It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush compared to Hitler: New Article

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Anyone knee jerking a quip in this thread without reading the article probably represents himself in court too.

Again for the pea brained... It's not Bush = Hitler.


Byrd said Bush's moves to destroy time-honored Senate rules parallel Hitler's ramming fascist legislation through his gutted Reichstag. "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality," said Byrd. "He recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."


It's Bush's moves to destroy time-honored Senate rules parallel Hitler's ramming fascist legislation through his gutted Reichstag.

And the analysis of the article goes on to draw many more comparisons of Bush Neoconism to fascism and totalitarianism (though it forgot making Gays the new Jews) none of which means Bush = Hitler. :shk:

Are we so Godwinized and reactionany in our Bush loving political correctness, history may not be spoken of!?! We can't learn anything from history's political movements except to dare not speak the name of their most infamous leaders?

I can say Bush Doctrine is similar to components of Hitler's Totalitarian Fascism all day long and back it up, but noooooooooooooo... not without umpteen harumphs from people that probably didn't read the article in the first place. And each Bush supporter may say his policies aren't like Hitler's Totalitarian Fascism all day long too, but they should AT LEAST address the comparisons in the article!!!!

Not, uh Bush didn't gas the Jews so I guess he aint Hitler. Well no kidding Sherlocks, want a ATS "fighter" or "scholar" vanity for that?

You know what? Don't react to posts you haven't read.




posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
uh Hitler didn't use coc aine or give his gay escort a press security pass so I guess he aint Bush


(Rumors that Hitler did partake in those activities have never been confirmed)... and so on.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
come on I don't like georges bush, of course, who does. but comparing the guy to hilter is a bit too much i think. although we need to ask ourselves questions about the war in irak, he didn't kill all the people the nazi killed. what hitler did is horrendous and i hope gw bush will never go that far. actually i hope nobody else will go as far as the insane man.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
First of all, Neocon... The term Neocon, derived from the latin word neo as in "new" and con, for "conservative" denotes those persons who have had previous Liberal dispositions and have recently become conservative, hence the term new-conservative, or neocon. Your erroneous use of the term simply indicates your partisanship and ability to regurgitate cute little buzz-words bantied about by the wacky left (Notice I did not attribute that to Democrats).

Secondly, your portrayal of Hitler pre-WWII as a comparison to GWB and his administration today is beyond a bit of a stretch. Read the abridged version...

www.fsmitha.com...

More...

"Hitler's attempt to create a Greater Germany (Grossdeutschland), beginning with the annexation of Austria (Anschluss) and the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland, was one of the primary causes of World War II which began in 1939. The embrace of total war both by the Axis and Allied powers during this time led to widespread destruction in Europe. He encouraged the racial policies of Nazi Germany which reached their peak in the Holocaust. Although he had hoped to be the founder of a thousand-year Reich, he committed suicide in his bunker beneath the ruins of Berlin with the Soviet Red Army closing in."
Source: Wikipedia.org

Hmmm... I'm trying to recall if it was Canada or Mexico that Bush was trying to Annex?

For the unpersuaded, the SA, SS and Gestapo (secret state police) were given a free hand. Thousands disappeared into concentration camps. Many thousands more emigrated, including about half of Germany's Jews.

By 1934 Ernst Röhm's SA had become unpopular with most of the other influential political and military groups in Germany. Hitler ordered his lieutenant Himmler to murder Röhm and dozens of other real and potential enemies during the night of June 29-June 30, 1934, the Night of the Long Knives.

"Under the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, Jews lost their German citizenship and were expelled from government employment, the professions and most forms of economic activity. They were also subject to a barrage of hateful propaganda. Few non-Jewish Germans objected to these steps. Restrictions were further tightened later, particularly after the 1938 anti-Jewish operation known as Kristallnacht. From 1941 Jews were required to wear a yellow star in public. Between November 1938 and September 1939 more than 180,000 Jews fled Germany and the Nazis seized whatever property they left behind."
Source: Wikipedia.org

As you can clearly see, concentration camps came to be long before the outbreak of WWII. Now which ethnic group is Bush pulling citizenship from?

"In March 1935 Hitler repudiated the Treaty of Versailles by reintroducing conscription in Germany. He set about building a massive military machine, including a new Navy (the Kriegsmarine) and an Air Force (the Luftwaffe). The enlistment of vast numbers of men and women in the new military seemed to solve unemployment problems but seriously distorted the economy.

In March 1936 he again violated the Treaty of Versailles by reoccupying the demilitarised zone in the Rhineland. When Britain and France did nothing, he grew bolder. In July 1936 the Spanish Civil War began when the military, led by General Francisco Franco, rebelled against the elected Popular Front government of Spain. Hitler sent troops to support Franco and Spain served as a testing ground for Germany's new armed forces and their methods, including the bombing of undefended towns such as Guernica, which was destroyed by the Luftwaffe in April 1937, prompting Pablo Picasso's famous eponymous painting (see Guernica (painting)).

"An Axis was declared between Germany and Italy by Galeazzo Ciano, foreign minister of Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini on October 25, 1936. This alliance was later expanded to include Japan, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. They were collectively known as the Axis Powers. Then on November 5, 1937 at the Reich Chancellory, Adolf Hitler held a secret meeting and stated his plans for acquiring "living space" (Lebensraum) for the German people."
Source: Wikipedia.org

So what treaty is GWB violating? None. In fact, it was Saddam Hussein who saw fit to ignore 18 UN Resolutions. EIGHTEEN of them! Our invasion of Iraq was to enforce those Resolutions under international law, even though the UN didn't have the stomach for it. Also, what foreign lands are we trying to capture as living space for American people?

I could go on and on and on for hours and pages, but what's the point? I think that I have uncovered your true motive for this thread... to bash Bush and enter into partisan politicking.

OK, now here comes the part where you accuse me of being a Republican hack, right? Go ahead, you couldn't make me laugh any harder than I already am. The truth of tha matter is that I am an Independent who belongs to neither the Republican nor Democrat party. In fact, I can think of nothing more damaging to this nation than partisan politics as evidenced by this thread.

I mean no offense to you; I just merely hope that you would take greater care in understanding the monumental and vast differences between Bush and Hitler. For what it's worth, it would be easy to find ANYTHING to compare ANY US President to Hitler. It's easy... Carter liked peanuts and so did Hitler, ergo Carter was like Hitler. As anyone can see that is seriously short-sighted and not really justifiable.









posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Wow! This thread grew really quickly. I'm amazed. I have to agree with RANT that the article doesn't imply BUSH = Hitler. It does however point out that what Bush is doing is what Hitler did to promote the Nazi agenda.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
bush isnt going to die any soon so theres plenty of time to proove bush = hitlers right or wrong. we can assume his consolidation is the same, americans full of patriotism like the germans, exterminating bit though no or not yet. i think saddam looked like stalin when he was caught in the cave. comparision or opinion? my opinion is bush is semi hitler. cant be all compare to something in history though?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Byrd said Bush's moves to destroy time-honored Senate rules parallel Hitler's ramming fascist legislation through his gutted Reichstag. "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality," said Byrd. "He recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."


It's Bush's moves to destroy time-honored Senate rules parallel Hitler's ramming fascist legislation through his gutted Reichstag.

And the analysis of the article goes on to draw many more comparisons of Bush Neoconism to fascism and totalitarianism (though it forgot making Gays the new Jews) none of which means Bush = Hitler. :shk:

Are we so Godwinized and reactionany in our Bush loving political correctness, history may not be spoken of!?! We can't learn anything from history's political movements except to dare not speak the name of their most infamous leaders?

I can say Bush Doctrine is similar to components of Hitler's Totalitarian Fascism all day long and back it up, but noooooooooooooo... not without umpteen harumphs from people that probably didn't read the article in the first place. And each Bush supporter may say his policies aren't like Hitler's Totalitarian Fascism all day long too, but they should AT LEAST address the comparisons in the article!!!!


Yeah, I DID read it and found a great deal of it to be far-fetched. Hitler's motives were nowhere near those of the current administration and any attempt to create a parrallel are disingenious at best. Because Bush is simply trying to reform Senate rules (Many Presidnts have done so) to put an end to non-stop fillibusters and FORCE the damned politicos into doing their jobs is somehow reminiscent of the Reichstag is silly. Non of Bush's political maneuverings are designed to either a.) alienate ANY members of society nor b.) conquer foreign lands with the intent to colonize as was the case with Hitler. Hitler's goal was the creation of a perfect society for an Aryan race. Bush's goals are for a peaceful world devoid of terrorism. I fail to see the parrallels.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
although i am agreed with you on some point about bush, i still can let you say that you invaded irak because of the fact that saddam was violating 18 UN rules. give me a break, we know why he went (eh, was it oil???) and we know why he didn't went for (the WMD).
anyway gwb is not hitler, and as i said before i hope nobody will ever be

KJ



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I'd say Bush has to watch his step, even HE knows this. Hitler was Hitler, Bush can copy him but in a much more subdued way. Unless he's living in a vaccum he must have heard that 1/2 of the population and the world is and has been making comparisons for awhile.
I think eventually the government itself will turn on him...

A doubtful one will not come far from the realm,
The greater part will want to support him:
A Capitol, will not want him to rule at all,
His great burden he will not be able to maintain.

-Nostradamus

"A capitol will not want him to rule at all"
My guess is this will happen when the new elections come around and the King refuses to dethrone himself.

I could be wrong, but i could be right.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I am no leftist. Just an independent minded, free thinking American and I think Sen Byrd made a good point. There is a growing "soft-fascism" coming over the United States. Of course Bush isn't killing people in the manner of Hitler, but his political rhetoric and tactics are increasingly fascist like.

A famous Lousiana Governor and US Senator, Huey Long, once said, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the national flag".

The sudden surge in fairweather "patriots" with the flags on their vehicles after 9/11 and the quick alarming manner in which the Patriot Act was passed, certainly lend some weight to my arguement.

The man who coined the term fascism, Benito Mussolini, defines it by saying, "Corporatism should more properly be called fascism, for it is the merger of state and corporate power."

I ask you, at any time in the history of this country, has the government been more controlled by corporate interests ?

This country no longer operates on the ideals upon which it was founded.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
The only good point Byrd has is the top of his KKK uniform.


As for the Kingfish, the only political definiton that comes to mind is "demagogue."

It is far easier to compare, say Abraham Lincoln. who suspended habeus corpus, or FDR, who sought to pack the supreme court because it opposed the New Deal, to Hitler, and that's a stretch.

"Hitler" Is the scary ghost the left pulls out to smear it's opponants.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05


It is far easier to compare, say Abraham Lincoln. who suspended habeus corpus,


A complete non sequitur considering the same article that establishes the privilege thereof states it may be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion, which the Civil War most certainly qualifies for. He acted properly and with firm constitutional grounds considering the demands of the situation.

As for FDR, what president hasn't nominated judicial appointees that follow and support their ideas ? I don't recall FDR calling opposition or dissent from his views as un-american or immoral - Something this administration has suggested repeatedly to anyone not sheepishly following their agenda. You aren't just pushing it but completely out to lunch.

Do you have anything relevant to say in defense of the Bush Administration ?

Ad hominem on a former (50+years) Klansman is not impressive.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Ok...even if his tactics were "Hitler-esque", what does it prove? Guess what, this is politics pal. Effective approachs normally get used over and over and over again. Do you think noone has ever used other such taboo tactics? Those presented by Sun Tsu, Machiavelli, etc? Hell, I would say that conservative openly use one the Machiavellian tactics. (Greed vs. Generous...and it is true...look at the tax and spend of Democrats.) But does it make it inherently wrong for one to use these tactics? I believe the answer is no. After all, some of these may have already been employed by other people before the Hitler regime. (After all, look at the Swastika...was a Buddhist good luck sign)



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Bush, who happens to be the president (not Kerry)


Isn't that great? America chose Bush over Kerry. It's a wonderful thing, God bless America! Thanks for reminding me of this, Kid!



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
Okay, I know this has been discussed numerous times on this board but I found this article that is supposedly new that compares Bush to Hitler. It makes alot of sense and is IMO a really good article.


Senator Byrd is correct to equate Bush with Hitler
March 7, 2005

The U.S. Senate's senior Constitutional scholar has correctly equated Bush with Hitler, and the usual attack dogs are howling. But they are wrong, and Americans must now face the harsh realities of an increasingly fascist and totalitarian GOP.

Octogenarian Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia made the equation in the context of Bush's attack on Senate procedures which might slow or halt his on-going attempt to pack the courts with extreme right-wing fanatics. Byrd said Bush's moves to destroy time-honored Senate rules parallel Hitler's ramming fascist legislation through his gutted Reichstag. "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality," said Byrd. "He recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."

Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham Foxman has played the holocaust card for the Republicans, saying "It is hideous, outrageous and offensive for Senator Byrd to suggest that the Republican Party's tactics could in any way resemble those of Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party.


FULL STORY


I like what the writer has to say in this article it points out alot of interesting things. For example when Bush is trying to push for a one party leadership, I find this to be true. Hitler did the same. Did he not?


Bush IS Hitler.
Go to google.com
type "Prescot Bush, Hitler"
Then click on the links. All the info is there. The Bush family funded Hitler, brought Hitler to power. The American president at the time had to pass a new law to stop the Bush family from continuing helping Hitler after the USA went to war with Germany.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Do we stone the son for the sins of the father?

Drop the Prescott Bush. It is tired and old. The only point you can make with it is this. Bush may owe some of the family money to reparations for the Jewish people. That is it. That is the only thing that can possibly be made out of Prescott's choices...



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Yes, I said it. He WAS SMART, however, the key to ALL of his success lay in his generals - Rommel, Shultz, etc.

His generals led him to victory in many theatre's of war - not him. I never saw Hitler command ANYTHING good. He told what he wanted done, and his generals conformed to get it done. Simple as that.

He was not a genius.

-wD



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
*SNIP*
Bush and his government are not evil. They are, instead, a result of the what "We, the People" have become in the past 60+ years since WWII.*SNIP*

*SNIP*Or as Pogo, an old comic strip character, once said, "We has met the enemy and he is us"!

Ooh, I agree with that. I remember that old quote, must have been from about the 60s. In fact, reading about the 60s and 70s reminds me of current events. I remember I used to be a hippie and be against what the government was trying to do. Whether a Republican or a Democrat was in office. I find myself feeling that way about the ruling class again in this new century.
I don't have a problem voicing concern over what our government is trying to do to our freedoms. I do draw the line at insinuating only the Republicans have an evil agenda.


We were left with two, less than stellar, options for Presidential candidacy last election. Many of us sat around and decried Bush and his hooligans vs. Kerry and his hooligans. Some of us saw that there was really no marked difference in the two, save for political afiliation. But most of us did not do much more than sit around the keyboards and type in vituperation.

While our freedoms are eroding. While social programs increase. While most politicians feed at the trough. While lobbyists take control. While government gets bigger and bigger.
Wake up, it's not just the politicians on the right side of the aisle that are trashing the Constitution.

Remember:
I love my country, but I fear my government.!!"

~~~~~~~~~~
Tell me, Fox Mulder, are you really comfortable with the minority party in this country


[edit on 11-3-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
well ................... sandra good said in the "manson" documentry that "what's coming will make nazi germany look like a picnic".many people knew in the sixties what was to come and is NOW here.those people that killed the hollywood stars were also a symbol of what was to come from future generations if the wars and goverments were not stopped from completing the new world nazi order that is now in it's final completion.charlie and the people with him are an anomaly? which what i am trying to say is all things summed up in a major event.1969 was the last chance to save the world from itself.to wake up the masses.and the world ended son afetr it's just that everyone is too asleep and numb to realize that are like batteries used by the machine world to feed the beast.sounds like a movie huh? well............this movie we live in came first,remember that.all else is manipulated by the jews in order to make money off people's weak minds.9/11 was orchestrated by the jews and the bush nazi regime.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
well ................... sandra good said in the "manson" documentry that "what's coming will make nazi germany look like a picnic".many people knew in the sixties what was to come and is NOW here.those people that killed the hollywood stars were also a symbol of what was to come from future generations if the wars and goverments were not stopped from completing the new world nazi order that is now in it's final completion.charlie and the people with him are an anomaly? which what i am trying to say is all things summed up in a major event.1969 was the last chance to save the world from itself.to wake up the masses.and the world ended soon after it's just that everyone is too asleep and numb to realize they are like batteries used by the machine world to feed the beast.sounds like a movie huh? well............this movie we live in came first,remember that.all else is manipulated by the jews in order to make money off people's weak minds.9/11 was orchestrated by the jews and the bush nazi regime.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join