Elphaba

Politico, please note that I was responding to JWoody and assumed he was referring to the "good German" phrase. Paraphrasing what you think Host meant remain your words, not his.

It's not so obvious to me which tact Host will take, so I will leave it to him.

shakran

Yes, but comparing Bush to Hitler is rather different from comparing him to just about anyone else. Comparisons with Hitler automatically bring images of the holocaust. If your only point was to say that Bush surrounded himself with smart people and convinced people, why did you choose Hitler? There's nothing inherently wrong with surrounding yourself with smart people and beign persuasive. Those were not the qualities that people despise Hitler for.


A superb speaker? Bush? I think not. Hell, the man can't get through a speech without stumbling, losing his train of thought, and/or misspeaking.

And I don't think the other attributes apply either. Bush hasn't done any of the convincing. Bush is the one that's been convinced. He surrounded himself with warhawk yes-men and then believed everything they said. That's very different from being a strong, charismatic leader. In fact, that's being led.



Of course not, and if I thought Bush were going to start systematically exterminating the liberals I'd certainly do something about it. But like it or not, the people have spoken. THEY elected him. THEY gave him "political capital" to pull these shenanigans. And as long as the people continue to allow him to strip them of their rights, there's not a whole lot that can be done. And since I'm a journalist, it wouldn't exactly be ethical of me to lead the revolution, ya know?



The trouble is that by bringing up Hitler's name, you're going for a reaction. You want people to say "holy SHIT! We can't have another Hitler! Get Bush!!!" Otherwise you'd compare him to a much more comparable leader - namely an incompetent one. But then when you get that reaction you tell us that the reaction is inappropriate.

If I say a girl is like a whore you automatically take that to mean that I am saying she is promiscuous. That's what I expect you to do. For me to then, after you take it that way, tell you no, I'm saying the girl is a self starter who runs her own business just like a whore does would be disingenuous.



That's entirely possible, I'll grant you that. But I don't think he would have spent his entire adult life trying to look like a moron, culminating in looking like an idiot in the oval office. His actions as a younger man were stupid as well - they just didn't effect as many people. But having that kind of drinking problem, screwing up that many businesses, etc, all to become president, would require a conspiracy the size of which we've never seen to pull off.

I don't. Attempting to torture and exterminate every jew is radically different than searching Arabs. I'm not saying the searches are always justified, but comparing that to genocide is unjust. Plus it's unwise to pull the Hitler card because it gives the other side the "lunatic liberal" ammunition they lie in wait for.



Absolutely. You're absolutely correct about this. And that's why I object to the comparison with Hitler. It automatically garners kneejerk reactions that weaken your argument. We don't need to compare Bush to Hitler. What he does is bad enough to stand on its own.

Willravel

It involves the sum of all the comparisons I made, not simply one. Yes, any one or a few of comparisons can apply to a multitutde of people, but when added together, the group of people on the list dwindles considerably. One of the most recognisable names on the small list is Adolph Hitler. It is because of the polticial nature of the comparison that makes it necessary to pick Hitler.
When Bush speaks, people listen. It's not a matter of pronouncing things correctly, slips of the tongue, or dumb looks. It's a matter of having the ability to gain and hold peoples attention, so much so that they tend to believe what you say whether it makes sense or not. That's Bush and Hitler in a nutshell. If you watch old Hitler speeches, he will also make slip ups. He didn't have SNL to contend with, so the slip ups were simply overlooked, though.
How do we know? That's the way it may appear, but I we don't know for sure. They were often spitting out the same lines as Bush. How do we know it isn't either Bush infkluencing those around him, or possibly a cherade. I can't spell.
No one is asking you to lead. Just to do something if you feel it's necessary.
The thing is that Bush has more in common with Hitler than he has in common with, say, one of the King Henrys or Ceasers. Again, I know Bush hasn't been involved with a holocaust or starting a WORLD war.
But the word whore litterally means prostitute. A prostitute is by profession permiscuous. I'm not saying Bush is a Hitler, I am saying that there are similarities. If you were to say there were similarities between a woman who was a self starter who runs her own buisness and a whore, after I'd finished laughing, I'd agree, citing however that many whores are actually employed by pimps.
I guess the obvious question would be: Is it alright to misrepresent yourself as intelligent in order to be elected, only to revert to your cave man-like state after being sworn in? The legal answer would be of course. The ethical answer would be no. If he isn't able to preform his abilities becuase he is a bumbling fool, that's just as bad as circumventing law and leading a war of aggression.
I said nothing about attempting to torture and exterminate every jew. Remember my words were:
That was the comparison. It was a matter of demonizing a particular race and attaching that race to negative connotations, which both Hitler and Bush were guilty of. I am not accusing Bush of trying to kill off all Arabs. I don't want to mention the holocaust because no comparison would work with that.
Pehaps, but the comparison does have some merrit in my eyes. Understanding what Bush could do in his position of great power is important to keep in mind. We can't just brush off all comparison because a few don't work. Again, I know that there is nothing that Bush has done to date that even begins to compare to the holocaust or WW2. BUT, Bush and Hitler do have some comparable traits and actions. You can't simply dismiss all comparisons because one doesn't work.

SERPENT7

Shakran (#31),
"What you're missing in your attempt to cast Bush as a potential Hitler is that Bush could never be Hitler. Ever. He simply doesn't have the brains. Psychopathic as he was, Hitler was very intelligent. HE orchestrated his rise to power. Once there, HE made the decisions. Bush simply isn't smart enough for a repeat performance. Others got him there, others are making the decisions for him."
And
"Hitler had a plan and an agenda and figured out how to accomplish it, and went and did it. He started young, was successful at just about everything he put his mind to, and did EXTREMELY well in getting the germans to trust him, at least until the point where he had enough power that public trust no longer mattered."
1) Hitler was an idiot, not a genius. (I cannot back that up directly. Its just an opinion formed over YEARS of reading about him, and the sorts of decisions he made. For instance, he had no understanding of basic strategy, never listened to anyone that tried to speak rationally in his presence,...etc.)
2) Other people got Hitler in to power as well. Ever hear of the Thule society? They were an actual conspiracy group of Bavarian businessmen (Mostly bankers). This group found Hitler talking to some out of work german laborers, and they decided he was the man to start thier own rise to power.
3) Hitlers plan was set up for him, and the only time he was EVER succesful at anything is when he obeyed his puppet masters.
4) He was a total failure at EVERYTHING he put his mind to. He served in WWI, and only made it to corporal. Not exactly a strong endorsment of his leadership abilities, if you know what i mean. After the first war, he was a traveling sign painter, who spent most of his meager pay on beer. (He was also denied entrance to THE national art school as being a poseur impressionist. He sucked. Bad.)
5) He was a good public speaker.
What does this have to do w/ the original post, you ask? Nothing. I just felt the need to correct some things.

jorgelito

Oddly, that almost makes Bush comparisons apt. Almost.

shakran

No. That was closer to the end. Hitler was a genius but he was also insane, and the insanity got worse and worse as time went on. By the time he made strategic blunders like converting the ME262 into a bomber he had already largely lost touch with reality.

Yeah I've heard of them. But the fact remains that Hitler did not need people to prop him up intellectually. He got the germans behind him because he promised them prosperity. And he did it clearly and distinctly in a way that rallied the people behind him. Bush isn't rallying anyone. He's mumbling some incoherent speeches which his people and conservative media hosts are translating into a powerful message.



That's not true at all. Hitler was VERY successful at oppressing and beginning to exterminate the Jews. He would have succeded if the rest of the world hadn't put a stop to it. And his puppet masters weren't telling him to get rid of the jews - he came up with that idea himself as you'll see if you read Mein Kampf.



well actually he didn't suck. His art wasn't half bad, as you can see in this painting he did:

http://www.hitler.org/art/buildings/building5.jpg

And remember, just because you're denied entrance to THE art school doesn't mean you suck - it could also mean they're a bunch of jackass snobs.

Yes, he was. I said that.



That's fine, but your corrections are inaccurate.

Also, please use the quote tags - makes it much easier to read.