George Bush -- the reincarnation of Hitler?
 

This forum has been dead lately. There hasn't been anything
controversial posted here in a while, and it's getting tiring to go
through the same drivel everyday. We need to bring some life back to
the forum, people. My effort to bring some mature activity to the
flame forum was thwarted by an influx of idiots who seem like they
have just discovered that a life outside of D2 exists. So, in my
second attempt to create some activity for the forum, I've decided to
post this. I know I'm going to get some flak for posting this, but I'm
looking for a good debate. I know you pro-bush, pro-war (adrenachrome)
people are going to hate this, but I don't give a fuck. Sue me.

Anyway, back to the topic of how Hitler is like Bush. The similarities
are quite astonishing, really. Now, some of you are going to choose to
reject this completely, and say that I'm just "reiterating what I've
heard from TV." Well, what the fuck is it you're doing? Anyway, there
has been quite a bit of research that I've put into this. Whether you
believe it or not is up to you.

First of all, the fact that the people of Germany elected Hitler to
power is a fallacy. He was, in fact, appointed by President
Hindenburg. This seems quite a bit like the 2000 election. Bush did
not win the popular vote. He was, in fact, appointed in by the
supreme court. Nice job getting the strings pulled by your
connections. No, really, I commend him on that. How else should a
politician act?

The second similarity is that Hitler sanctioned many laws that were
considered illegal, such as the Enabling Act. Wow. Look at 'Dubya'.
He's passed plenty of laws which shouldn't ever be able to be passed
under the Constitution of the United States of America. There is the
Patriot Act, TIA, Operation Tips, Homeland Security Act, and many
others. Take away someone's right to a fair-trial because they simply
look different? No thanks. How can you call that patriotic?
Anyway, if you're taking away our liberties in the name of fighting
"terrorism" (which is an idea and you can't wage war on an idea) then
they have already won. Doesn't matter what else happens. Yea.
Patriotic my ass. Seriously, if you don't know what the Patriot Act
does, look it up. Read it in its entity.

Third, Hitler attacked sovereign nations while deluding the populous
into believing that these nations posed some sort of threat to
Germany, where in reality, these countries posed absolutely no threat
to Germany whatsoever. Most of you on the opposing side are never
satisfied unless I give you an example. Well, Poland. Similarly,
George W. Bush has lead us into frivolous wars with countries that
pose no threat to us in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan, I can
half-way see. Iraq, I can't. Iraq had never attacked us. They had
never threatened to attack us. All of these claims that you people
have that Saddam gassed the Kurds and killed "thousands of people", I
have never seen substantiated with actual facts. I've never seen any
numbers. I've never seen any of the sources where you gathered your
information. I'm not disputing the fact that he did gas his own
people, but lets see some hard facts about it. I would like to learn
more. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Iraq has been horrible. These
supposed weapons of mass destructions near Tikrit were never found.
Where's the threat? Once again, I reiterate, Iraq has been horrible.
It's now been clearly evinced to the world that our jingoist president
has no problem whatsoever attacking sovereign nations on his gut
instinct. Our foreign reputation has just about been blasted into
oblivion, as Obi Wan would say. The civilian casualties have been
terrible, exceeding 5-digits. I believe it was about a year and a half
ago when Adrenachrome and Titusfied abusively belittled my
belief on whether or not we should go to war. I had made the
point that the projected civilian casualties were into 5-digits, and
you had basically laughed your ass off at that fact. Casualties are in
5-digits. Nice. You had abusively attacked the youthful, yet
well-informed belief of a (unfortunately) timid 12-year old at
that time. A fucking belief. An opinion! Nice.

Adolf Hitler used concentration camps to opress the people who he
wanted dead. How does this relate to George Bush? Well, our beloved
president has tried to advance concentration camps already existing in
our country to house Muslims, and others in our own country. According
to some reports, this stuff is still going on, people. Don't
believe me? Look it up. That's fucking sick.

Adolf Hitler had brainwashed many people in his country to willingly
accept his dictatorship of destruction through mass propoganda. That's
the only way Bush has one support of this war. He has proselytized
many people through his fallacious propoganda, and his puerile tactic
of labeling anyone opposing the war as unpatriotic (a tactic that
certain members of this board have used on myself).

The list goes on. I'm pretty tired, but this guy is unbelievable. Who
knows what four more years of his presidency might cause us to endure.
How many more innocent kids have to die until the gun-waving
warmongers realize that this is completely rash, and unreasonable.
Vote Kerry. Raziel said it best: My reasons for supporting Kerry are
not because I think he's the prime candidate for the job. I support
Kerry simply because HE'S NOT GEORGE BUSH. One is a flip-flopping but
relatively harmless democrat and the other is a gun-waving bigot
determined to run this country into the ground. The math is pretty
fucking simple.

Ooookkkk, Whattttttt, Yeaaaaah.

Edited by Raziel

This is not the Chat Forum, Ganga. MJ created the topic for the purposes of harvesting actual conversation, not your tired spam. Don't do it again.

That's an extremely astute observation there, MJ. The only point of yours that I'd like to see references on would be the "concentration camps" argument. The rest of it was frighteningly accurate.

Vote Kerry/Edwards.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/camps.html

You could probably find more information if you look up FEMA and the Rex 84 program.

That certainly paints a pretty awful picture there, MJ. The thing that makes the concept of American-run internment camps even more plausible is the fact that we've done it in the past, and continue to do it (on much less severe levels) today. Anyone under the assumption that we've learned from our mistakes over the last 60 years need only watch recent videos of American soldiers humiliating and harassing nude, hooded Iraqui prisoners from the last year. We haven't learned anything, and if Bush sincerely supports Ashcroft's plans, I can't see how a single reasonable American could re-elect the man as the leader of our country.

This is sickening.

I can't wait till this stupid fucking election is over with

"...and George W. Bush is out of office" is how you meant to end that one.

I think Hitler was smarter than Bush. Bush is almost incapable of being articulate. Imagine all those long-winded speeches Hitler gave about Naziism that inspired his conrades; except they have "uh's" and other break-offs. Sad to say, but Hitler was a better leader.

And NO! I'm a communist not a Nazi. Some conservatives say there's no difference, but they're idiots.

I absolutely agree that Hitler was a better leader than Bush. That's an indisputable fact. He managed to unite 100% of a failing and collapsing country under one banner and pull the entire nation's economy out from a post-World War defeat recession into a thriving and advancing military state. He did for that country what very few leaders in the history of the world have been able to do.

It just sucks that he had to do it by stomping on the backs of the Jewish, black, homosexual, gypsy and otherwise "imperfect" peoples.

Bush, on the other hand, has been stomping all over the backs of just about everyone but southern white men, and our economy is in decline as well as our country's entire morale. We're more divided now than we have been since I was born. He's a terrible leader.

Toys r Us is going out of business. I have been shopping there since I was a kid. I don't know if that ties into Bush, but it sucks.

Is it just me, or was Bush extremely upset during both debates? He kept glaring and stuff. I mean, with my eyesight, it must be pretty easy for people to see.

Honestly, you just made me dislike George W. Bush more than I did before, but I wouldn't vote Kerry. He's just a pussy who will bend over to the will of the UN and allow us to be attacked. Vote Nader, he only wants to steal your car :)

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

Kerry sucks. Don't diss the UN. They're the only source of sanity in the world scene. I'd take the collective, iimpartial(sp?) leaders of the UN over a naturally bias leader of one sole country.

I want to know where you get the impression that "Kerry is a pussy who will bend over to the will of the UN and allow us to be attacked?" Look at that statement for a second. Why would it be in the UN's interest to allow us to get attacked? It wouldn't. No president would allow their conutry to get attacked. It's not in the best-interest for the president, nor the country. The only difference is that Kerry, I hope, would not go around flexing his country's millitary might on other sovereign nations. Plus, hasn't our country already been attacked under our current president despite the fact that his administration had intelligence reporting that Osama was planning on hijacking our planes?

On a different view-point, lets just say, hypothetically, that Kerry exhibits signs of "pussyness," however you want to describe that. What's worse? A president who has already taken away our civil liberties, constantly kept us in fear of a threat that doesn't exist (Iraq), whose administration has put forth an interest in resurrecting concentration camps in America, ruined our reputation with other countries because we have been attacking sovereign nations over the past five years, and proselytized you and many others, or a man who hasn't even had a chance to show you what he can do. I'm willing to take my chances with Kerry.

Im just going to stand up for Bush because I see that nobody else is on this liberal forum. No point in going over the issues as nobody on this whole damn forum is a republican hence the effort would be futile. However just remember this Bush bashers, it's easy to get an easy win on a Bush bashing debate when there is only one or none as the opposition.

I don't know if you believe any of this, but I thought this was pretty interesting.

http://mirrors.meepzorp.com/geocitie...sh-antichrist/

Also, I found this link somewhere a long time ago. According to them, the US has brainwashed us. http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scr...h/welcome.html

The reason to NOTE vote Bush is because he could bring about World War 3. Or worse. Knamean?

I just watched Farenheit 9/11 this past weekend. It's a great documentary slapped together by Micheal Moore.

I had never realized how awful of a person that Bush is. I went along thinking "Hey, this guy is just a dimwitted redneck....etc." But he is a great Business destroyer. It went on and on about how he destroyed many of the Businesses he ran.

But reference to G.W. compared to Hitler, look how Hitler blamed the Jews for what had happened to him, or whatever. Bush is doing the exact same thing with the 'Middle-Easterns'.

But good points, though, he can't be compared to Hitler. Even though Bush is leading us through a pointless ass war, and killing lots of innocent people, Hitler DID kill 11 MILLION people, which is a colossus number compared to the 10,000 or whatever that have died in Iraq.

If Bush is re-elected, he will drive America FURTHER into the ground, just like he did with all his previous businesses.

I was in the same spot about a year and a half ago, except I was against Bush, when it seemed like everyone on this forum was for Bush.

Farenheit 9/11 is a propaganda movie with distorted truth. i've talked to people who are anti-Bush, but they agree that F9/11 isn't true.

Michael Moore hates America.

Everybody that has any common sense knows that the movie is about 85% bullshit and the rest is just wise character assassination.

D3V may not know that, Signior zagggon

He knows it, he just does not want to know it.

Meh, probably the way it is. Michael Moore: King of Bullshit in Media.

Fat people like Moore deserve nothing more than to be shot continually with pellet guns until they keel over dead.

lmao Sov that was great, asshole.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/131059

I can post links too! ;)

Yeah but the difference is that people won't click on your link cuzz you like the fucking moron, oh wait you are one!

http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread....&highlight=eat

What was that?

Hahaha. That was ownage.

I don't think I agree entirely with you MJ. OK, I'm not American, but I still don't agree entirely.

Point 1: Yes, OK. Hindenburg did appoint Hitler to Chancelor of Germany. Beforehand though, he had built on the hatred of the Treaty of Versaille in German's hearts to rise in Parliament, and get the majority. He used propaganda, hatred of the Treaty, scapegoats - he 'slagged off' the Communist, Jewish and rival parties, saying they would do nothing. Before him, was the Weimar Republic. They signed the Treaty of Versaille, they were in power during the Wall Street Crash, so were blamed. Hitler blamed them for everything, and everyone listened. He sent out the Brownshirts - SA - his own personal army, to break up othr parties meetings. He rose to power legitimately, he got the majority in the Reichstag, got ultimate power form Hindenburg, then passed the Enabling Act before banning all other parties. You say that Bush did not rise to power legitimately, Hitler did. OK, Bush was appointed, so was Hitler. End of similarities.

Point 2: Agree entirely, what type of idiot passes a law to allow Military grade guns. Oh wait, it gets him votes. So what? I agree with you - Hitler passed laws that were...'bad', Bush just passes stupid laws.

Point 3: Hitler attacked soveriegn nations, because he needed to. His promises were to destroy the Treaty of Versaille. The Treaty did not allow joining up with Austria, and it took away most of Germany's lands. Hitler promised to retrieve these lands (parts of Poland, Austria etc), and make Germany great again. He then attacked countries like France because they were thinking of opposing him, and he could only make Germany great if he had no opposition. Look at how well he did - Blitzkrieg destroyed France, and he was in power of his 'great nation' (--> Drei Reich - Third Great Empire) for almost 5 years! Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq etc. in a war against Terrorism, and to stop the cruelty of Saddam. No connection.

Point 4: Hitler's concentration camps were there to send prisoners, and to carry out Genocide - kill all the Jews. Bush has Prison camps - house the terrorists his army captures. No connections.


The odd similarity, but apart from that, nothing is similar.

You are a tool. Have you read Marx's book? Have you read Adam Smith's book? Just answer those two questions.

Is that page a joke? All of the pictures are photoshopped... are those just like for added effect? I am confused.

Yeah, they were photoshopped.




By the way, Hitler hated communism and was a socialist.

Vote Peroutka '04!

http://daveblackonline.com/no_more_excuses1.htm

This thread is bullshit. The American citizens that are criticizing and ridiculing Bush are about as big of flip-floppers as your hero, Mr. Kerry.

If all you morons would so kindly remember back to when America was cowardly attacked on 9/11 and remember all the speeches that Dubya made, I want you to realize that you're all freakin' hypocrites. George Bush stated many, many times that he would retaliate to whoever attacked us AND declare war on terrorism. Everyone was so happy! We're going to bring vengeance upon those bastards that killed our families. Everything was smooth.

Bush actually stood behind what he said(despite Kerry's inconsistent attitude) and attacked Afghanistan. What!?!?!?! He actually meant he was going to attack somebody? Oh shit, why would he do that? Maybe we were wrong about supporting him and his war on terrorism.

We attacked Iraq because they had specific links to Al-Queda. Saddam Hussein is a terrorist who killed his own people and terrorized innocent civilians in many other countries. Remember Kuwait, pinpricks? Yeah, he's a terrorist. Yeah, we're at war with terrorism. PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER, MORONS. Of course, some people are going to die; it's a freakin' war. I'm sorry if one of your friends/relatives has died because of this, but that's life. You Kerry supporters have made up so many excuses as to why we're over there in Iraq. Oil, power, show our strength, war-monger; STICK WITH ONE CONCLUSION. I can't wait to hear the next reason as to why we're in Iraq, I swear one comes up every other week.

You know what? If Gore had been elected in 2000 and we had been attacked, he would have done the same thing as Bush did. Every president would have. You all would be singing the same f*cking song as you are now; making up excuses as to why we're attacking people. It's because we're at war with terrorism. Stand by your country, damn hippies. I'm sick of all you bastards being so hypocritical about everything the Bush administration has promised.

1.) The details were different. I agree on that much. That wasn't the point I was really trying to make though, in my first argument. What the point was, neither of them were elected to power. Though both of them gained power in a technically legal fashion, neither of them should have really gotten power. They both got it underhandedly.

2.) Your point three says that Hitler needed to attach these countries because of whatever reason, it doesn't really matter. That's an excuse. Bush uses the same excuse, just different details. Instead of needing to destroy the Treaty of Versailles Bush needs to "rid the world of terrorism." It's his self-appointed duty. He's required to do it, supposedly.

3.) We don't know what these concentration camps are going to be used for. If you want to imprison someone, you use prisons. These concentration camps are sick.

That means any muslim living in America is a possible target.

This sounds a lot like the McCarthy era.

Once the government is given that much power, they know that their power is unchecked. They can do whatever they need to, which might mean completely "getting rid of the menace."

Like I said before, the details might not be exactly the same, but the idea is.

http://poststuff.entensity.net/101104/damnnigga3.jpg

Nice

Saddam Hussein did not attack us, regardless of how similar his name may sound to "Osama Bin Laden" in your ears.


Yes...and then he diverted attention away from capturing Bin Laden in order to instigate an unneccessary and frivolous war with a completely separate and uninvolved country.


Show me the specific links. You show me where Iraq currently has specific and dangerous links to Al Qaeda. I want sources. Credible ones. As it stands now, the only genuine link between Hussein and Bin Laden is that they hate us and live in the same part of the world.


And it's not our fucking job to go policing other countries. Yeah, he was an asshole, yeah he deserved to be removed from power, but at the expense of our own security and freedom? No. We didn't attack him because he was a terrorist, we attacked him to flex muscle and play the role of "World Cop", like we have been doing unnecessarily for the last fifty years.


Because fighting a war against an idea works so fucking well. Communism still exists, and we've been fighting that idea since the 50's.


You know why all of those reasons are still flying around today? BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL STILL VALID AND ARE ALL STILL TRUE, YOU FUCKING MORON. We're not limited to picking one reason for abhorring this war and sticking with it when more and more reasons come to the surface every day. I abhor this war for all of those reasons and more simultaneously.


I'm absolutely positive that he would have attacked Afghanistan, just like any good president should have. I'm also relatively positive that he would not have dragged us into a war with a completely unrelated country based on assumptions that have been proven 100% and entirely wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Hussein had no capability to produce WMDs, and his resources in that area were actually diminishing over time, not increasing.

He was not a threat to us. He simply didn't like us. If the simple fact that a country doesn't like us is all the explanation we need to give in order to justifiably attack them, then we should have flattened France decades ago.


I'm not being hypocritical in the slightest. I absolutely agree that Hussein was a horrible man and needed to be ousted, but it needed to be done by his own fucking people. It's not impossible, it's been done before by countless nations. Considering the fact that his people didn't do it for, what 30 or 40 years, you'd imagine that they weren't terribly interested in having him removed from power.

But, since we absolutely had to stick our fucking noses in it, we should have done it for the right reasons and by executing the actions in the right way. Bush did neither. He caused the needless deaths of thousands of American lives and even further tarnished the international reputation of this country by randomly and spastically instigating a war based on 100% bullshit.

Pull your head out of your ass.