Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (156130)	12/14/2002 6:09:55 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578294

Ted its simple. Hitler's policies were about hate, discrimination, genocide and wars of conquest. Bush isn't proposing that we hate but not quite as much, or that we only put certain ethnic groups in to concentration camps but not extermination camps. You can label Hitler and/or Bush "right wing" if you want, but when you look at their policies they are completly different things. Hitler didn't start off talking about hate and discrimination.......he first appealed to German pride and nationality, and noted repeatedly that the Germans had not been treated well. As he consolidated his power, he increased his focus on certain groups and began to blame them for Germany's failures. However, at no time during the Third Reich was there public acknowledgement of genocide and concentration camps. Many Germans may have known through innuendo or gossip but there were no public announcements like "400 Jews, 100 gypsies and 250 gays were exterminated at Auschlitz today". Besides, I am not saying that Bush is another Hitler nor do I think others believe that he is either. However, where he is similar is that he acts as the aggressor. That's a new role for this country. The US typically enters wars begrudgingly; however Bush gives the appearance of eagerly anticipating war. That may not be true but typically when someone walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, he is usually a duck. And just for the record, if you knew back when this issue was first discussed that he was considered on the right, you made a pretty impressive effort feigning ignorance of such a suggestion. Not at all. I said most people place Republicans as "moderate right" and Hitler as "extreme right". Now you are mincing words. In past posts, you denied Hitler was from the right at all. In any case, the problem was not that he was extreme but that he was mentally disturbed.......most dictators are disturbed to varying degrees. So that while the right is said to be reactionary, he took reactionary to whole new level and was willing to eliminate whole races so that Germany could return to a Germany that existed 300 years earlier. He was very sick! I just noted that this scheme was not really accurate. You considered Stalin to be on the right rather then the extreme left. Despite the fact that you have a non conventional view of this I won't call you arrogant. But while it is not very accurate to claim that Stalin was a more extreme version of the left it is more accurate then the claim that Hitler is a more extreme version of what we see on the American right. You consider Stalin on the left because communism is considered a leftist theory. But in Russia they did not practice the communism of theory, and Stalin was simply an old fashioned dictator with a right wing bent. Conservatives and Republicans are not arguing for a little bit of genocide or a little bit of racial hatred. Liberals and Democrats do argue for a little bit of income redistribution and a little bit of centralized control over the economy. Let me preface what I am about to say by stating that I am very serious when I ask this next question. Trent Lott is looking more and more to be a full blow racist.....not thirty years ago but now. As late as 1998, he was affiliated with a racist organization. So my question.......how do I know that the Rep. party is not about racial hatred? You say it isn't but in the past, the party has had at times a questionable hold on democracy and the equality of the people in this country. I have no doubt that there are some white supremacists in the party. They have always been characterized as Rep. extremists but now with the Lott revelations, I am not so sure. How do I know that Lott is not the norm; that Bush currently is bent on securing his power with the intent of implementing the 'real' beliefs of the Rep. party once he feels he can. My former neighbor.......a good ole Rep. from Texas where her father is mayor of a second tier city......moved from the neighborhood because there were certain people on the street that she didn't like......it was a veiled reference to the occasional Latino who walked the street. I couldn't believe she was saying something like that this late in American civilization; that she thought that kind of talk was acceptable. How do I know she ain't typical? And then you tell me Conservatives are not fighting for a little bit of racial hatred? How do I know you are telling the truth? How do I know that you and Bush are talking equality when in reality that's a cover for your true feelings? Then why so many making such a comparison? People are just trying to be mean? Some of them may be ignorant, others illogical, others just trying to score debating points, others just taking what was considered conventional wisdom and reapplying it without really thinking about the details. Most of the comparisons are coming from well educated people in the know who are worried. That is what's most disturbing. They say it almost jokingly but they are truly worried. Bush didn't create the fear. Bin Laden and company did. Bush has his ideas about how to respond to terrorism. You can argue that some of them are wrong but it doesn't amount to creating false fears to deceive and manipulate the population. It doesn't matter who started the fear. What bothers me is that Bush is to some degree capitalizing on it. Someone who needs to do that is suspect in my mind...that's all. As for false fears and manipulation, Bush has been doing that as well. Like I said to D. Ray, Bush has been claiming all along to have evidence of Saddam's WMD. Now that Iraq has submitted their documents, he is saying its a gut feeling. What kind of behavior is that? From where I come from, that's considered manipulation. ted