The new reich?

[Daliman]

Ok, i'm no republican by any stretch, but no liberal either, but aren't the Republican and conservative politcians and media sounding more and more like 1930's germany?

I mean, the rampant nationalism above all else, the fighting against "evil", the repression of information, the utter disregard for human life, yet disgust when our enemies show the same disregard?

Clinton is vilified for a couple shady investment deals MAYBE worth a couple hundred thou to him and a blow job, but GWB gets a pass on his utter lack of leadership, character, and experience in his past to get elected, and only now does it seem we are starting to see the emperor has no clothes.

You will not find a SINGLE person who can honestly say that GWB would have been elected to either the office of governor or psuedo-president if he was George W. Smith, yet that seems to mean nothing to them.

Hannity has said numerous times that liberals are just as bad as terrorists, and are among the "evil" we face. So much for freedom of speech and thought in america, as far as he is concerned.
If you disagree with how things are being done, your patriotism is called into question.

Rush limbaugh has said that the ABu Gharib torture scandal was "just some guys blowing off some steam", and " a BRILLIANT tactical move", yet is beside himself when men are beheaded in retribution(as am I).

Many Republican policy makers sent out memos discussing the "quaint" policy of non-torture of prisoners spelled out in the Geneva convention doesn't apply to "terrorists", and give the green-light to ways to subvert the convention laws while "getting information".

How long before we make mass gas chambers for all who disagree, are gay, or are not of faith(or our faith)?
Republicans love to say how gun ownership is a constitutional right, yet don't mind changing the constitution so two men or women who are in love and want nothing more than to marry cannot do so.

Terrorism is not an enemy, it's an idea. It cannot be "defeated" in standard terms, and our actions in Iraq are only fanning the flames of terrorism and giving it a new recruiting base.

OF COURSE GWB knew Iraq had WMD's; he has the reciept.
WHy can't GWB take any responsibility, but all credit. He even blamed the soldiers on the airship for "Mission Accomplished".

I'm getting to the point where I'm SERIOUSLY worried about the direction the current administration is trying to take us. If there's four more years of this, i think all ten commandments will be enforced and punishable by imprisonment or death by the end.

[paland]

It is scary isn't it? A conservative woman at work, who just loved Bush two years ago, said to several of us the other day, "Now we know how the German civilians felt in Hitlers day." I don't feel it's near that bad, but that is how more and more are feeling.

[adios]

Hannity or Limbaugh?

Bush is Hitler

Cheney is Hess

Rumsfeld is Goering

Powell is well he'd be incarcerated somewhere.

Ditto Rice, Ditto Wolfowitz.

Tell you what don't worry until the Capital and Supreme Court buildings are burned down and Bush and company blame the liberals.

[jokerswild]

.

[Utah]

Wow - I dont think I have seen so many DNC talking points in a single post before. Lets have a little fun with the fallacies of all your arguments shall we.

I mean, the rampant nationalism above all else
What, dont liberals love thier country. Duh - of course they dont

the fighting against "evil"
You are a big fan of evil eh? You dont think Saddam and the Taliban were a tad on the evil side?

the repression of information
Um....did you miss all those imbedded reporters? Maybe you were too busy at a "Bush is Hitler" rally

the utter disregard for human life
Quick name two major wars with less loss of life

yet disgust when our enemies show the same disregard?
They shouldnt be disgusted?

Clinton is vilified for a couple shady investment deals MAYBE worth a couple hundred thou to him and a blow job
No, he was vilified for committing a felony in front of the grand jury. For me, I hated him because he comprimised the country's security and that he was willing to destroy Monica before she dropped the bomb on him. You can attack Bush all you want, and he may be a worse leader, but it doesnt change in the least what slick willie did

You will not find a SINGLE person who can honestly say that GWB would have been elected to either the office of governor or psuedo-president if he was George W. Smith, yet that seems to mean nothing to them
So? Doesnt matter. The people voted for him is a democratic election. It was their perogative.

So much for freedom of speech and thought in america, as far as he is concerned.
If you disagree with how things are being done, your patriotism is called into question.
By far your funniest point. A real gut buster I tell ya!!! So you can call Bush hitler and that is freedom of speech but calling a liberal unpatriotic or saying they are as bad as terrorists is somehow not freedom of speech and shouldnt be done. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

Rush limbaugh has said that the ABu Gharib torture scandal was "just some guys blowing off some steam", and " a BRILLIANT tactical move"
From what he knew at the time from the photos he is fairly correct. Where is the torture in those photos?

yet is beside himself when men are beheaded in retribution(as am I)
Yes, everyone knows that the beheadings were because of Abu Gharib. I mean, even those who executed Daniel Pearl knew the prison abuse was coming.

btw - glad to see you agree with Rush.

Many Republican policy makers sent out memos discussing the "quaint" policy of non-torture of prisoners spelled out in the Geneva convention doesn't apply to "terrorists", and give the green-light to ways to subvert the convention laws while "getting information"
Toughest point - but I have said many times I am all for torture. I dont see much distinction in bombing someone and torturing someone. They didnt subvert the Converntion laws. Those laws clearly did not apply.

How long before we make mass gas chambers for all who disagree, are gay, or are not of faith(or our faith)?
6 months away at least

Republicans love to say how gun ownership is a constitutional right, yet don't mind changing the constitution so two men or women who are in love and want nothing more than to marry cannot do so.
If you dont like gun ownership then their is a clear path to remove it. Yikes - you mean that liberals have to follow the law too - no fair!!!

I am very pro gay marriage - but many republicans have some good arguments. Do we want to open the door to incest too? What cant someone also say, "we are just two brothers in love and we want the same rights as everyone else". What about poligamy?

Terrorism is not an enemy, it's an idea. It cannot be "defeated" in standard terms
Correct, thats why we attacked the enemy instead - Iraq and the Taliban. I would like to see Iran next.

and our actions in Iraq are only fanning the flames of terrorism and giving it a new recruiting base
Um......did you head about 9/11? It happened before the US attacking Iraq. Plenty of terrorists around before Bush got in office.

OF COURSE GWB knew Iraq had WMD's; he has the reciept.
WHy can't GWB take any responsibility, but all credit. He even blamed the soldiers on the airship for "Mission Accomplished".
Agreed

If there's four more years of this, i think all ten commandments will be enforced and punishable by imprisonment or death by the end.
Did you hear the one about the Republicans who removed a Alabama supreme court judge who refused to take the ten commandments out of the court house?

Also, since you want to do a Hitler comparison, please tell me which country (run by a terrible dictator) Hitler attacked, removed the oppressive regime, and installed a democratic regime?

Also, please let me know which country or group vowed to destroy Germany and that launched a major attack against it?

[adios]

..............

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
They didnt subvert the Converntion laws. Those laws clearly did not apply.


[/ QUOTE ]
LOL Even if I bought that misguided defense, it's based on too much hypocrisy to be taken seriously: We declare and agree that the torture of enemy combattants is a violation of international law, but the torture of civilians is good to go! Please...

[ QUOTE ]
Also, since you want to do a Hitler comparison, please tell me which country (run by a terrible dictator) Hitler attacked, removed the oppressive regime, and installed a democratic regime?

[/ QUOTE ]
According to the Reich government, Czechoslovakia, Poland and France. (NOTE: You can't exactly call Iraq a "democratic regime" - normal people associate a democracy with things like elections and the right to self-determination and self-government - furthermore, the apt comparison would be attacking a country run by an "evil" government, destroying said government, assuming control of said country militarily, then imposing a form of government on said country that better fits the desires of the attacking country.)

[ QUOTE ]
Also, please let me know which country or group vowed to destroy Germany and that launched a major attack against it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't believe you even asked that one - too easy. Hmm...let me see...what group did the German government say over and over again had vowed to destroy Germany. I'll give you a hint: they incarcerated all members of that group that they could get ahold of then violated their every human right without so much as a hint of due process.

Keep in mind, both for the above-mentioned analogy and your interpretation of current events, that there can be (and often is) a massive gap between the official (government) line and reality. Your responses seem to take for granted a great many things which are the topic of popular debate.

Irish

[John Cole]

Utah,

You really didn't take those "in bed" reporters seriously, did you? C'mon, Ollie North a "reporter"?

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
So? Doesnt matter. The people voted for him is a democratic election. It was their perogative.


[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the democratic count was in favor of Gore. Bush won the elecoral count, which is the one that decides the winner. (I know, I'm being picky)

[Utah]

Correct.

However, to say that gore won the popular vote and that it is somehow unfair that Gore didnt get in misses the point. The reason being that the campaigns executed a strategy that understood the electoral system and therefore they didnt execute a campaign designed to get the most votes - i.e. they fought battleground states. Bush might have gotten a ton of votes if he campaigned heavily in lets say california. Same goes the other way.

[Utah]

I have always liked Ollie.

There were reporters from every major and minor news organization - many of them hostile to Bush.

[Utah]

LOL Even if I bought that misguided defense, it's based on too much hypocrisy to be taken seriously: We declare and agree that the torture of enemy combattants is a violation of international law, but the torture of civilians is good to go! Please...
well, thats arguing something different. However, As I said - I am for torture. If you are going to prosecute a war the best way to do it is swiftly, efficiently, and brutaly. Its the most human way.

According to the Reich government, Czechoslovakia, Poland and France. (NOTE: You can't exactly call Iraq a "democratic regime" - normal people associate a democracy with things like elections and the right to self-determination and self-government - furthermore, the apt comparison would be attacking a country run by an "evil" government, destroying said government, assuming control of said country militarily, then imposing a form of government on said country that better fits the desires of the attacking country.)
Quick - how many Poles, French, and Czechs did the Germans kill. My history is a touch fuzzy - which country held free elections? How many Frenchmen were slaughtered by their own government before the war?

I can't believe you even asked that one - too easy.
Im sorry, but my history is a little hazy. What attack did the Jews launch on germany? Where and when did the Jews say their goal was to annihalate Germany? Or, are you saying that 9/11 and all the terrorist threats are really just propaganda pieces? Do you believe 9/11 really was a terrorist attack?

Your responses seem to take for granted a great many things which are the topic of popular debate.
Like?

[Mano]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, the rampant nationalism above all else
What, dont liberals love thier country. Duh - of course they dont


[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely the type of scary attitude the current administration has taken. Anyone who disagrees with their political ideology is labeled unpatriotic.

[natedogg]

Unbelievable. BTW, you fulfilled Godwin's law in a single post.

Bravo.

natedogg

[Utah]

Anyone who disagrees with their political ideology is labeled unpatriotic.
And anyone who agrees with the Bush administration is a Nazi??? Liberals only like free speech one way.

[nicky g]

"Anyone who disagrees with their political ideology is labeled unpatriotic.
And anyone who agrees with the Bush administration is a Nazi??? Liberals only like free speech one way."

And so apparently do you. Perhaps someone with some common sense could at some point in this thread point out that being a " liberal" does not make one unpatriotic and being pro-Bush does not make one a Nazi rather than just throwing insults back and forth at each other all day.

[arx]

May I correct....Only liberals like freedom of speech.

[nicky g]

It's a bit much to invoke Godwin's law in a thread that deliberately sets out to make a comparison with the Nazis. If I wrote an academic paper comparing aspects the modern far right to the Nazis and posted it on a forum would I have invoked Godwin's law? Maybe we should find some forums on German history and post "Godwin's law" in reply to every message.

[nicky g]

Which reminds me - is there an Israel-Palestine equivalent of Godwin's law? If not, perhaps the OT forum should claim credit for one.

[craig r]

and someone should also point out that there is more than two ideologies in the u.s. and the world. one would think that people that play poker would know that things are never this black and white. a lot of people would say that liberals and conservatives both are part of the same ideology; i.e. they are both capitalists. but, i don't think one would argue and say that anarchists are liberals. or that libertarians are conservative.

craig

[natedogg]

Here's a first pass:

"Any thread about anything to do with American culture, history, economy, or policy will eventually become a flame war about the Israel/Palestine fiasco. The thread has immediately lost all value whatsoever."

Pretty good?

natedogg

[nicky g]

Yeah but it's not just about American culture. Also I don't like to take all teh credit for myself /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[bingledork]

Libertarians are not (social) conservatives.

They stand for personal liberties like the democrats and business liberties like the republicans.

Back to the subject of this thread:
I agree the Bush Administration goes WAY overboard on American Nationalism. To call that law "The Patriot Act" is frightening. While I don't necessarily oppose that law, the fact that they try to hide it under a misleading title makes me wonder why they can't be honest about it.

[elwoodblues]

They didn't call it the USA PATRIOT act, that is just an amazing coincidence given the real name of the act:

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

what the hell is Goodwins law?

[Robbe]

Godwin's Law states that whenever a discussion on the internet contains a comparison to Hitler, any further discussion will be void of any interesting content. This comment included.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, the rampant nationalism above all else
What, dont liberals love thier country. Duh - of course they dont


[/ QUOTE ]
Typical Right wing crap-Liberals hate america.
[ QUOTE ]
the fighting against "evil"
You are a big fan of evil eh? You dont think Saddam and the Taliban were a tad on the evil side?


[/ QUOTE ]
This is more towards the fact that Bush is looking at himself as a "crusader", and has said as much. He is weaving this into Christianty/Catholocism vs Muslims. Whenever he gets a tough question, he says "terror" and "evil", not in any particular order.
[ QUOTE ]
the repression of information
Um....did you miss all those imbedded reporters? Maybe you were too busy at a "Bush is Hitler" rally



[/ QUOTE ]
#1 It's EMBEDDED. Were you too busy at a "Rush is God" rally to go to 6th grade english?
#2 I'm talking about things like the Abu Gharib and War dead photos, and American citizens being held without charge or notice. Near as I can tell, EMBEDDED reporters are, to an extent, beyond governmental control.
[ QUOTE ]
the utter disregard for human life
Quick name two major wars with less loss of life



[/ QUOTE ]
This is a MAJOR war now? How can that be? I thought the mission was accomplished. Also, not the point. Dahmer killed less than Gacy. Both had disregard for life. Yet another BS right wing move; when you have no answer, throw out useless trivia.
[ QUOTE ]
yet disgust when our enemies show the same disregard?
They shouldnt be disgusted?


[/ QUOTE ]
Reading is a skill. Kinda like spelling/word usage, and probably in the same class you missed for the Rush rally. I DID say "as am I", however, the Bush administration has less room to be disgusted.
[ QUOTE ]
Clinton is vilified for a couple shady investment deals MAYBE worth a couple hundred thou to him and a blow job
No, he was vilified for committing a felony in front of the grand jury. For me, I hated him because he comprimised the country's security and that he was willing to destroy Monica before she dropped the bomb on him. You can attack Bush all you want, and he may be a worse leader, but it doesnt change in the least what slick willie did


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, yes. The very fabric of our national system of laws ripped when he lied about a blowjob that meant absolutely nothing to the case at hand. Way to waste taxpayer dollars. That went well. PLease, regale me with how he compromised the nation's security, yet Bush didn't when he attacked a muslim state, thereby further fanning the flames of hatred for the USA?
[ QUOTE ]
You will not find a SINGLE person who can honestly say that GWB would have been elected to either the office of governor or psuedo-president if he was George W. Smith, yet that seems to mean nothing to them
So? Doesnt matter. The people voted for him is a democratic election. It was their perogative.


[/ QUOTE ]
As a said, means nothing to you. You wouldn't want this guy running your Burger King franchise, but he's leader of the free world because his name sounded familiar and he had connections in the right spots when the projected winner was announced.
[ QUOTE ]
So much for freedom of speech and thought in america, as far as he is concerned.
If you disagree with how things are being done, your patriotism is called into question.
By far your funniest point. A real gut buster I tell ya!!! So you can call Bush hitler and that is freedom of speech but calling a liberal unpatriotic or saying they are as bad as terrorists is somehow not freedom of speech and shouldnt be done. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......


[/ QUOTE ]
Again, READING IS A SKILL! Look carefully, and you will NEVER see me call Bush Hitler. But, if the armband fits... Also, there's a BIG differnce in disagreeing with someone, and calling him unpatriotic. Kinda like the differnce between saying you don't like someone's lifestyle choice and saying faggots should all go to hell.
[ QUOTE ]
Rush limbaugh has said that the ABu Gharib torture scandal was "just some guys blowing off some steam", and " a BRILLIANT tactical move"
From what he knew at the time from the photos he is fairly correct. Where is the torture in those photos?


[/ QUOTE ]
Do there look like typical photos from one of YOUR parties. You just blew ANY semblance of credibilty you barely even had. Oh, I don't know, maybe the naked guy in a headlock being punched while handcuffed was attacking the Guard, who wanted only to lay him on his fellow naked inmatyes for a photo op.
[ QUOTE ]
yet is beside himself when men are beheaded in retribution(as am I)
Yes, everyone knows that the beheadings were because of Abu Gharib. I mean, even those who executed Daniel Pearl knew the prison abuse was coming

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. And by this logic, we were wrong to help Afghanistan in the 80's because Russia was only trying to prevent 9/11. Other than the fact that THAY SAID THAT"S WHY THEY PERFORMED THE BEHEADING! That's a bit of a tipoff.
[ QUOTE ]
Many Republican policy makers sent out memos discussing the "quaint" policy of non-torture of prisoners spelled out in the Geneva convention doesn't apply to "terrorists", and give the green-light to ways to subvert the convention laws while "getting information"
Toughest point - but I have said many times I am all for torture. I dont see much distinction in bombing someone and torturing someone. They didnt subvert the Converntion laws. Those laws clearly did not apply.



[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, good to see WE decide what laws apply in the case of INTERNATIONAL LAW. ANd like one of our Democratic senators said, (Biden?)" the laws aren't there so WE don't torture their prisoners. They are there so MY SON who is in the military, isn't tortured when he gets captured. Maybe we should torture our US prisoners, also, or better yet, people SUSPECTED of crimes. Oh, wait, that's what Saddam was doing. Part of our "freeing the Iraqi people" RIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT!


[ QUOTE ]
Republicans love to say how gun ownership is a constitutional right, yet don't mind changing the constitution so two men or women who are in love and want nothing more than to marry cannot do so.
If you dont like gun ownership then their is a clear path to remove it. Yikes - you mean that liberals have to follow the law too - no fair!!!


[/ QUOTE ]
Not exactly a CLEAR path, now is it, but at least you got my point for once. I have no real problem with guns per se. My problem is with the culture of fear presented to sell them.
[ QUOTE ]
I am very pro gay marriage - but many republicans have some good arguments. Do we want to open the door to incest too? What cant someone also say, "we are just two brothers in love and we want the same rights as everyone else". What about poligamy?


[/ QUOTE ]
Their arguments are stupid. Just gay marriage. That's all ANYONE is asking. Typical "where does it end?" right wing BS.
[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism is not an enemy, it's an idea. It cannot be "defeated" in standard terms
Correct, thats why we attacked the enemy instead - Iraq and the Taliban. I would like to see Iran next.


[/ QUOTE ]
How was Iraq an enemy before the war? Because we said so? We fought Germany twice, does that mean THEY"RE still the enemy? Hell, why not fight more wars, get more of our soldiers killed, and piss off the whole world to the point where someone WITH nuclear capabilities uses them against us to quell our insanity?
[ QUOTE ]
and our actions in Iraq are only fanning the flames of terrorism and giving it a new recruiting base
Um......did you head about 9/11? It happened before the US attacking Iraq. Plenty of terrorists around before Bush got in office.


[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously. Retake 2nd grade English. MORE terrorists are around now BECAUSE of the Iraq invasion. No one ever said Iraq invasion started terrorism.

MAN are you obstinate. Like talking sense to a monkey...

[ QUOTE ]
OF COURSE GWB knew Iraq had WMD's; he has the reciept.
WHy can't GWB take any responsibility, but all credit. He even blamed the soldiers on the airship for "Mission Accomplished".
Agreed


[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you.
[ QUOTE ]
If there's four more years of this, i think all ten commandments will be enforced and punishable by imprisonment or death by the end.
Did you hear the one about the Republicans who removed a Alabama supreme court judge who refused to take the ten commandments out of the court house?


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, it wasn't JUST republicans, and your highest-profile Media men all deified the judge for "standing up for his principles". Now, the separation of church and state? Eh, whoi needs it?
[ QUOTE ]
Also, since you want to do a Hitler comparison, please tell me which country (run by a terrible dictator) Hitler attacked, removed the oppressive regime, and installed a democratic regime?

Also, please let me know which country or group vowed to destroy Germany and that launched a major attack against it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not a history channel buff, can't help ya.

Not near relevant anyways, except to BOLSTER MY case some, lol.

[Daliman]

Sorry you disagree, but i DO relish the accomplishment.

[nicky g]

Here's a mildly amusing FAQ on Godwin's law:

FAQ (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/)


The basic law is this:
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Of course, in some ways that's obvious as as any discussion gets longer the probability of anything being mentioned approaches one. But we see what he means. it's also commonly used to suggest that once someone has reached the point of comparing their opponent or what he stands for to Hitler r teh Nazis, he's won, and once the discussion starts up on the Nazis, the thread has become effectively redundant.