Bush is Hitler

The BBQ Pit
41

By the way - just who are all these right-wingnuts who are allegedly still screaming ad nauseam about moveon.org and BUSHHITLER? (Cites are formally requested).

There was a recent self-awarded Godwin booby prize - lessee - oh yeah, it was this bunch which had a big ad in the N.Y. Times editorial pages. Key line from their homepage:

“People look at all this (Bush perfidies) and think of Hitler - and they are right to do so.”

Fellas, your hyperbole is worn down to a nubbin. Get a new stick.

I know I’m going to regret this, but what sovereign nation might that be?

Oh, horseshit.

Defending oneself against aggression is “false pretenses”? (Confederate attack on Fort Sumter - ring a bell? Seizure of Federal installations by the South - sound familiar?).

Never mind Hitler - Neville Chamberlain was a vastly better speaker than George Bush. Hell, Benny Hill would be an improvement. :dubious:

42

No.

No it isn’t.

Thank God.

43

That’s because you’re an idiot.

Hey, if you’re gonna lob 'em over the plate like that, I’m gonna swing at 'em!

44

Oh horseshit yourself. From the Confederate point of view, they had declared their independence, they were now a sovereign nation, and those Federal troops were occupying Confederate territory illegally. As a point of fact, the entire Civil War could have been avoided if Lincoln just let them go their own way. (I am not advocating that he should have done this, but nobody can deny that if he had there would have been no war)

45

:confused:
Can someone be an adjective? If so, then I would probably say yes.

Coordinate adjectives are usually seperated by a comma, or so I’m told.

46

:smack:
mine and idiot.

47

So… is Bush Hitler, or not? and are you made at us for being mad about taking offense at people saying Bush is Hitler, because it’s not unanimous?

Can we think it’s stupid before it’s unanimous amongst Democrats?

What number of comparisons do we need before we can think it’s stupid?

48

I never equate Bush with Hitler. However, Hitler had a very sharp cookie working for him who reminds me a wee bit of Karl Rove.

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country.”

–Herman Goering, Hitler’s Reichsmarschall, at the Nuremberg trials

49

As feeble an excuse for armed aggression as this is, it further ignores history. From Wikipedia:

*"On April 6, 1861, Lincoln notified South Carolina Governor Francis W. Pickens that “an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort.”

In response, the Confederate cabinet decided at a fateful meeting in Montgomery, Alabama, to open fire on Fort Sumter in an attempt to force its surrender before the relief fleet arrived. Only Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed this decision: he reportedly told Jefferson Davis the attack “will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest… Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal.”*

“Invasion under false pretenses”, hah.

But I’m sure you’re hell-in-crinolines at those Daughters of the Confederacy meetings.

50

Not quite. The gripe is that this subset of Republicans are, in their own way, committing essentially the same sin they are accusing the Democrats of, just more often.

And I should likewise pit you for having the reading comprehension of an epileptic rhesus monkey bred specifically to test the effects of pistol whipping on posting ability. But as it’s uncouth to treat the foibles of the terminally stupid with anything less than complete magnaminity, I shall refrain. I’m nice like that.

If you have a strong stomach, I invite you to peruse the archives of Little Green Footballs and The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. BUSHITLER style comments are made there by the sites proprietors and visitors on a daily basis. Both sites have internal search engines so examples shouldn’t be too difficult to find.

If you’re not up for that, here are a few isolated examples that I found in five seconds on a google search.

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/001866.html

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/005730.html

BlameBush!: Ask Pee-Resident Bushitler (BTW - Don’t take this site seriously. It may seem like an anti Bush site but it’s actually a sustained parody of what the author sees as the worst excesses of leftism. A kind of Right Wing version of Jesus General sans wit.)

http://blisteringcheese.com/index.php/weblog/comments/blame_the_bushitler/

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/instant_leftist_boilerplate_just_add_spittle_and_stir/

And so on, ad nauseum.

Yeah, I know this whole BUSHITLER thing doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. And I don’t think any of these people are, by themselves, guilty of anything particularly egregious. These people are nobodies. Then again, it was 535 nobodies that got Bush in the White House, as determined by the Supreme Court, and so nobodies do mean something, at least so far as they can exert the influence of stupid people in large groups. The jaundiced ‘All liberals think Bush is Hitler’ meme they propagate, however, could have seriously negative repurcussions on the public discourse. It trivializes of Hitler’s name in the same way as genuine attempts to equivocate the two, making it just that little bit easier for every budding holocaust denier out there to shrug off their cognitive dissonence.

When Republican’s attack Democrats for comparing Bush to Hitler, accusing them of cheapening Hitler’s atrocities, and then defend Bush by dismissing valid criticism as the ravings of demented ‘BUSHITLERites’, they just as guilty of cheapening Hitler’s name (and, consequently, his atrocities) as the Democrats they so happily excoriate.

51

Hitler 2 - Look Who’s Hitler Now

52

*Back to Der Führer *

53

Only people who can’t think in shades of gray compare Bush and Hitler without contrasting the two. That doesn’t mean that parallels shouldn’t be drawn when they are appropriate.

This is not about Republicans. It is about certain calculating and manipulative people whose primitive brains have been distorted by addictions to greed and power. They are secretive and deceptive. They seek to expand their power. They are in control of the strongest military in the world. At least one of them seems to be almost child-like. I am reminded of a little boy who plays with toy soldiers and then grows tired of it.

It would be foolish not to keep an eye on these people who may or may not have good intentions.

Maybe they just want to bring happy times to all the world and make our country “safe” again while getting rich themselves and making a mark on history. They would have to ignore the reality of the dead and tortured and unjustly imprisoned. They would have to rationalize the seemingly unConstitutional things that they have done.

The important thing, it seems to me, is to ask the questiion – “Are they beginning to get too much power?” – and remind ourselves of how the liberties of the Jews were lost a little at a time.

I refuse to be intimidated by Godwin’s Law.

Godwin is dead.

In memory of The White Rose, Munich, 1943

54

You’ve counted? What’s the score?

I guess I can’t get all riled up about a bunch of yahoos reacting to another bunch of yahoos. But it seems odd that you’d get all riled up about the yahoos doing the reacting instead of the yahoos who started it all, and who continue to do the Bush = Hitler thing even as we speak (or write). Clearly, you hate America. :slight_smile:

55

Too bad.

Defiance of the Law is no excuse.

You lose.

56

When asked what he thought of Godwin’s Law, Bush replied that he believed the constitution gives him the inherent authority to bypass it. He then asked the NSA to place a wiretap on anyone with the last name of Godwin, Goodwin, Goodrich, Goodman, Goldwin, Goldstein…

57

The Reich Stuff

58

Horseshit again. When South Carolina seceded from the union, all Federal property in the state reverted to state control, including Fort Sumter. Thanks for supplying a cite that proves my point, however. Lincoln saying he was going “to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only,” is an invasion of a sovereign nation under false pretenses. (Again, all this is from the POV of the Confederacy*)
Also, I shouldn’t be surprised at your attempt to paint me as some sort of Confederate apologist, in doing so you simply join the growing ranks of people for whom the world is black and white, and if a person doesn’t immediately and wholeheartedly proclaim their agreement with your position then they are assumed to be an ardent supporter of the opposing side. Unfortunately for people of this ilk, the world is composed of shades of grey, leaving them divorced from reality.

*And before you trot out the argument that the southern states had no right to secede, that is something that was determined by the Civil War. Prior to the Civil War the issue was very much in doubt, with no case law to determine one way or the other.

59

And I’m sure you can cite the relevant passage in the Constitution that deems this to be so - right?

Go back, read the link I supplied earlier, and pay attention to that quote by a Confederate leader who clearly recognized that Southern aggression would lead to Northern retaliation.

The only “false pretense” here is what you’re trying to sell.

Your point about Lincoln’s revoking civil liberties in time of war was a good one (if only you’d had the sense to stop there), but the line about the South being the illegitimate victim of a Northern invasion is the kind of drivel typically heard only from diehard historical revisionists.

Of course, this is only the POV of those with common sense. :wink:

60

Jack, you don’t read very well, do you? Maybe you should go back to my first post on this subject in this thread, where I said “ify, but the Confederacy considered themselves a sovereign nation, and would absolutely consider forcing their continued membership in a union they eschewed as a false pretense”. You’re proceeding from a false assumption, that Southern sovereignty is a proposition that I personally believe in and am passionately defending. As a point of fact, I don’t, because I believe that when a state voluntarily joins the Union it has in fact given up that right, but that doesn’t mean that the idea of Confederate sovereignty is a ridiculous one, particularly when looked at from the context of 1860/1. It’s an argument that can be made, and defended, without requiring the person making the argument to take any outrageous positions, particularly, as I said, from the perspective of 1960. The fact that one person in the Confederate cabinet thought that firing on Sumter was an aggressive act has no bearing here, why would it? He felt differently. So what? plenty in the north said “Let 'em go”, does that change anything?