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 (196843)	8/5/2004 8:12:02 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574854

Everyone has a dark side.......every soul on this planet. I didn't say I didn't have a dark side, or that people that are Republican or conservative don't have dark sides. But my darkside isn't anything like the Nazi's or Hitler and neither is that of the vast majority of republicans or conservatives, or the Republican party as a party. There have been enough dark events under this presidency, some of which I've listed previously, to make me question how dark this administration really is. And I will continue to question this issue.......its in my best interest to do so and its not done without justification. Accordingly, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and Afghanistan happened under Bush Abu Ghraib was an abuse but it wasn't a Republican (or a Democrat) abuse. It wasn't ordered by Bush, it wasn't a plan by Carl Rove... Also the abuse was not close to the scale or severity of what the Nazis did. Gitmo in general was a good idea. It seems there may have been some abuses there as well but this is less certain. If there have been the same point applies. It happened under Bush either because no one cared and weren't watching, or because they wanted it to happen. Afghanistan? Intervening in Afghanistan was a good and important thing. I am talking about the treatment of the POWs in Afghanistan. Bush made a pre emptive strike against Iraq.......Hitler used similar tactics. No. Hitler invaded countries to take them over and control them, not to reduce a major threat by them. And Hitler was not enforcing a ceasefire agreement that these countries had violated for years. And his justification for invading was because those countries posed a threat to the German people. Sound familiar? Bush's policies favor a rather small group of Americans. That is neither true nor relevant. Many of Bush's policies favor the country as a whole, but even those that do favor a small group aren't at all Nazi like. Most of the pork and special interest subsidies that have gone out under every administration for generations have favored a small group. Does that mean we have had an long string of nazi like presidents? I repeat......Bush's major policy decisions have favored the haves and the have mores........a small group of people in this country. Whether they are Nazis or not is immaterial to me. The message is still the same. Hitler ascended to power under questionable circumstances; so did Bush. The circumstances under which Bush came to power where not very questionable. He won a majority of the electoral votes. In any case "questionable" is a rather generic statement. The actual circumstances where very different. They were questionable. Running to the SC over a state's issue; refusing to recount ballots when the race in FLA was extraordinarily close. Given all the discrepancies and alleged corruption in the ballot count in FLA, there should have been a new election in that state. Bush refused to consider it. Hitler complained that Germany had been treated poorly by other countries and appealed to German nationalism; Bush has made similar comments and appealed to American nationalism. Politicians of every political persuasion make statements about the greatness of their country. Bush is one of them, but so are much Democratic party candidates. Bush did not argue that the US has been abused by the rest of the world. He didn't just talk about America's greatness......he appealed to American nationalism. Some examples: the UN is coopting America's sovereignty; Germany and France are not our allies; we are great and must go it alone.......bla bla bla bla. Hitler appealed to the greatness of the "German race", which he considered superior to all others. He also campaigned against "inferior races" and eventually killed them in great numbers. Bush has not made any such racist policies or statements. I said there were similarities between them; I did not say they were identical. There are things that Hitler said that no leader of a democracy in the 21st century would dare say. Are there enough similarities to be unsettling? No. Apparently, not for you but there are for me. After all, it was the Bushies that were talking about suspending elections this year. The Bush's were talking about contingency plans if there where a massive wave of terrorist attacks across the country, on a scale that would make 9/11 seem small. Bush never did and never will propose actually suspending elections. Yes, alleged contingency plans.......it was floated to see what the general reaction would be. Not once I have I ever heard such a thing being proposed in this country until the Bushies. Sorry, Tim, it may seem like a minor thing to you but it will never be a minor thing to me. How dare they? Stalin and Gandhi both had many similar traits. They both where human, both male, both leaders, both had two eyes, both are now dead. Oh yes, lets take it down to the level of ridiculous. Its a very convenient way to make a serious subject go away. That is the only level on which Bush and Hitler are similar. I can't help that your bias colors your vision. ted