I thought of a good thing about Bush being elected

[xfer]

it's pretty hard to deserve the title of "worst president ever" after only four years, so i think it was kind of hyperbole when we said it about bush previously.

but after eight years? dude is going to objectively deserve that title without a shred of hyperbole needed.

 

[NAD]

The way I see it, we're about halfway through his presidency. We're on the downhill side come January, let the countdown begin!

 

[avi]

time to put all those faggots and coloreds in their place!

 

[xfer]

-- because of safe vote, no need to stage a last-minute terrorist attack to swing voters away from Kerry

 

[Demonspell]

The opportunity to continue to mock Bush on a regular basis will help keep much us sane for the next four years, and with every policy mistake and blunder his legacy of incompetence will grow. We've said you're worse than Hitler, now you have a chance to prove it.

 

[xfer]

haha it'll be so funny when all the exaggerated shit people have been saying (BUSH = HITLER!!!!111) comes literally true

 

[gekko]

OK, look guys. I'm not what you would call thrilled that Bush won the election. I think he's an idiot and not a good president, but I don't even think he is the worst President ever much less Hitler. Perhaps I will be proved wrong, but for instance, does Andrew Jackson ring any bells? Trail of tears? Killing thousands of Indians in a forced migration after taking over the land that was already theirs?

 

[xfer]

gekko, the thrust of my thread is that those hyperbolic accusations may now actually come true.

p.s. estimated Iraqi civilian casualties since invasion: 100,000

 

[gekko]

And the thrust of my reply is that I find it highly unlikely that Bush is going to become a mass genocidal maniac bent on world domination.

p.s. I agree that war sucks but people do die during war and they aren't always soldiers, its been true in every war throughout history. Trail of tears designed to forcibly control an area, it wasn't a war.

 

[xfer]

well you said is, not will be, re: Bush.

sooo if five million civilians die because of careless bombing campaigns in a week-long war, it's still better than several thousand dead American Indians just because it was "a war"?

 

[gekko]

Are you referring to an actual event that I am for some really horrible reason unaware of or are you suggesting a hypothetical situation. I would say that would count as gross negligence. There is a difference between (pardon the insensitivity of this sentance as all loss of life sucks) acceptable casualties of war and mass death of civilians in bombing raids. So when you show me the five million dead in one week from bombing raids I will agree that is unacceptable. All I am saying is that it is somewhat naive and unfair to believe that a war can go on without civilian casualties, as regrettable as that fact is.

And I think "is" is a perfectly reasonable word to use in that situation since Hitler didn't just suddenly decide he was going to become a mass murdering lunatic and Bush hasn't really shown any signs of wanting to commit mass murder or take over the world.

 

[lizard]

Bush is easily the worst president of the last 60 years, and that includes the well-meaning but ineffectual Carter, a Reagan who was well into senile dementia during his second term; and a guy I compare Bush muchly to, Nixon.

Carter was everything a Christian should be, namely, honest and open, sometimes to a fault. Bush's christianity is shown to be a pose with every one of his overheard profane tirades, his uncomfortability in himself (feeling sooooooo inferior to his daddy), his willingness to be a stooge for corporate interests at the expense of the people he's sworn to protect.

Watch the next four years closely. There's the blame-placing 9-11 CIA report that the administration stonewalled release of until after the election; the investigation into who in the administration leaked the identity of CIA's Valerie Plame (a felony); a just recently broadened look at Halliburton. And that's only what I can remember before my morning coffee.

Almost all of you should view Bush's reelection with trepidation. It has signaled the titanic rise of a fundamentalist cult which doesn't care about facts, only image, and that is startlingly like the cult of personality around stalin and early hitler. I'm not saying Bush is Hitler, only that the steady erosion of civil liberties and this blindless worship of an unworthy idol is scary. These people have abandoned traditional conservatism for something which ignores reality and wants to tell you how and to whom you can have sex with. If that doesn't give you pause, well, you're either not educated enough or not experienced enough at life.

 

[mindspell]

I don't think they'll ever find anything on Halliburton quite honestly. The problem is that Halliburton, in most cases, is the only company in the world with the resources and the technology to deploy in a reasonable time-frame for all the contracts attributed by the administration. Halliburton would've got the contracts with anybody at the head of the country.

Care to speculate on whom you think the Republicans will groom as successor? Nobody in Bush's camp seem to qualify at this point...

 

[lizard]

how about Jeb Bush?

 

[mindspell]

Not another one...

Didn't think about that one....

 

[lizard]

think about it; he's got the name, the organization is already in place, the cult is mobilized...he's easily the smartest of the three brothers.

 

[xfer]

Jeb Bush, followed by George P. Bush.

Gekko, I'm talking about a hypothetical in order to make the point that there is a level of deaths you cannot write off as "just the casualties of war". The salient fact here, though, is that few or none of those ACTUAL casualties (100k dead Iraqi civilians) would have happened if Bush hadn't decided to PNAC up the Middle East. If it were a situation like, say, Israel/Palestine, which is a genuine war, I would view accidental civilian casualties on a different level. But Bush's war is not even close, and its casualties do not deserved to be minimized in the same fashion.

The only problem with the Hitler comparison is that people tend to remember the "genocide" component of Hitler more than all the other bad things, and I don't really think Bush is heading toward genocide.

When Bush is compared to Hitler in the future, I would look at Hitler's insane nationalism and pride, his expansionist militarism, and his willingness to warp the facts and step on treaties in order to export his ideology to the rest of the German nation and even to others in the world (Vichy French, Palestinian, Bosnian Muslims, etc). There you will, in four years, find some accurate comparisons with Bush.

 

[mindspell]

My thinking was that Hitler came up with the genocide BECAUSE of his expansionism. Jews were easy victims, they had money, they were hated by a large portion of every nation in Europe, Anti-Semitism was already rampant everywhere. It was the perfect strategy to invade every european country and recruit in every single one of them.

Bush has terrorism for that, and it might be even more dangerous because it is a much more blurry category than judaism.

 

[xfer]

Right. Hitler did not rise to power and invade other countries in order to effect his secret agenda of killing Jews. He just had the idea that the way to invade other countries and rise to power would be by making people focus their energies on hating the Jews.