With all respect, it seems to me that DtC is referring to Bush as Hitler incarnate. I cannot understand how you can say otherwise. “You just reelected Hitler.” How much plainer can it be?
Look, forget the Jews for god’s sake. That was the worst thing Hitler did, it is totally true… but take that away, and the guy was still a disgusting leader that took control of a depressed country and waged wars on shoddy ideological grounds. I swear everyone thinks that the second you invoke Hitler you’ve got to be talking genocide. I can’t speak for Dio but Hitler was one bad man even without the genocide issue. Seriously. That’s like saying when you compare someone to Stalin you are suggesting he locks everyone up who might potentially disagree. Like that was it, Stalin was a great guy except for that one little problem. Hell no. These people sucked through and through, you can take away their worst atrocity and they’re still the definition of suckitude.
But Dio isn’t the only one who has ever made that comparison. If the comparison is valid in some way, I think it is worth hearing about. I hope someone takes the reigns.
Is speaking plainly a requirement or expectation in the Pit? My understanding was poorly reasoned flaming was OK there. And sometime people just exaggerate. In a Usenet newsgroup I frequent, a syadmin for a very prominent Usenet outsourcing provider some time back posted that if the only 2 options on the ballot were Bush and Satan, he’d vote for Satan. I commented that he had a good point. Then again, while we have some (admittedly minor) disagreements about how Usenet should be run, we are very similar politically. Someone once posted in a newsgroup we both post in a thread about Political Compass scores. I was surprised it turns out that he was even more anarcho-syndicalist than I was. I can only assume that because Bush is so far from our political orientation, the fact that Satan is at least honest about his politics, unlike Bush, for that he deserves respect. 
Imagine that your politics is extremely different than Bush. Take me, an anarcho-syndicalist for example. My idea of the most ideal state, a la as Socrates/Plato offered as a thought experiment in “The Republic”, would be one that economically was mostly socialist, yet embraced libertarian notions of non-economic freedom. (And YES, I know that Plato’s “Republic” was FAR different than that. I just mean to say we both are arguing theoretically for the ideal polis as we see it.)
To me, I see Stalin as evil because while I like his economic ideals, his beliefs on social liberties totally sucked. Hitler sucked even worse. He not only showed no respect for social liiberarianism, worse yet he liked capitalism. Thus to me, Bush is most similar to Hitler as opposed to Stalin. Bush favor capitalism, and the evil of the Religious Right.
To me Stalin, Hitler and Bush are the definition of suckitude. They just suck in different ways. Now resurrect Mahatma Gandi and I might be able to get along with him. Left leaning economically, with much respect for social liberties.
I’m not even so certain that Bush favors the Religious Right in his beliefs. I think he uses them to get what he wants. He has learned to exploit them. I would love to ask him some questions about the Bible and the United Methodist Church.
One thing Bush has in common with Hitler is that he appears to be very uncompassionate and unremorseful.
Other differences:
- Hitler slaughtered about 6 million Jews
- Bush didn’t invade Poland, Czechoslavkia, France etc…None of these countries committed the atrocities that Sadam performed to his own people
Another thing in common with Hitler is his discrimination against Gays. Bush just hasn’t got to the point yet of making them wear pink triangles or exterminating them in concentration camps - but I’m not so sure that some of the ‘religious right’ wouldn’t support him if he tried. http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/NewsGays.htm
Bah. How many more Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion than would have had Saddam remained in power?
Bush has just started the new era of American imperialism. He most decidedly will invade someone in the next four years.
And why are the atrocities that Saddam performed worthy of invasion while those that are being slaughtered in Sudan are not? Give you a hint: it’s a three letter word starting with “O”.
All?
A small war, so far.
And technically, the UK started the world war. Hitler just invaded one little country (Poland).
[/QUOTE]
Hey, I had no idea this thread was here until just now.
It was election night hyperbole, ok. I went a little crazy for a while.
Although there are some similarities…
And with that, I should hope this marks the end of this thread.
Not quite!
I’ve heard this said before and I have never seen any evidence it’s true. Hitler had a good memory, but by all contemporary accounts he was terribly confused by anything complicated; he never really understood tactics above a battalion level, which is why he liked to dwell on minutiae, and he didn’t really grasp economics or large scale planning at all. He never succeeded academically, and we have no IQ tests for him. Where’s the evidence he was highly intelligent?
Well that’s that folks.
Nothing left to see here.
I appreciate your honesty.