Check this out.

[DjBear_PDX]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2003/0316history.htm

[HexRei]

OMGZ, TEH PARALLALS ARE AMAEZING!!!! GWB=TEH HITELER!!!!:rolleyes:

This author wrote this piece in a manner deliberately emphasizing the few (and mostly cosmetic and manneristic) traits that GWB and Hitler have in common. This should be obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of the Nazi Germany and the Nazi party.
Nazi Germany's control over Germany was far tighter than ours, citizens of Germany were forced to work by law, they had gov't mandated Hitler Youth programs, the Nazi party ideology was very much centered around racism entwined with nationalism, they were very blatant about their policies regarding "mongrel races", Hitler was not born rich and in fact was a convict after attempting to stage a coup of the gov't. Attempting to draw parrallels between their character and nature was silly and looks manipulative.
If he wants to give a lesson about the failure of democracy, he might be better served to outline his timeline of events and provide rationale and annotated examples, not expect us not buy into this half-baked dead horse of an analogy.
I have no love for George Bush and could think of a few better presidential candidates but this author is just pushing an agenda and he's doing it poorly.

[DjBear_PDX]

I just want to say that I do not believe everything I read. Propaganda is propaganda no matter how well thought it seems. I simply thought it was an interesting story. So when you do read the "story", and this is to those who have not read it, take it with a grain of salt.

[Effendi]

Originally posted by DjBear_PDX
I just want to say that I do not believe everything I read. .....I simply thought it was an interesting story.

I can't even tell you how many times I felt the exact same way about this story or that article, but when you re-post something on this board, it is viewed as coming from your mouth and you must defend every last word in the article as though you 100% support the writer.

Their have been MANY articles where I agreed with some of the statements in paragraph #3 enough to want to re-post it, but then I get held accountable for some bullshit in the 1st and 3rd paragraph that I don't even agree with.

Problem is, I don't feel right about taking only part of someones article, I always felt it was only fair to reprint the whole thing if your going to reprint a word. Maybe we have to start writing dis-claimers in front of anything we post..something like this:

"The following article Does not necessarily represent the thinking of this boardmember. I actually think this writer is a bit crazy, however there were some interesting points brought up that I thought you may want to read. Please do not assault me for portraying all his words rather than just the ones I agree with"

Scott!!

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Effendi


I can't even tell you how many times I felt the exact same way about this story or that article, but when you re-post something on this board, it is viewed as coming from your mouth and you must defend every last word in the article as though you 100% support the writer.


I have not criticized DJBear_PDX at all, every criticism I made was of the story and perhaps by extension the author-but not the the poster.
If you're going to post an article don't be surprised when people post rebuttals to the article.
And if you go on to defend the views within the article, then expect peopel to treat you as a proponent of those views.
Shouldn't this be obvious???