So if Bush isn't a Nazi....

[Turbulintz]

This a pretty damn humorous and informational website, I highly recommend clicking the link below:

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html

Turbulintz

[Justin]

They lose.

Really, people, some modicum of originality isn't that hard. Bush is the next ____________

Ghengis Khan
Stalin
Ceasar
Hirohito
Napoleon
Louis XVI
Xerxes
Pope Innocent


the list is virtually endless. But please, please don't choose Hitler. It's just embarrassing for all parties involved.

[bungle bliss]

He may not be a Nazi, but the Bush family helped the Nazi's greatly before and during ww2, which is an undisputed fact. prescott Bush even had his banking seized under the trading with the enemy act.

Want to know more? It really is quite disgusting to read, but here's a good link-

http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm

[Tecknowledgy]

Bush isn't a Nazi you sillyheads, he's a terrorist!

[HexRei]

the bush family had business affairs with the nazis... wow, there's a revelation. There are literally thousands of companies that had business dealings with the nazis. it seems intellectually dishonest, to me, to present this as if the Bush family was somehow unique in this respect... remember, this is the wonderful reality of the corporate world- corporations have no consciences. The Bush family businesses did exactly what other corps do- they make money however they can.

Also, equating someone to Hitler because their family dealt with the nazis is silly. I'll bet any amount of money that every single person alive right now has an ancestor who was involved with something nasty, whether it be slave trade, war crimes, environmental destruction, etc.
We are not inheritors of our ancestor's wrongdoings.

Bush has personally done a lot of nasty, stupid, and shady things- so many, that we don't really need to stoop to this kind of "six degrees" crap to prove what an asshead he is.

[burnt]

werd to bungle bliss.....its not that we're comparing Mr. Bush's political actions to Hitler, for mere shock value. the man has close, familial business ties with Nazi Germany. its even more fucked-up when you read about familial business ties with Ayatollah Khomeni, Manuel Noriega, and Ferdinand Marcos.

*shrugs* - yea, I suppose "Nazi" is an inappropriate term...what is the true, accurate definition of "nazi-ism", anyway?

all I'm saying is, that he looks and smells like a liar in a nice suit, like his dad, like Ken Lay.....I don't trust him. at all. I don't trust his motives.

[bungle bliss]

According to the chapter I posted, Bush's family did a little more than help. It says:

President Bush's family had already played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany; in financing and managing the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against the U.S.A.; and in the development of Nazi genocide theories and racial propaganda, with their well-known results.

The President's family fortune was largely a result of the Hitler project. The powerful Anglo-American family associations, which later boosted him into the Central Intelligence Agency and up to the White House, were his father's partners in the Hitler project.

It goes on to say:

The Walker-Bush firm's banking activities were not just politically neutral money-making ventures which happened to coincide with the aims of German Nazis. All of the firm's European business in those days was organized around anti-democratic political forces.

If you read the part of the chapter that says Origin and Extent of the project, it says more. But you know, if you have zero problem with them helping the Nazi's try to takeover the whole friggin world, don't bother.

[seattle science]

The Nazi Party is really losing some of it's shock value if it's members are allowed to be close allies with the Israel.

[LordWoon]

President Bush's family had already played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany; in financing and managing the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against the U.S.A.; and in the development of Nazi genocide theories and racial propaganda, with their well-known results.

The President's family fortune was largely a result of the Hitler project. The powerful Anglo-American family associations, which later boosted him into the Central Intelligence Agency and up to the White House, were his father's partners in the Hitler project.

So what. The SS got their idea for racial purification from our own government. Remember the Eugenics Movement?

[mercuria]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.html

that sums up the famous 25 points of the Nazi movement. the word itself is a shortened version of National Socialist party, to which Hitler belonged. i think we're giving Bush too much credit by comparing him to Napoleon, Gengis Khan, Pope Innocent, etc. He's too dumb. i would compare him to some of the later soviet leaders in the absence of common sense and any political prowess whatsoever and the persence of an incredibly forceful, corrupt, and powerful cabinet/administration.

[PussiCORE]

Tecknowledgy

Bush isn't a Nazi you sillyheads, he's a terrorist!

Hahahaha!!!

[Boyd Main]

The Nazi comparisons are a bit far-fetched. Fascist is a much better adjective.

[Turbulintz]

Like burnt said: "Word to Bungle Bliss". Mad props for someone else knowing the Tarpley connection. That is some heavy information...

http://www.tarpley.net
http://www.fromthewilderness.com

Turbulintz

[Justin]

Originally posted by mercuria
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.html

that sums up the famous 25 points of the Nazi movement. the word itself is a shortened version of National Socialist party, to which Hitler belonged. i think we're giving Bush too much credit by comparing him to Napoleon, Gengis Khan, Pope Innocent, etc. He's too dumb. i would compare him to some of the later soviet leaders in the absence of common sense and any political prowess whatsoever and the persence of an incredibly forceful, corrupt, and powerful cabinet/administration.

No shit. I recall Bush's 2000 campaign platform was tax cuts, not destroying an ethnic group scapegoated for all our countries problems. And we're not about to invade Iraq for elbow room, or to create a new empire that will last 1000 years. I sure as hell don't recall him being put in office with the help of organized street gangs who terrorized oposistion, nor to I recall Bush giving 24 hour, rousing speeches that commenced with his audience pledging fealty. Bush is not the next Hitler. Comparing Bush to Hitler is ridiculous, and it makes everyone look ignorant.

I think he's a bad president, stupid and mired in hopelessly short term planning, but when there's a bunch of cats calling Bush the next Hitler, everyone to the left o Billy Graham looks foolish by extension. Ever listen to Rush LImbaugh during the Clinton years? Remember all the dipshit callers who kept on trying to get Clinton impeached for the damndest things (before Lewinsky)? I remember one show where they were having a feeding freenzy because Clinton threw a state party where officers served drinks to dignitaries, and all the callers kept saying how it violated the Geneva convention. "Impeach Clinton" jusitification #418.

Anyway, this is the same thing but from a different angle. It's ridiculous and, like I've said before, embarrassing. Then again, all that bile got republicans in power, so maybe there's something to it. But it's not worth having a little bit of power if you have to sacrifice all your dignity and intelligence to get it.

Bush isn't "the next Hitler." He's not even the next Nixon. He's just another bad president who will be forgotten a couple decades after he leaves. The only way he has a chance of being remembered is if he somehow paves the way for a politician with actual talent; Bush is McKinnley 2000.

Still, if despite all logic you're going to call Bush some terrible figure in human history, at least put some creativity into it. Calling him the next Hitler makes you seem short sighted, historically ignorant and unoriginal. There's a whole big list of bad, bad people in history. If you want to exlain how Bush is, like, OMG genocidal and stuff, then do yourself a favor and spend the ten minutes on google neccessary to find a more novel, and quite possibly more apt comparrison.

[Turbulintz]

Originally posted by Doc Mahem

Bush isn't "the next Hitler." He's not even the next Nixon. He's just another bad president who will be forgotten a couple decades after he leaves. The only way he has a chance of being remembered is if he somehow paves the way for a politician with actual talent; Bush is McKinnley 2000.



I think that your analysis of the situation is as short-sighted as you feel everyone else is being. If one does not notice the significant and consistent social climb of the Bush family, from their intimate dealings with the Nazi (National Socialist, i.e. fascist i.e. merger of state and corporate power), and now the close ties not only to Cheney (who was CEO of the largest war machine manufacturer until he was selected VP) but to Colin Powell (and son, who is head of the FCC), and the other 11 (of 16) cabinet members who are beyond millionaires, to Merck pharmaceutical (creators and testers of much of the chemical and biological material for WWII and proud sponsors of NPR), one might begin to understand that calling the current Bush "just another bad president" is ignorant. This is a moment in GOP history where everything is coming to a head: think about it. When was the last time in the history of the US that all of your constitutional rights (see MEHPA, Patriot Act, Homeland Security) were stripped by laws pushed thru congress by the president....oh...never? Hmmm.....

turbulintz

[Justin]

Originally posted by Turbulintz

When was the last time in the history of the US that all of your constitutional rights (see MEHPA, Patriot Act, Homeland Security) were stripped by laws pushed thru congress by the president....oh...never? Hmmm.....

turbulintz

Well, the Clinton administration for starters, with the Anti-terrorism act which gutted restrictions on federal wiretaps. His administration was also stocked to the brim with corporate leaders, many with ties to war manufacturies like Lockeed Martin. Was Clinton "the next Hitler?"

[Justin]

I'd also like to add that no president has ever come close to what Lincoln did, under whom troops routinely fired at protesters, and who actually suspended habeus corpus. OMG LINCOLN WAS AS BAD AS HITLER!!111!!!!!

[seattle science]

Wait, I can't remember if Lincoln had an (R) to the left of his name. If so, then shit yea, he was a Nazi too.

[burnt]

Was Clinton "the next Hitler?"

naw, there can only be one Hitler. he was just another Nazi.

I think thats cool, you know. Nationalist/Socialist = NAZI. I feel all empowered now that I know the definition of "Nazi". Nazis aren't people who speak German and have German Shepherds and are German soldiers.......no, no, Nazis are Nationalist/Socialists. Nazis are, by definition, powerful figures with deep ties to both corporations and politics.

[burnt]

and besides, Lincoln *was* a pretty lousy president. he refused the southern states' constitutional right to secede from the Union, and *thats* what started the civil war. slavery had nothing to do with it. the Northern States were focused on manufacturing, and nobody was buying their shit. the South was focused on ranching and farming, and making all kinds of money. if the South had seceded, the Northern states would have fallen into economic turmoil.

so Lincoln refused the South's constitutional rights, and refused to recognize Jefferson Davis as the ruler of the Southern states.

hell, Lincoln didn't even want to abolish slavery, he was pressured to do so by his cabinet, because they kept losing battles, and needed the support from all them "culluhd" folks.

Lincoln fucked up in a lot of ways. he made *GREAT* speeces, enacted some policies with wonderful long-term benefits, and he was a steadfast figure during a time of national turmoil and distrust. but he also fucked up. like Doc Mahem pointed out, firing on protestors. thats....um, thats fucked up.

now, I don't know whether or not he attempted to merge government with business, but if he did?? if there were inappropriate conflicts of interest during his term? then yea, I'd label him a "Nazi" as well. based solely on the literal definition provided by bungle bliss.

but like we agreed, "Nazi" doesn't mean group showers, "Nazi" doesn't mean two SS's embroidered onto a shirt. it just means "Nationalist/Socialist".

[seattle science]

I don't know if that is revisionist history, or if you sincerely believe the horseshit you just typed. The Civil War had everything to do with slavery. The North was self-sufficient, and not reliant upon slave labor, unlike the South. Did you actually just type that the South was "focused on ranching and farming"? I am stunned, seriously. The South operated on one thing, the slave cotton industry. Period. Slavery was being threatened in the territories, as seen in the Missouri Compromise, and the South was on edge that it's slave crutch was in danger of being taken out from under them. The South started the Civil War in defense of the institution of slavery, mainly to protect their infrastructure-less cotton industry.

Any qualms that I ever had with Lincoln were overidden by the fact that he went against the feelings of most Northerners when he issued the Emancipation Proclaimation, and turned the North's cause not only to maintain the Union, but to free the slaves. Reconstruction wouldn't have taken close to a century if he hadn't been assassinated.

[Justin]

Originally posted by seattle science
Reconstruction wouldn't have taken close to a century if he hadn't been assassinated.

So true. The north's urge for revenge also led to the first impeachment of democratic Pres Johnson. It was purely political: he wanted to reconstruct the south and the republican congress didn't. Ironically, the long suffering south has been long suffering due to the republican party's decisions from 1864-1880ish, and now the south is the stronghold of republicanism. The values of both parties really flipped about 1900.

[seattle science]

Yes. I laugh everytime I hear a Republican nowadays say something along the lines of "but we were the party that freed the slaves." Which would only be true if the Republican party still believed in a strong federal government, and if it is the Dems who are still for state's rights.

[kiG]

WHY DO PEOPLE THINK BUSH IS THE NEXT HITLER !

If that were true HALF the world would be part of the US by now...
Whos going to stop the US ? Europe? Asai ?Russia?
Not any courty with a nuke would do anything about it until we declared war on them...CAUSE that would become a nuclear winter...

If the US took over Canada NO ONE NOT ONE country would go to war with the US....

What can the UN do ? ? ? NOTHING...they cant for Saddam and his TYRANT RULE ****WHO ATTEMP TO TAKE OVER THE MID EAST***
not just Kuwait...

THE US STOPPED HIM YOU LEFT JUST SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP

THE RIGHT WILL PROTECT AMERICA

[bungle bliss]

Originally posted by kiG
WHY DO PEOPLE THINK BUSH IS THE NEXT HITLER !

If that were true HALF the world would be part of the US by now...
Whos going to stop the US ? Europe? Asai ?Russia?
Not any courty with a nuke would do anything about it until we declared war on them...CAUSE that would become a nuclear winter...

If the US took over Canada NO ONE NOT ONE country would go to war with the US....

What can the UN do ? ? ? NOTHING...they cant for Saddam and his TYRANT RULE ****WHO ATTEMP TO TAKE OVER THE MID EAST***
not just Kuwait...

THE US STOPPED HIM YOU LEFT JUST SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP

THE RIGHT WILL PROTECT AMERICA


*snicker*

[Kosmicdog]

what a retard.

[Turbulintz]

Well, its nice to see that the original post, which advocated that Bush IS NOT Hitler, was so well understood. Oh well. Thanks to the right winged folks who so effectively illustrate the efficacy of the US goverenments control...

Turbulintz