Hitler & Bush: Separated at Birth?

[shannon_a]

As we're heading into election eve here in the United States, it looks like the Republicans have regained control of the Senate, giving them an awesome amount of power. They now control The Presidency, The House of Representatives, The Supreme Court and ... it appears ... The Senate too. That's a big three out of three branches of government for the elephants.

Political reporters are claiming the victory is primarily due to the popularity of "President" George Bush, jr. who's spent an unprecedented amount of time campaigning for and raising money for conservatives in the last year.

For the life of me, I can't understand why that monster is so well-liked by a full 60% of the American people. For gosh sake, that's more than voted for him. That's even more than voted for his opponent, Al Gore, who actually won the popular vote of '00.

Yet Bush keeps pushing forward, a smile on his face, a lost look in his eyes, and someone else's words in his mouth.

To date his accomplishments include:

• Doing his best to destroy the hard line between Church and State.
  
• Putting the federal government back into debt and reinitiating deficit spending thanks to an ill-considered tax cut.
  
• Heralding the country into the worst economy that I've ever seen.
  
• Bringing up the threat of terrorists every time the country remembers how screwed up the economy is.
  
• Imprisoning hundreds of innocent Americans without a trial or lawyers or any other constitutional guarantees because their skin was the wrong color.
  
• Suggesting to postal workers, neighbors, and even family members that they should spy on their family and friends.
  
• Increasing the authority of Federal spook agencies to spy on average Americans.
  
• Killing tens of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan.
  
• Preparing to kill tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.
  
• Undermining the authority of the United Nations, and generally ignoring the opinions of the rest of the world.
  

And 60% of the country loves him. And he's helping the Republicans to regain the Senate.

Good god.

I understand what the Germans who had not fallen under Adolf Hitler's spell felt like in the late 1930s.

Comments

Voting Day

[angrybuffalo.livejournal.com]

Demonization of your opponents the traditional first step towards using violence. Shannon, I have not been able to Vote in this city I have been attacked as have my friends for expressing political opinions that are even slightly outside the current political range of Berkeley things like free speech that you and the rest of your political party have been steadily taking away from the people of Berkeley. By simply calling someone a Nazi you call for violence. And you and your clique are willing to call someone a Nazi for suggesting that school uniforms should be worn in order to prevent violence and lessen the stigma of poverty. Even your examples are wrong and further more you know that Hitler.

* Had no real issues with separation of Church and State as he was hard at work building a new religion. And so tried to make the Churches less important in politics.
* Did not give the German people tax cuts
* Improved the economy.
* Hitler created threats out of whole cloth. Unless you want to claim that the Reichstag building= World Trade center. If so welcome to the land of the Raving nutter.
* You will find that only foreign nationals are imprisoned if you want to make a plea for the rights of man versus the government do so but try not to lie to do it.
* Suggesting to postal workers, neighbors, and even family members that they should spy on their family and friends. True Bush has asked for help from the civilian populous, people can ask for what they want.
* Increasing the authority of Federal spook agencies to spy on average Americans. In fact Hitler decreased the powers of police and created new organizations to handle internal decent.
* Killing around 3-4 thousand people in Afghanistan. But hey why not lie to make a point
* Preparing to kill tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. Probably true.
* Undermining the authority of the United Nations, and generally ignoring the opinions of the rest of the world. Yeah well you and your friends are undermining the authority of the US Government and ignoring the opinions of your countrymen.

The sad thing is that you know your history better then to cry Hitler you know better. I will now call you and your team what I have often been called EVIL you are no better then an antiabortion preacher who riles up people by calling his opponents murderers.

I am very tired of this you don’t admit the validity of any point of very other then your own at the same time you pat yourself on the back about haw open minded you are. You call others Nazis but in this city there are no Republicans taking to the streets or trying to intimidate people in front polling places.

Re: Voting Day

[shannon_a]

Chris,

We've chatted about this before, and what I think you don't understand is that I really do consider George Bush, jr. evil. This isn't demonization. This isn't handy shorthand to rile up his opponents. It's the honest truth.

In my book, he's selfish and self-interested and is using his enormous power to hurt or kill many, many people and to benefit himself and his friends. That's evil as well as we'll ever seen it displayed on a non-mythical plane.

I didn't mean my listing of the terrible things that George Bush, jr. had done to be a point-by-point comparison with what Hitler had done. I simply find the overall tenure of the times, when a charismatic, self-interested leader scapegoats a small racial subgroup in order to turn attention away from economic problems at home, to be chillingly similar. I do find it interesting that you refute some of the terrible, terrible things that Bush, jr. has done by saying, "Hey! Hitler didn't do that!"

Anyway, I'm sorry you didn't get to vote for whatever reason. I totally respect your right to support a politician like Bush, and just hope you'll respect my right to honestly consider him an inhumane monster.

Stifling of Dissent, Pro and Con

[shoutingboy.livejournal.com]

'I totally respect your right to support a politician like Bush, and just hope you'll respect my right to honestly consider him an inhumane monster.'

Erm... I didn't see anyone denying you the right to call him whatever you want.

Or do you want the right to call him an inhumane monster and have nobody disagree with you? I'm sorry to tell you that isn't gonna happen. First ammendment, you know. We get to disagree with whoever we like, in this country.

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

Suggesting to postal workers, neighbors, and even family members that they should spy on their family and friends.


Oh man. Whe was this? The flashbacks I'm having right now to Orwell's 1984 are a little overwhelming.

You forgot to mention:

*Campaigning for a new cabinet seat named 'Homeland Security'

"Homeland" sounds way Nazi-ish to me too.

[shannon_a]

It was in the two or three months after 9/11, at the same time as he was rounding up Middle Easterners and holding them without trial.

And yes, I totally agree on the Homeland Security Department. Not only does the name remind me a lot of Hitler's Motherland Uber Alles, but the whole purpose of the department sends an Orwellian chill through me. I mean, it's all about spying on Americans to see if they're doing anything that's a "threat" to the country.

Today, terrorists. Tomorrow ... livejournals like this one?

I've seen it written that democracy is never proven until a majority party is actually ousted from power. And that democracy must prove itself again and again. With governors and supreme court justices now picking our president, with a charismatic but amoral president fooling 60% of the country, I'm going to have some severe doubts about how much democracy remains in this nation until, once more, there's a transfer of power.

Re:

[rashaka.livejournal.com]

I've seen it written that democracy is never proven until a majority party is actually ousted from power. And that democracy must prove itself again and again.

That's an interesting take on it.

I've never been a fan of partisanism (sp?), and my naive faith in the dignity of the Supreme Court as being above partisan voting was completely destroying in the last presidential election, but I didn't mind that the houses were controlled by different party majorities. The Republicans having the executive, judicial, and BOTH legislative branches just gives me a wave of pessimism 3 miles high.

[palecur.livejournal.com]

If it helps you feel any better, Democrats do still largely control the judiciary, as the New Jersey "law? what pesky election law?" Lautenberg switcheroo should help demonstrate. And the 9th Circuit you have with you always, those wacky guys.

In other news, Democrats have held the Executive and both houses of the legislative SEVERAL times during the 20th -- Clinton, LBJ, Carter come to mind. Ah, yes. The Carter administration. Truly feel-good times for America, when peace and wealth flowed like the twin blessings of a bountiful but non-denominational God.

9th circuit...

[shoutingboy.livejournal.com]

Actually, I wonder if Bush can now, finally, split the 9th Circuit into two smaller ones? The 9th C. would still be here, as wacky as ever, but they'd preside over fewer cases.

I don't know how many votes it needs, but I bet W. can do it. He sets the agenda in the Senate now, he's got a majority, and after the pledge case, a lot of Democrats will feel very squeamish about supporting the 9th Circuit. (And special bonus--that would create more judicial vacancies for Bush to fill!)

Ah, it's a good time to be an American, even in California...

Oh, and don't dis Carter!

[shoutingboy.livejournal.com]

Go easy on Jimmy Carter. He's the one who gave us Reagan, after all. That alone makes Carter one of the greatest Americans of his time.

And I think we owe both Carter and Mondale a big debt of gratitude for making this week's election results possible. Oh, and Norway, too! Must remember to thank Norway!

[palecur.livejournal.com]

with a charismatic but amoral president fooling 60% of the country

PROTIP: Clinton left office in 2001.

Response, part the first

[palecur.livejournal.com]

For the life of me, I can't understand why that monster is so well-liked by a full 60% of the American people.

Well, mostly it's because he isn't an amoral, power-lusting craven like our last President, is my guess.

Yet Bush keeps pushing forward, a smile on his face, a lost look in his eyes, and someone else's words in his mouth.

Hrm. I keep hearing this 'Bush the puppet of [big oil|christian fundamentalists|ZOG|Bavarian Illuminati|Major Leage Baseball' line, I sometimes forget to ask for any evidence. He's taken a lot of decisions under circumstances and in time frames that make it rather difficult to believe that any given puppet master had time to make a decision and communicate its diktat to him -- real 'man on the ground' type decisions. His playing of the UN off against itself in these past few months, f'rinstance, has been masterly, and as a result they've done pretty much what we want, which is get out of the way.

But even granting that Bush is someone's puppet, which I don't, whoever's pulling the strings is doing such a good job of impersonating a great President it's indistinguishable from the real thing.

Doing his best to destroy the hard line between Church and State.

It's unclear to me what you mean by this. Appointing people of faith to positions of government? Is it your position that only atheists or people willing to put aside their religious convictions are eligible for public office? The line between Church and State is not, as you seem to believe, a total rejection of any tinge of religiosity in state proceedings, but rather a prohibition on the State of enforcing one official religion -- and Bush has done nothing in this direction that I know of. Ashcroft's staff, for instance, include devout Jews, Muslims, Protestants of all stripes -- no 'official religion' there. Anyhow, I can't really argue against this particular grievance without more specifics.

Putting the federal government back into debt and reinitiating deficit spending thanks to an ill-considered tax cut.

Oh yes, let's not let those poor misguided people keep their money -- no telling what they might do with it. We, their betters, will spend it for their benefit. Piffle. Deficit came about through a business cycle reversal that started well before the election. I'm presuming Bush lacks access to the Wayback Machine here, as that's the only way he could credibly be blamed for the economic downturn. What's a nice way out of deficit? Oh, I don't know, cut some of the bloated, power-mad federal government? I'd be happy to lose the BATF and Department of Education, for starters. Well, okay, I'd like to get rid of that wretched omnibus farm bill (one legitimate beef with Bush, along with signing the grossly unconstitutional 'Campaign Finance Reform' law, aka Incumbent Protection Act of 2001, and the steel tariff giveaway).

Heralding the country into the worst economy that I've ever seen.

Are you eight years old? Do you remember 1992? That economy sucked. This recession is incredibly mild. It has sucked the hardest in tech, because we were FIFO -- yeah, I'm not claiming it's been fun. But look at the numbers. This recession is unpleasant but not catastrophic. Calling it the 'worst economy you've ever seen' is rank hyperbole at best.

Bringing up the threat of terrorists every time the country remembers how screwed up the economy is.

He is kind of focused on, you know, running a war here. I imagine he canned Pitt from SEC because of his notorious al-Qaeda links. No? Oh, right, it's because Pitt was a do-nothing dickhead. That's how little attention he's paying. The presidency does not endow one with magical Corn-King-like powers over the coming harvest, you know. Bush can't wave his arms and create jobs. The best thing he can do for the economy is to win the war and otherwise stay out of business' way.

More right after -- darn comment response limit.

Response part deux

[palecur.livejournal.com]

Imprisoning hundreds of innocent Americans without a trial or lawyers or any other constitutional guarantees because their skin was the wrong color.

Tough. Some things just suck in wartime. Temporary inconvenience for a few hundred citizens is regrettable -- it sucks, it's arguably unconstitutional, I wish it didn't have to happen. But it's necessary, unlike, say, interning hundreds of thousands of US Citizens in concentration camps, as FDR, hero of heroes (spit), did in WWII. I think we're doing much, much better this time around. People are aware of these guys, they're making noise on their behalf, and - get this - they're being released as soon as we know they're cool. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Suggesting to postal workers, neighbors, and even family members that they should spy on their family and friends.

Oh come on. TIPS was a hotline. Is 'America's Most Wanted' turning the US into some Orwellian wasteland? This is no different. In the 'intelligence failure' investigations after 9/11, we found out that lots of people had key bits of the puzzle that could have helped, and seen some really disturbing behavior on the part of the people who would become the hijackers -- but didn't report it. Didn't know where to, or who to talk to, or in some particularly idiotic cases (FBI) weren't allowed to follow up. TIPS was a perfectly innocuous idea, and everyone went all 'ORWELL OMG WTF LOLOLOL' on it and it's dead now.

Increasing the authority of Federal spook agencies to spy on average Americans.

Yeah, that's kind of a kick in the nards. Do what I do and send some money to Institute for Justice (http://www.ij.org). The system does work -- you can even post horrible conspiratorial screeds like this one (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/021030/7/2k5lk.html) and not get hauled away and shot in the back of head, unlike, say, Iraq.

Killing tens of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan.

Fess up. You pulled this number right out of Ramsey Clark's ass, right? Best estimates are between 500 and 1300 (that high number come from the not exactly rightwing Project for Defense Alternatives (http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html#appendix1), by the way). Civilian casualties suck. But it's impossible to wage war without civilian casualties, especially when our enemy, no respecter of the Geneva Convention, hides among the civilian population. We can and do take steps to minimise civilian casualties, but there is no way to eliminate them. If we hadn't prosecuted the war in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have killed any innocent Afghanis, sure enough, but there would still have been civilian casualties of the war. Only they would have been in the US.

Preparing to kill tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq.

See above.

Undermining the authority of the United Nations, and generally ignoring the opinions of the rest of the world.

We're not so much undermining the UN's authority as pointing out that is has none, and never has. We're not to blame for the imperial nudity, we're just pointing it out. Iraq ignoring UN resolutions for 11 years already did all the undermining that was going to happen. As long as the rest of the world thinks I'm too successful and free, I'm glad to ignore its opinions; the world can get listened to when it starts talking sense.

I guess our allies (we do have some, you know) Britain, Australia, Qatar, Yemen, Turkey, and the rest don't count as part of 'the world', since they're not France or Germany. Whatever.

And 60% of the country loves him. And he's helping the Republicans to regain the Senate.

Every sitting President campaings for his party. This is not unusual behavior.

I understand what the Germans who had not fallen under Adolf Hitler's spell felt like in the late 1930s.

That's so appallingly tasteless I can't even bring myself to comment on it. Did it hurt much when they surgically removed your sense of shame?

Hitler and the UseNet rules and polemic

[purchasemonkey.livejournal.com]

   Hrm. Lotta polemic in this post and the comments in response, and it seems to be generating a lot more heat than light.

   What I see, for my two cents, is the original poster making a statement which I, as a liberal who really dislikes Bush, personally find inappropriate and distasteful (equating Bush and Hitler), a "sin" often committed by the liberal left, and then several of my conservative friends responding by, as is oftentheir wont, pointing out the evil liberal's violation of the rules of good etiquette while simultaneously being smirking and superior and insulting themselves.

   For the record, I believe that:

Bush is not a good president, much less a great leader; I believe he is, in fact, beholden to special interests in the oil industry and tied much too closely to the Christian right, whom I oppose because they support several causes which I find extremely abhorrent--prayer in public schools, "faith-based" government programs (the specific seed, I'm betting for shannon_a's statements about separation of Church and State above), the ending of abortion rights, anti-sodomy laws, the prevention of gay marriage and adoption, censorship, etc.

Bush shouldn't be antagonizing the U.N., even though I don't have a wide-eyed belief that the U.N. is a wonderful thing and always right.

Bush's rhetoric and jingoism in association with the potential war against Iraq is disingenious and insincere, and is motvated at least in some part by a desire to gain political capital (with voters and with the oil industry), even though I am not opposed to the idea of waging war against Saddam Hussein's regime and despise that regime's policies and repression of its own citizens (frankly, my biggest argument against the war--which I don't really favor or oppose right now--is that I'm not sure it's worth sending my uniformed fellow citizens to die to pursue our policy goals in the Middle East).

   I do believe that shannon_a's comparison of his experience as a Bush opponent to a Nazi opponent in Hitler's Germany is inappropriate and excessive, as I do believe that we should moderate our rhetoric towards our political enemies to what is meaningful and useful, particularly since cooperation between the two wings of political thought is usually necessary to get the business of government done. I do not share Shannon's belief that George W. Bush is evil, although I do believe that he's foolish, misguided, and short-sighted (fairly strong words from me, but I do greatly dislike the man and his policies).

 nbsp; And in the interests of equal time, the high-handed indignance of the replies from shoutingboy, angrybuffalo, and palecur, gentlemen who regularly make (joking, I know) references to Jimmy Carter as "History's Greatest Monster" and call Bill Clinton (a man I personally despise) all sorts of despicable names and generate all kinds of partisan polemic (much of which has become quite smug and self-righteous since the Republican sweep), I found particularly hypocritical. Gentlemen, I usually enjoy disagreeing with you about politics. The stuff you've written on this page makes me reluctant to do so again.

   When conservatives freely call Jimmy Carter a friend to despotism and a giant moron, then turn around and call Ronald Reagan the greatest president of the 20th Century, and then call FDR a monster, they should not be surprised when their liberal opponents call Dubya Hitler's love-monkey and Reagan a senile idiot and John F. Kennedy the greatest American leader and Nixon the most evil president in history. Don't nobody have no room to go lecturing t'other side on etiquette.</P