Fohpah
 

So I committed a fopah tonight at a bar when I said "Bush is the worst thing for this country since Adolf Hitler".

My argument was that I said "since" meaning Bush isn't as bad as Hitler but there hasn't been anything worse since Hitler. Some people took this to mean "Bush is as bad as Hitler". I'm wondering if what all of you think, is this statement Out of line? True, but still out of line, True and not out of line, or False Bush is worse than Hitler?

Not out of line at all. You should go to bars that aren't filed with neocons.

I would have probably bought you a Sammy Adams for that.

Sorry for the thread jack: it's spelled "faux pas"

As for me ... I can't even begin to compare the two and I refuse to do so.

Well,

#1 the expression is faux pas...sorry, but I'm a stickler for these things.
and
#2 I don't really see the parallel...in that Hitler was never president of the US
and
#3 making any sort of a Bush <, >, = comparison is tres passe :p

You both seem to misunderstand. It was not a comparison at all. He said "since" Hitler. Hitler was only used as a chronological marker.

Rekna, tell "some people" to read the following and ST-hey-U... Morally and legally, your opinion seems to be on firm footing. Our government was part of a 1945 international tribunal of allies who hung to death, leaders of another country who did what is described in the following two quote boxes, as official US policy. After it was described by the US president, it was carried out, and we all know the outcome, whether impeachment is "on the table" or not:


<h3>This is an example of why preemptive war is both foolish and the ulitmate "crime against humanity".</h3>
<h3>Here is President Eisenhower's opinion of President Bush's war policY:</h3>
THe chief uS prosecutor at Nuremberg, SCOTUS Chief Justice Robert Jackson, described aggressive, preemptive war as the "ultimate crime against humanity":

Well then, the worse thing 'for the world' (as opposed to 'for this country') might have a been a more appropriate choice of phrasing. Of course, I realize it was an off-the-cuff remark. But the way it was put, to me, makes it sound a little opportunistic - like a cheap shot. And, come on, anytime you put the words 'Bush' and 'Hitler' together in a sentence you are making a very well-used association that will likely promote some very well-used reactions. And frankly, I'm tired of both.

No offense intended, but you're tired of hearing some things said and written, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died avoidable deaths...avoidable if we didn't have openly avowed official civilian practitioners of "elective", "preemptive", aggressive war, commanding the US military, but we did in 2003, and we still do. That is the problem. Talking about it, objecting to it, is not the problem.

The CIC of the world's sole super power has waged "elective", "preemptive", aggressive war, after announcing his "policy change" after the 9/11 attacks, against two sovereign nations. It appears likely that he is at least considering initiating the same thing against a third nation, in the near future. Is Rekna anymore in error, comparing the effect of this "new policy" on the US, and on the reat of the world, with what Hitler did, than those who are under reacting to...or horrors....supporting these crimes against humanity?

Is there a more reasonable way, given the facts and the history, to put these acts of aggression in proper context or perspective? I don't see how it can be done without ignoring some or all of the information in my last post.

I am quite aware of what is going on, host. But see, you managed to speak about it just now without bringing Hitler up even once.

I definitely should have said in the world and not just the US. Unfortunately this was after a few to many real beers. Damn Utah beers have made me soft. I was quite surprised by their reaction and also by how much the people here support the Republican party. I guess Georgia is a lot more conservative than Utah.

I think you'd have to throw Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Pol Pot, and a few others into the equation if you are talking about the world and not just the US.

He's certainly been your worst president since the second world war.

So are you trying to troll or are you just stupid?

Seriously whats the point of this thread?

The worst in the world?

I am just going to assume its a troll, because in the words of a moderator, this is horseshit.

Bush is like a drug to some people. I wonder how long it's going to take to recover from him?

I hear Neil Young's "The Needle and Damage Done" and I think of Bush and the neo-cons.

On the Op- I have a problem when people start bringing up the Nazis and Hilter in comparison to, well, anyone. To me it really cheapens the suffering of those at the hands of the Nazis. I'd say the millions of people who lost their lives and their families would tend to disagree with you. But it's a free country and you have the right to your opinion same as anyone else.

well, ustwo, perhaps you might take a moment to ask yourself why your lovely posts about islam get qualified as horseshit where this does not.
think long and hard if you have to.


besides, this thread is still on a higher level than the frat-house eliot spitzer thread--its about a drunken metaphor..
that's about it.

in the spitzer thread, the fratboy jokes were flying and you are a willing participant...and that's fine, yes?
har de har and all that.
but surely you cannot expect me or anyone else to believe you've suddenly developed standards for intellectual content in a debate.

please....

you sure you want to play this game?

Substitute "world" for "America", and I agree completely. Doesn't necessarily mean any random bar in Georgia (especially outside Atlanta metro) would agree with us.

One could make the case that Hitler was good for America. Bad for the world, obviously, especially Europe and certainly for the particular ethnic and cultural groups he targeted for elimination, but overall, good for America. Without WWII, American hegemony would have taken much longer to establish--we walked out of the war an economic and military powerhouse, and have remained that way until, well, George Bush's presidency, when it all went to hell in a multi-trillion dollar international-relations nightmare called Iraq.

notify me when our president (any president for that matter) starts interring millions of people belonging to one race or religion, using them as slave labor for a war effort, and then conducts mass executions and burials when those millions become a liability. Until that time, any comparison of that magnitude reeks of simple hatred of republicans.

for what it's worth, while i marvel at the disaster that has been the bush administration, i dont think they've pulled down the house--it has been problematic structurally for a long time, and ideologically dysfunctional since the reagan period--the politics of wholesale denial of structural issues in a context where structural issues are at the center of problems is not a good mix. the bush people have simply sped things up, by all appearances.

context matters. it is not enough to simply blame this administration, no matter the magnitude of the fiasco they've been.

Well, it might if it WAS a comparison--that is, if what was said was "Bush is as bad as Hitler was."

But that's not what was said. What was said explicitly means that Bush is NOT as bad as Hitler was. So... it becomes a communication problem, I think, rather than an ideological one.

(Although I will say that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib do have a certain Auschwitz-in-miniature flavor to them. Ah, let the flame-fest begin...)

another note: the creepiest thing about the bush period has been its demonstration of the ease with which a variant of neofascist ideology can and will be swallowed by the american people--for a while. i sometimes wonder what would have happened had they not been so incompetent---had they not decided to invade iraq, for example. it's kinda unnerving.

i dont see bush<=>hitler comparisons as useful then because they are hyperbolic on the one hand, and function to trivialize the problem of neofascism on the other by pegging the notion to a particular expression-hitler's germany was one version---what the americans flirted with was closer to italian fascism--but that at the level of parallel. what made fascism particularly dangerous was that it was new--it advanced more or less unnamed because among the first moves in the consolidation of power was the elimination of political positions that would do the naming--the left in most cases.

in the states, things did not have to go so far as the physical elimination of the left, and this is important--both in itself and in that it provides something to think about. in most european contexts (say) of the 1920s-30s, left political organizations had their own press outlets, and so were permanent features of a media landscape--in the states, the dominant media outlets are owned and operated by pseudo-neutral corporations and geared around selling advertising (information as window dressing around announcements of sales as saks fifth avenue, which are more important because they are american reality...) there is a **big** problem with the american mediascape.

You know, I agree with much of what you say but... Gitmo- Auschwitz-lite?

I have no interest in a flame fest but to compare throwing people in an oven to activities such as throwing a Koran in the toilet seems a bit absurd. I know many things have likely been done to the people currently being held at places like Gitmo but I have feeling it pales in comparison to the activities of places such as Auschwitz.

Doh! You didn't say you were in Georgia...well, yeah. :p

obviously there are significant differences of degree between these: but nonetheless people like to think that the us is a country of laws and that it's reliance on law is one of the things that makes it distinctive, that makes it "free" (at the formal level anyway)--perhaps it is the shock of abu graib and the program of "extraordinary renditions" that on one hand leads to such reactions--"we" do not do this stuff--but obviously, "we" do.

there's a deeper problem however: part of the external legacy of the united states includes active support for and training of fascist paramilitaries in latin america through the school of the americas--the rationalization and spreading of torture techniques in the name of "anti-communism"--and this is not new--so "we" live in a bubble, separated domestically from much of the brutality that the americans are known for internationally. maybe abu ghraib and other bush-particular actions are opportunities to walk through the mirror. maybe that will lead people to demand change--and end to the grotesque military-industrial regime that the united states has become through and since the cold war. the united states does not operate in ways that symmetrical with its domestic political discourse and the ethics that supposedly underpin that.

no sense in pretending this isn't true---there's so much information out there about it that the shocking thing is that folk manage to find ways to evade it.

It's a good thing that no one is under the mistaken impression that Rekna was actually comparing Bush to Hitler.

Yeesh...

I agree with this and with rb's next post a few frames down.

I don't like Bush. I didn't like Reagan. I don't care for republican ideology and politics for the most part, but I don't fool myself into thinking that democratic politics and ideology are the inverse of them. And often I think it's the practicing of politics itself (rather than the ideological forces that inform its context) that is the greater threat to my own ideals as a citizen and a carbon-based life form on this planet...for the practicing of politics has largely become an exercise lacking in ideals and vision. It is largely motivated by two things: self-interest and money - sometimes one or the other, sometimes both. Thus we have the veritable liberal messiah of American politics, Bill Clinton, telling his administration not to use the word 'genocide' when speaking publicly about Rwanda even though they knew.

Which brings me back around to why it is I am so totally disillusioned with American politics as a whole. It's about 95% charade....I guesstimate.

Hence my use of the words "flavor" and "-in-miniature".

I confess, I meant to be a bit inflammatory. America's not nearly outraged enough about what's been done in its name.

In Nazi concentration camps, prisoners were subhuman chattel for use as slave labor and as medical experiment subjects, and their murder was ultimately no more a matter of concern than slaughtering a herd of animals. In Abu Ghraib, prisoners are human toys whose suffering and humiliation is for the enjoyment of sadistic bullies who have been put in charge and enacted the ultimate "law of the playground". I honestly don't know which is worse, between treating people as sub-humans whose lives are worthless, or treating them as human playthings who you can humiliate at your pleasure.

An unfortunate reality of today is that as long as they believe it is being done to protect them most Americans can and will stomach just about anything done in their name.

I can't vote for any of the choices. The statement is the product of the recency and proximity fallacies and is silly to boot. People said similar things about Reagan in the '80s, and - believe it or not - about Ford after the Nixon pardon.

I'm invoking Godwin on this one.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
"Bush is the worst thing for this country since Adolf Hitler."

Let's break this down. Adolf Hitler was a bad thing for the US. He was a bad thing in the 40s. Since the 40s, Bush has been the worst thing for the US.

Again, Hitler was a chronological marker.

This poll is just plain silly.

the choices might as well be
1 - I hate Bush
2 - I really hate Bush
3 - I really,really hate Bush
4 - I wish Bush was dead

It's a semantic game you can play to justify yourself, but it doesn't change the effect it's going to have on someone.

Technically speaking, you're right - we have is a collection of "things", all of which are "since Hitler", and we are saying that Bush is the worst of them.

So basically we are just saying that Bush is the worst thing to have happened since Hitler - but we say nothing about whether it is better or worse than Hitler itself! Nothing can be said about the quality of Bush with respect to the quality of Hitler.

Nonetheless, a "reasonable observer" is going to take it in the simplest sense - a direct comparison between Bush and Hilter. I hate Bush and he's definitely the worst President in my lifetime, but I'm not niave enough to think Bush is gassing Jews. It's called Godwin's Law for a reason - it's a lame comparison.

Just like the policitian who was recently asked to resign for using "niggardly" when describing low-income families, people took it for what they thought it meant, not what it ACTUALLY means. If you're going to say "worst thing since Hitler" about anything or anyone, you'd better be prepared to have it heard as a direct comparsion.


Your biggest faux pas was discussing politics at a bar. Have you never seen a bar fight?

Should be fun to see Ustwo respond to this, seems he likes joking in threads that aren't about his beloved Bush.....

Oh and yes Bush is the worst thing to happen to the US since Hitler. Is it really that hard to see this isn't a direct comparison? Guess some people here see what they want to see and only read enough to get worked up and respond.

I can't be blamed for people's misunderstandings due to illogical emotional reactions, nor can Rekna. If you don't understand english, you should be at home studying instead of out drinking.

Rephrased, but not changing any of the values or meanings, the question can read: "Bush is the worst thing for this country since the 1940s." This is probably a correct statement.

Will, that's disingenuous in the extreme. Suppose a roughly contemporaneous marker was used, like Churchill or FDR. What would you say about "Bush is the worst thing since FDR?" You'd accept "oh, I was talking chronologically" as an explanation?

Didn't think so.

You'd have to be naming something that was bad for the US. Hitler was clearly intending to do the US harm. Neither Churchill nor FDR intended the US harm. How about this? Bush is the worst thing for this country since Nixon (negative). Oh snap. Or Bush is the worst thing for this country since the 1950s (neutral). Or Bush is the worst thing for this country since the Moynihan Report.

You can't compare a person with a time; and you're really not supposed to compare people using the word "since." Neither statement is correct. The word "since" in classical definition according to the OED with regard to this statement: "From that time till now; or between then and now." This is why people who are public speakers by profession choose their words very carefully ... it is very easy to slip up.

The correct statement would have been something along the lines of this: "The time that Bush has spent as president of the U.S. is the worst example of leadership since Hitler as dictator over Germany in the '30s and '40s."

Again, as far as Hitler is concerned the worst thing he did TO THE U.S. is get us involved in a war in Europe. Hitler had no DIRECT effect on U.S. non-military NATIVE citizens. His effects were oblique at best. He did declare war on the U.S. I'm not refuting that ... but there was never a German invasion on NATIVE soil that I'm aware of.

Now, Bush has certainly caused a lot of upset on NATIVE soil ... but that's nothing new.

In my opinion, comparing the two MEN or TIME PERIODS in which they were leaders is comparing apples to oranges.

I don't like Bush. I think some of the things he has done are vile and contemptible ... I feel the same way about Hitler. But I will not compare them beyond that.

What do you think "since" means?

I personally think it lacks taste but one is free to say what they want. I think he has screwed the country up and the next Pres. better fix things real fast or he'll be hanging from a rope and be a huge scape coat.

I don't know if Bush is he worst thing since Hitler to Hit this country.... 9/11, Vietnam, the fact black people had to fight for a right to vote, sit where they wanted, use the same toilets, and so on as late as he 60's, trials against Clinton to prevent him from doing the job, none of those were highlights and some were more a black eye than Bush ever will be.

I think some people give Bush too much credit. I think it is more the generation.

Bush isn't the greedy CEO making more in one day than his workers will in a year combined nor the CEO making millions as he lays everyone off, ships jobs overseas and makes his bonus.

Bush didn't make ARMS and set the rates.... he may have been able to do something sooner and should have but he didn't, that's his only crime there.

I'm sure if you look back our CIA waterboarded and had questionable techniques throughout it's history, it's just now it's being watched like a hawk and we don't have the leaders like Hussein, the Shah, Osama Bin Laden, etc to do their bidding anymore.

So no, bush may have taken us deeper than we were and taken us faster than we wanted but we have been headed this way for a very long time and people just didn't care until it they see it and it's too late to do anything about it.

Yes, I pity the poor guy/lady next in office, because if they can't change things fast and if they make a mistake in trying..... we'll be hanging them from a rope and blaming them for all the things we saw years ago coming but turned blind eyes to because we wanted the newest toy, we wanted to blame the other party and everyone else.....

<35> Will, if it has to be something that's bad for the US then it's not just a chronological marker, is it now. It definitely implies a characterization or comparison, which I think was the point the other people were making.

I have serious problems with Bush in a lot of areas, but comparing him to Hitler is just silly.

Are you asking me?