So just to be clear Muppet, in a hypothetical election with George W. Bush running on the republical ticket and Adolf Hitler running on the democratic ticket, it's a no-brainer. You'd vote for Hitler?
Finally, the truth.
In such a situation, I wouldn't vote. The lesser of two evils is still evil, after all.
If not for the prior example of the holocaust to make things more difficult, I think that Rumsfield & Company would be waging a very different war. I've no doubt.
You think Rumsfeld and company would be rounding up all Muslims in the US, putting them in concentration camps, using them as slave labor and ultimately killing them?
I find it not so difficult a leap to make, you're right.
Also, okay you wouldn't vote. But if you woke up the day after the election to learn the author of "Mein Kampf" had won over the guy who claims he wants to spread democracy over the mideast, you be relieved that, at least Bush didn't win?
"You think Rumsfeld and company would be rounding up all Muslims in the US, putting them in concentration camps, using them as slave labor and ultimately killing them?"
Hell, they did it to North American Japanese (short of actively murdering them).
Oh yeah, and the "If Hitler was running for president" argument is fundamentally ridiculous, because Hitler hadn't actually done anything extraordinarily evil at the time he was elected.
Insane dictator as president + world's biggest economy + world's biggest nuclear arsenal.
In that situation, on the day after election day, we wouldn't wake up. The US doesn't have a monopoly on nukes and the 'them or us' equation aint hard in that scenario.
Could be worse - he could be a born again and who believe Armageddon is imminent and...oh suddenly I've very nervous.
a cynic writes...
March 2nd, 2005
(joke edited for grammar)
Could be worse - he could be a born again and believe Armageddon is imminent and...oh suddenly I've very nervous.
(nope - doesn't work the 2nd time does it?)
a cynic writes...
March 2nd, 2005
Uh, Flasher, that's exactly why it is not ridiculous. When Hitler was elected he hadn't yet invaded his neighbors or killed millions of undesireables in concentration camps. He made no secret of his philosophy of hate though so if you're implying it was reasonable to vote for Hitler in the 1930s I agree, if you are an aryan supremecist nationalist anti-semite.
You think Bush ISN'T an aryan white supremist who believes he's securely holding the reins of US Manifest Destiny?
He's just polite about it.
BTW Flasher- it wasn't Rumsfeld and company who interred the Japanese Americans during WWII. It was democratic icons FDR and Earl Warren. It was actively opposed by right wing boogeyman and reputed cross-dresser J. Edgar Hoover.
If Bush is an Aryan supremicist then why all the black people in non-token positions in the government? Just a clever smoke-screen I imagin.
And as we all know by now, "Right" and "Left" are singular, singly accountable entities with universal beliefs and values.
Didn't we learn to get over thinking like this in the second grade?
"Uh, Flasher, that's exactly why it is not ridiculous."
My point is, there can't be a situation where there is a race between 2004-Bush and 1944-Hitler, even if you use a time machine.
Judging by the body of work you have posted to this forum over time, apparently not.
Flasher, it's a hypothetical question. How can it be impossible? I'm not saying a time machine is involved. I'm saying you have a guy with Hitler's background and writings and philosophy who speaks perfect English and he runs against Bush. It's pretty simple and, in my opinion pretty obvious that GW would be a far preferable choice.
>You think Rumsfeld and company would be rounding up all >Muslims in the US, putting them in concentration camps, >using them as slave labor and ultimately killing them?
+++Judging by the body of work you have posted to this forum over time, apparently not.+++
Please provide examples of me making sweeping generalities and pigeon-holing people into particular archetypes, without any sarcasm.
crap examples. By that standard any country that has ever held prisoners of war or has domestic prisons is the equivalent of the third reich.
Honestly it seems a lot of you people really need some holocaust education.
Every time I think I have caught you in some kind of inconstency you fall back to claiming you were being sarcastic. I don't believe it, of course but it will make the task you describe somewhat difficult. Anything I find you will just claim was sarcasm.
Off the top of my head, from recent threads, I think your claim that I was "selling hate" because I suggested that crappy schools, rather than being the fault of the teachers, was the inevitable result of a situation in which the majority of students really don't care to be learning. From your statement I can only infer that you were lumping me in, knee-jerk fashion, with the KKK guys and subtler racists who reason "bad neighborhood=high minority population=inferior intellect=bad schools".
Were you being sarcastic?
+++crap examples. By that standard any country that has ever held prisoners of war or has domestic prisons is the equivalent of the third reich.+++
So you're saying that throwing people in jail without evidence, trial, conviction, or even contact with the outside world or their families is just business as usual and the US is just FINE for doing it?
You're a freaking monster.
+++Off the top of my head, from recent threads, I think your claim that I was "selling hate" because I suggested that crappy schools, rather than being the fault of the teachers, was the inevitable result of a situation in which the majority of students really don't care to be learning. From your statement I can only infer that you were lumping me in, knee-jerk fashion, with the KKK guys and subtler racists who reason "bad neighborhood=high minority population=inferior intellect=bad schools".+++
If I recall that thread correctly, your argument was that the way to fix the schools in the US was to throw all of the underperforming students out of them. That seemed pretty hateful to me.
Also, I fail to see how this is generalizing or pigeon-holing. Can you please make a coherent argument for your previous ridiculous statement?
+++From your statement I can only infer that you were lumping me in, knee-jerk fashion, with the KKK guys and subtler racists who reason "bad neighborhood=high minority population=inferior intellect=bad schools".+++
That's quite a long chain of inferences, by the way. This is what you call an argument?
Four steps is a long chain and therefore an incoherent argument? I can't go along with that. You say this is ridicuous. How can I argue against that? By saying "no it isn't"? You are the one who supplied no argument aside from the unprecedented point that my chain of reasoning was too long.
I will try to clarify. You say you don't pigeon-hole people with respect to their political opinions. I think your assertion that I must hate the low performing students is wrong and completely unsupported by anything I wrote in that post. Therefore you were either saying somthing completely random, or the idea that it was spawned by hate must have come from somewhere else.
I am supposing that somewhere else is- you think I am a right wing guy. Other right wing guys, you have convinced yourself, are driven mostly by hate of minorities. Therefore my opinion must be driven by hate of minorities.
I'm sorry. I can't reduce the reasoning to any fewer steps.
The statement "We should improve our schools by removing the low performers" is inherently hateful. It does not require any inference on my part.
Your argument, on the other hand, is a silly string of associations based on nothing. I accused you of a hateful comment, therefore I must think you are in the KKK and regularly hang niggers at backyard barbecues with your hateful bigot friends.
Again, who is being ridiculous here?
"The statement "We should improve our schools by removing the low performers" is inherently hateful."
Restate slightly, "We should improve our schools by creating a loving and non stressful environment specifically for low performers, keeping them separated from the harsh competition of regular classes."
Same plan, but it does sound more politicly correct.
Sam, absolutely, but that's not what "Name" said.
Obviously Hitler would be a republican - so Muppet would not have to choose.
I don't recall saying we should remove low performers. I can't find the old thread to verify. My point was that to improve the schools for kids who want to learn you need to be able to segregate them from the kids who don't want to learn and ruin it for the rest. This could be a special school for one sort of student or the other.
I do not hate low performing students. The fact that you think this is automaticly the reason verifies my reasoning above and indicates a lack of self-examination on your part.
>By that standard any country that has ever held prisoners of war or has
>domestic prisons is the equivalent of the third reich.
Right, and every country that holds POWs keeps them naked, with paper bag on their heads and a leash tied round their neck.
Similarly, every country that holds POWs holds them without trial and with no access to lawyers.
Since you seem to be an expert - Was the sequence of events something like 'discrimination' progressing to 'imprisonment' progressing to 'atrocities' or was it 'atrocities' from day 1.
Why would Hitler obviously be a republican? I'll grant you the nationalism is more typical of the republican party but Hitler's economic policies were more similar to the democrats.
Yes, POWs are held without access to lawyers. I think this has been pretty universal. As for the leashes, I expect on a small scale that things of this level and worse have been done by individuals within the armed forces, to prisoners of war, by every country that has been in a war.
Federal judges are starting to require the government to stop holding people without charge (Jose Pedilla a recent example) and the Abu Grahb people have been court martialed.
Do you think, had Germany won the war that Joseph Mengele would have been tried?
sorry my typo... the second sentence should read 'domestic prisoners' and not POWs since that is what you have in G bay...
>I expect on a small scale that things of this level and worse have been
I guess I have no argument against somebody who says that if somebody else has blundered, you have a right to do so too...
>Do you think, had Germany won the war that Joseph Mengele would have been tried?
Do you think that if Hitler had not prematurely attacked UK and consequently won, would the rest of the world (which more or less appeased him till that point of time) have considered him and the rest of the SS as criminals?
Or let me ask - if the settlers had not vanquished the Red Indians as much, wouldn't their be post-facto trials and reams of newsprint spend on the acts of the settlers?
or let me ask - do you think that if Jews were not PERCIEVED to be the 'better off' class, would Hitler be able to build up so much resentment against them?
or let me ask - if Iraq was not PERCIEVED by the average Joe to be supporting Terrorism, would Bush have been able to drum up the support for war that he could drum up a year or so ago
Nobody can take away the pain of those who have been touched by Holocaust but perhaps you do not understand that politics and everything related is not black and white, there are shades of grey...
sorry. Tough to catch sometimes on this board. I think the majority of posters here would accept the NAZI=Republican idea almost axiomatically.
I never said we had a right to do those things. I'm not sure I get what the rest of your questions are getting at. If the fact that people suffer because of the actions of a government mean they should be described as NAZIs, I would suggest the term NAZI has run out of power. PArdon me but I will continue to reserve it for the worst offenders.
Fascist is a generally more useful term than Nazi but even then it has a quite definite meaning and the people tagged with either epithet are generally done so by people who have run out of referents of their own that make any sense either to them or anyone else.
March 2nd, 2005
Oooo, the cartonist forgot to mention that Hitler fought in a War for his country, whereas GWB on the other hand ...
>>> And as we all know by now, "Right" and "Left" are singular, singly accountable entities with universal beliefs and values.
This is no longer apropos, but whatever:
A one-dimensional system is completely useless for classifying political beliefs. You need at least two axes to be able to properly distinguish between all the -isms.
---"but Hitler's economic policies were more similar to the democrats."----
Because they worked?
+1 to that. "Left" and "Right" aren't so much about what you believe, as what you can convince yourself that the "other side" believes. [Speaking for myself, anyway...]
++Didn't we learn to get over thinking like this in the second grade?
No, that's when we first started learning it. Those of us who have realized it and have souls have strived since to correct it.
Hey Jack, Welcome Back. How did the job transition go?
March 2nd, 2005
You miserably fail in making any sound point. Your arguments are all over the map and to be really polite, incoherent.
What are you smoking Stephen?
Hitler's policies certainly did NOT bring prosperity to the German people.
I guess comparing Bush to Hitler is so passe, that we've now "progressed" to apologizing for Hitler so that he can be favorably compared to Bush.
----"Hitler's policies certainly did NOT bring prosperity to the German people."----
They did until the British and French declared war on Germany in 1939. Now if only Chambarlin had done the same as Roosevelt and stayed out of it.
The immediate economic effect of the Nazi's being elected were electrifying. To quote from a research paper by Major James Casey of the US Air force:
"By any measure, the plans undertaken by the Nazi party to reshape the German economy were both ambitious and exhaustive. Industrial output from heavy industries, especially electricity, steel and armaments, soared. Entire industries were created where essentially none had existed before, such as in aviation. German scientific advances in synthetics and other fields were at the forefront of modern technology and moved the nation toward self-sufficiency in rubber, aluminum, textiles and chemicals. The entire world watched anxiously as Hitler reshaped the German economy and war machine."
Now the cocnentration of resources on military expenditure which reached 155 of GNP just before the war, and certain structural weaknesses including chronic labour shortages still existed, but the German economic revival was the wonder of the world in the 1930s and the cause of admiration and envy in countries such as the US, UK or France which were mired in depression.
And I guess we'll just conveniently ignore the fact that the "economic revival" included a generous helping of forced labor from dissidents and undesirables.
I'm sure that conditions in Germany and in the Soviet Union during the 30's looked peachy to umemployed Americans and Brits getting their info from propaganda newsreels of the day.
I think the forced labout came later. what Hitler succeeded in doing was almost getting rid of unemployment in a very short time period.
By 1936 the economy was sufficiently on tract for him to start rearming in a big way.
There are some pretty interesting articles on the web. I downloaded about three of them before replying to your previous post.
It was the astonishing economic success of the early years that allowed Hitler to consolidate his power so easily, and made him many friends among the business elite of Britain, France and the States.
There's also the part about a wave of countries becoming more democratic during Bush's time in office.
But I suppose that doesn't fit the joke as well.
A feminist running for Egyptian president was interviewed:
Q: "Nawal El Saadawi, what is your response to those who say now that President Bush is making democracy break out through the Middle East, elections in Iraq, in Palestine, now Mubarak announcing he will hold elections."
A: "This is, in fact, a joke, ridiculous, and it makes me furious, because they deprive us of our struggle. First of all, George Bush is not democratic."
Bill Moyers explained how presidents love taking credit for things that passed over their opposition:
A Republican PR strategist hammered home that "democracy" was the most useful word when appealing to our sense of Americanness. Therefore, it is predictable that Bush would attempt to claim credit for that buzzword whenever possible.
----" There's also the part about a wave of countries becoming more democratic during Bush's time in office.
But I suppose that doesn't fit the joke as well."----
err..... which ones? And do they outnumber the ones becoming less democratic? And if they do are you sure it's not coincidental?
"err..... which ones?"
Read a newspaper.
"This is, in fact, a joke, ridiculous, and it makes me furious, because they deprive us of our struggle."
More power to her. Whether they love America or hate America, a more free and more democratic Middle East is in America's interest.
Furthermore, if we do not blame or credit Presidents for what happen on their watch, what is the proper way to assess their performance?
I think it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that some element of causation needs to be considered.
March 4th, 2005
George W. Bush fills his speeches with talks about democracy. About how a freer world is better and safer for America. He explains his actions and policies in terms of creating more freedom in the world. This thinking is roundly mocked outside (and often inside) the U.S. as simple minded and naive.
Then we see several countries in succession becoming more democratic, more free, including places where the U.S. applied military force.
Must be a coincidence.
Of course. CEOs and politicians have always filled their speeches with noble-sounding buzzwords, relying on a core of followers to lap it up.
People who praise Bush also praise bin Laden and the 9-11 Saudis. Because they all talk about freedom, and they "caused" democracy in the Mideast.
And I accept this, because democracy allows traitors-in-word, who know nothing about our American history and traditions. They act with the hubris of colonial Englishmen, rather than ruggedly independent, questioning Americans. And as they sell future generations to China, one wonders which new nation will understand democracy more than us.
-----"Then we see several countries in succession becoming more democratic, more free, including places where the U.S. applied military force."----
Have we? What we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq are formal elections, though in the first case the writ of the president of the government doesn't extend much further than Kabul, and only there becasue he is protected by American bodyguards.The eoncomy is recovering it is true, but that is only because with the demise of the Taliban regime opium production has resumed and now provides 55% of GDP. The Iraqis have elected an interim administration based on candidates who were too scared to campaign, but as far as everyday life goes democracy is a farce since the government doesn't even control Baghdad, and the whole country is in a state of near anarchy.
Meanwhile some countries such as Zimbabwe and Myanmar and Uzbeksitan and Tazakasth (the last two firm US allies) sink further into repression, horror and squalor, and most of the rest of the world goes its merry way independent of the US.
Now, Jim, perhaps you would like to try again to name all these countries experiencing a wave of democracy.
"What we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq are formal elections, "
Which is more democracy than they had before. That's all I ever claimed, not that those places have become the Garden of Eden. Also note a REAL election in Palestine, Syria talking about withdrawing troops from Lebanon, the Orange revolution in Ukraine, baby steps in Saudi Arabia, and I'm sure I'm missing a lot (I think Mubarak is talking more about liberalising the government in Egypt, too.) Bush dressed down Putin with a smile, publically telling him he should allow more democracy and freedom in his country.
I must confess I don't know as much as I should about how freedom is faring in Africa. It all seems such an unfathomable mess to me. If we are not promoting democracy there as much as we ought, we ought to do more. And I certainly hope we are not still supporting despots, there, as we have in the past.
I do know that Bush has been praised for proposing more aid for AIDS in Africa than Clinton ever did (but I don't know what ever happened to it in the Congress).
"And as they sell future generations to China, one wonders which new nation will understand democracy more than us."
Given our history, probably one that we introduced to democracy in the first place.
More likely Brazil, which schools many Americans about what democracy truly means:
Maybe one day, they'll bring it to us.
----"Also note a REAL election in Palestine,"----
We had one when Arafat won with a massive majority. It's just that the Americans only consider elections valid when their side wins. And with the candidate most polls said would have won easily in an Israeli jail, and with Hamas afraid to propose a presidential candidate in case he was assasinated by the Israelis, I hardly think the election of Abbas an improvement on the election of his predecessor.
----"the Orange revolution in Ukraine"----- All that happened there is that the side the US favoured won as opposed to the other side.
-----"Syria talking about withdrawing troops from Lebanon"---- That is because of the Lebanese, particularly Hariri and Jumblatt. The Americans support Jumblatt can be guaged from the fact they refused him a visa to the States because he said he was sorry the missiles aimed at Rumsfeld in Baghdad didn't meet their mark!
---"Bush dressed down Putin with a smile, publically telling him he should allow more democracy and freedom in his country."----- Wow, what cojones! We'll have him telling the Cninese they're naughty boys next. Good thing for Saddam he only decided to invade instead of threatening not to come round and play marbles.
----" And I certainly hope we are not still supporting despots, there, as we have in the past."---- Jim, your naivety is touching. Take a look at Equatorial Guinea, or just google for Oil + Africa
"We had one when Arafat won with a massive majority."
And how long did Arafat postpone elections after that, and how long did he refuse to cede any real power after the Palestinian people after there was an election?
Oh yeah, until he died.
"Jim, your naivety is touching."
I already said I was more ignorant than I should be. And that if the U.S. is doing bad things in Africa, I condemn it.
Good show, Stephen, insulting someone by repeating back to him what he has already confessed as a shortcoming. Bravo for you.
What elecxtions did Arafat postpone? And what power did he have to cede since the Israelis kept him under house arrest for three years.
"What elecxtions did Arafat postpone? And what power did he have to cede since the Israelis kept him under house arrest for three years."
Stephen, your naiveté is touching.
March 7th, 2005