Were the Sandanistas running Nicaragua, the ones Reagan were in a proxy war with, a dictatorship?
Not to my knowledge, although I think they tried their hardest to work on it.
Does "trying their hardest" include not handing over power through an election?

Congress was 100% controlled by the GOP just as it has done a 180 degree flip and will be controlled by the Demorats come January.
That is amazing, I didnt realize the Republicans captured 435 seats in the house and 100 seats in the senate.

Where the hell have I been?
Somewhere other than learning what the hell you're talking about.

Party with a majority of the seats = controlling the body. Now, democrats "control" the House and the Senate (when the term begins).

One party controlling both houses = 100% "control" of the Congress (as opposed to 50% if they controlled one of the chambers), not 100% of the seats.

I'm trying to remember the last time Genx got anything right or a post worth reading.
So let me get this straight, your saying that because the Republicans had 55% of congress they had full control? WRONG they need a 2/3 majority to pass anything, that intails some democrats HAD to vote for the war (In fact it was a large majority that voted for it if I remember correctly, including Senitor Kerry). having a small majority does not equal 100% control and your nieve if you think it does. the only time you have 100% control is when you have over 2/3 of the seats the will vote the same.

Thats my $0.02
AUMF does not equal war.

Furthermore, he obfuscated the truth about Iraq. Thus, any vote was based off of poor data, logic, and reasoning, just as he wanted it to be.

If I went over to your house and told you that your other neighbor stole some tools and the only evidence I had was that you were missing tools and he had forgotten to return some tools previously, but after you reminded him he gave them to you, and you then went over to his house and burned it down in retaliation. What would happen if you found out I lied?

Would you still say it was justified? What would happen if you found out that it wasn't your neighbor who took your tools, but your son? What if I knew that?

Will the police say "But hearsay is always correct, you were justified in burning down the house"?

I don't think so.


 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,651
1,883
126
This makes an interesting read on the comparison between the Neocon aganda and the fascists of WWII:
These comparisons make for an entertaining read, but the one fact all of such articles overlook is that, despite what the NeoCon agenda might appear to represent, they have yet to achieve the fascist electoral state that many fear.

Despite all the fearmongering over the Patriot Act and other such Bush initiatives, the system of checks and balances put in place by the Founding Fathers have been quite effective at preventing that which some of you fear from manifesting itself.

Now...if we started to receive reports that vocal opponents of the Bush Administration were suddenly starting to disappear...as they did in pre-war Italy and Germany...then perhaps there would be call for alarm.

The good news is that law enforcement entities, and our military, do not hold loyalty to the NeoCons or the Republican Party...what Hitler and Mussolini did was to exert total control over the muscle required to ensure the penetration of their respective propoganda into society...that our law enforcement entities and soldiers swear their loyalty to the nation, and not Bush, is the first line of defense against fascism ever taking root in America.

The Democrats, and independents, have remained a vocal form of opposition to the NeoCons...not to mention the wide array of special interest groups, judges, locally elected officials and private citizens who have kept Bush largely in check.

Do the NeoCons exhibit fascist behaviors...I suppose to an extent yes...but they would never succeed...kind of where that right to bear arms comes in handy.
 

Termagant

Senior member
Mar 10, 2006
765
0
0
Left wing drivel aside....

One comparison between Hitler and Bush which I feel may be valid is their irrational belief in spiritual or intangible influence in time of war. Hitler felt that the will of the German people and Wehrmacht to fight against every "non-German" in and out of Germany would lead to victory. He ordered actions against military advice which resulted in errors. He thought Germans could "out-will" the enemy.

Bush seems to think America can "out-will" the Jihadists if only we "stay the course" and of course shut up that pesky demoralizing left wing media. "Freedom is on the march," "freedom will defeat fanaticism," "freedom" ad nauseum. As if the Statue of Liberty will personally deploy to Iraq. He seems to have believed that any military miscalculations he makes will be offset by some inner yearning for freedom which he thinks all people have. Well that isn't exactly the case, it is hard to overturn centuries of social indoctrination in the opposite direction, and people's yearning for stability and order.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
Originally posted by: BoomerD
This makes an interesting read on the comparison between the Neocon aganda and the fascists of WWII:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Fascist%20Papers




The American Heritage
Dictionary

"fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that
exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right,
typically through the merging of state and business
leadership, together with belligerent nationalism
."



Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's
useful to remember that the ravages of the Great
Depression hit Germany and the United States alike.
Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt
chose very different courses to bring their nations
back to power and prosperity.

Germany's Response:

was to use government to empower
corporations and reward the society's richest
individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle
dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and
create an illusion of prosperity through continual and
ever-expanding war.


Roosevelt's Response:

minimum wage laws
to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to
diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on
corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created
Social Security, and became the employer of last
resort through programs to build national infrastructure,
promote the arts, and replant forests.



Thanks for the informative link to some DU journal, although the Bush/Hitler thing is laughable on many levels but fascism (corporatism) is alive and well in the right-wing as ever.

Some eye-opening parallels drawn out in simple terms.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Well apart from using similar political tactics another similarity between Hitler and Bush is that like Hitler Bush only puts credence on his own definition of reality.

Hitler wanted to send his armies to control Iraqi and Persian oil. As we know he didn't get very far. At least Bush has his armies in Iraq now and is about to put a strangle hold on Iran.

 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,659
3,137
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Genx87
Good god a dictatorship doesnt give up its power through elections.
Were the Sandanistas running Nicaragua, the ones Reagan were in a proxy war with, a dictatorship?
Not to my knowledge, although I think they tried their hardest to work on it.
Does "trying their hardest" include not handing over power through an election?

Congress was 100% controlled by the GOP just as it has done a 180 degree flip and will be controlled by the Demorats come January.
That is amazing, I didnt realize the Republicans captured 435 seats in the house and 100 seats in the senate.

Where the hell have I been?
Somewhere other than learning what the hell you're talking about.

Party with a majority of the seats = controlling the body. Now, democrats "control" the House and the Senate (when the term begins).

One party controlling both houses = 100% "control" of the Congress (as opposed to 50% if they controlled one of the chambers), not 100% of the seats.

I'm trying to remember the last time Genx got anything right or a post worth reading.
Im trying to remember of you and techs are brothers...lol
because you both post misleading facts and try to spin things as you see fit!! sad
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
In MHO, comparing one political leader to another is always tempting and easy---but you are almost always
dealing with other times and different political realities as the given leader claws his way into power--and then extends that power into action.

The true test of any comparison is in its predictive value---which in a Bush v Hitler comparison---or a Saddam v Hitler comparison is not very useful.

But one comparison does apply and its no further than the nearest mirror---as the leader rose to power,
the good people and the majority of the population were just missing in action in opposing a stupid agenda. Too cowed by complacency and fear to resist.------and then are trapped by a in for a penny in for a pound mindset.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
I think Bush is a disaster as a President but I would never compare him to Hitler. Dan Quayle maybe.
I think the only thing he has in common with Hitler is that the world would have been better off if neither had ever been born.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Why bother arguing with people who want to make silly comparisons like this? Let 'em. Hell, encourage 'em so they do it offline as well and make fools of themselves.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I think Bush is a disaster as a President but I would never compare him to Hitler. Dan Quayle maybe.
I think the only thing he has in common with Hitler is that the world would have been better off if neither had ever been born.
Well, I'll give you credit for the first line.
But your second one is a little off the mark.

Has anyone ever heard a conservative say this about Clinton? (The world would have been better if he had never been born?) Maybe this shows that conservatives value life more than liberals?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY