The Reagans

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
So you're okay with Bush's family funding the Nazi's? That's not disrepesctful or tragic? But you're not okay with someone who was actually there giving their take on the situation?

I again counter by saying in hindsight it is easy to judge. Moreover, America itself made money off of Nazi Germany. So, while I do think the Bush family has been in some shady deals, the Nazi thing is a bit of a red herring to me because most American corp.'s were doing business with them, which I am pretty sure was legal at the time.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
It's funny... I was a liberal lonnng before I ever knew the term.

As a kid I would silently listen to the people around me, and their thoughts and opinions, and I just knew that I didn't agree with most of the things they said.

And not those piddly conversations about things like taxes, but more important matters like race relations, homosexuality, abortion, single parent families, etc.

So later in my high school Civics class, it was like a light-bulb going off: "Ahh, ok, so I'm a "liberal!"

Of course, not all conservatives feel that homosexuals should be denied the right to marry, or that Affirmative Action is a bad thing... and I actually have a viewpoint on capital punishment (I'm for it), that's more in keeping with the conservative opinion on the matter... but based on the overall belief system of both groups, I'm far more comfortable being called a liberal.

It's the same thing for me with religion... I'm not about to give my
"seal of approval" to a group that has some radically different viewpoints from mine, even if I agree with other things they stand for.

That's why I always say that, even if it was for just one reason... being gay... there's no way that I could, in good conscience, be a conservative or a Republican, when their standard view on homosexuality is that, "we must love the sinner, but hate the sin."

And yes, I realize that not all conservatives/Republicans feel that way, but it is the party's overall stance on the matter, and there's no way that I could ever support a group with that narrow-minded outlook.

(Of course, Jason and I have gone around and around on this before... but like I've told him, I'm still more confident that a liberal/Democrat, or an Independent, would fight for the things that are important to our lives, than I am that a conservative/Republican ever would.)

[Mad4stevie]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
So you're okay with Bush's family funding the Nazi's? That's not disrepesctful or tragic? But you're not okay with someone who was actually there giving their take on the situation?

No - what I am saying is that to compare Bush to Hitler is, in my opinion, disrespectful to the millions whose families were torn apart by the Holocaust. If any leader in present time can even remotely compare it would be Sadaam himself.

In my opinion, Hitler was evil. And while some on this board may have the opinion that Bush is . . . well, I just don't see the comparison in terms of "evilness".

This person can give their opinion, no matter how disrepectful, because he lives here, and not in a police state. I respect his right to give his opinion, I just don't agree with it.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
No - what I am saying is that to compare Bush to Hitler is, in my opinion, disrespectful to the millions whose families were torn apart by the Holocaust. If any leader in present time can even remotely compare it would be Sadaam himself.

In my opinion, Hitler was evil. And while some on this board may have the opinion that Bush is . . . well, I just don't see the comparison in terms of "evilness".

This person can give their opinion, no matter how disrepectful, because he lives here, and not in a police state. I respect his right to give his opinion, I just don't agree with it.

Besides, Hitler was known as one of the great orators in recent history. He was a captivating and motivating speaker who could raise a stoic room into a frenzy with the tone of his voice. He also attempted a military coup d'état, instigated the conquest and annexation of neighboring countries on the principles racial and national superiority, and, escalated, to the point of liquidation, the subjugation of an entire race of people. He had complete control over government decision-making without any checks and balances.

Uh…Bush won a close election and was handed a failing economy punctuated by one of the deadliest attacks on American soil in its history and he isn’t the best public speaker. But, at this time, the economy is realizing a complete turn-around. The US has taken a proactive stance to combat the sources of terrorism throughout the world, which was provoked by 9/11 (whether you agree or disagree with it). And, most recently, the immigration reform proposal, which is something that Hitler would NEVER have been for. (and I can’t say I agree with it)

I’m sorry, what are the comparisons again??

Rob

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Rob67
Besides, Hitler was known as one of the great orators in recent history. He was a captivating and motivating speaker who could raise a stoic room into a frenzy with the tone of his voice. He also attempted a military coup d'état, instigated the conquest and annexation of neighboring countries on the principles racial and national superiority, and, escalated, to the point of liquidation, the subjugation of an entire race of people. He had complete control over government decision-making without any checks and balances.

Uh…Bush won a close election and was handed a failing economy punctuated by one of the deadliest attacks on American soil in its history and he isn’t the best public speaker. But, at this time, the economy is realizing a complete turn-around. The US has taken a proactive stance to combat the sources of terrorism throughout the world, which was provoked by 9/11 (whether you agree or disagree with it). And, most recently, the immigration reform proposal, which is something that Hitler would NEVER have been for. (and I can’t say I agree with it)

I’m sorry, what are the comparisons again??

Rob

Agreed on these points. Where I think the similarities, albeit vague IMO, exist are in the current police state in the US regarding "enemy combatants" and similar instances. American citizens are being hauled away and basically never seen again - they have no rights - no lawyer, no visitation, nothing. That is Hitleresq. Also, the "Patriot Act" does lessen the Constitutional Rights of Americans from illegal searches and seizures. On the flip side, these acts in no way approach the horrors of WWII Germany in that no one is being shot in the streets for being gay or Jewish, etc., no one is having medical testing done on them with no regard for their life, no one's skin is being made into lampshades, and no genocide is occuring.

Similarly, the invasion of Iraq could be viewed as a move of aggression by the US to dominiate and conquer the Arab world. I do not see it that way because, as I have stated before, after 9/11, America could not let SH, as he had done for 11 or so years, string the world along by not proving he had destroyed his WMD (the world through the UN unanimously agreed SH had WMD). However, the current administration's willingness to invade Iraq without the support of the UN and the false reasons for the exigency of the invasion (SH had nukes) does suggest a sort of bloodlust. Personally, I think the invasion of Iraq, though warranted by SH uncooperative attitude, was in some part meant to divert the attention of Americans from the administrations failure to find Osma BL. But, people view the invasion of Iraq as tantamount to Hitler's invasion of Poland. IMO, history suggests the two events cannot be compared. Conversly, our appeasement of SH was similar to the world's appeasement of Hitler.

Food for Thought!

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I again counter by saying in hindsight it is easy to judge. Moreover, America itself made money off of Nazi Germany. So, while I do think the Bush family has been in some shady deals, the Nazi thing is a bit of a red herring to me because most American corp.'s were doing business with them, which I am pretty sure was legal at the time.

Sure it was legal. However, as you know, in 1950 Harriman and Bush each got a payout of 1.5 million dollars. The Holocaust survivors? They got zip. I don't recall hearing about them offering those people any of their war booty.
As I have said before, their wealth is in large part due to this. 1.5 million would be quite a bit in today's money.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67

Uh…Bush won a close election and was handed a failing economy punctuated by one of the deadliest attacks on American soil in its history and he isn’t the best public speaker. But, at this time, the economy is realizing a complete turn-around.

Rob

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/bu...08FUND.html?th

I.M.F. Says Rise in U.S. Debts Is Threat to World's Economy

"Prepared by a team of I.M.F. economists, the report sounded a loud alarm about the shaky fiscal foundation of the United States, questioning the wisdom of the Bush administration's tax cuts and warning that large budget deficits pose "significant risks" not just for the United States but for the rest of the world.
The report warns that the United States' net financial obligations to the rest of the world could be equal to 40 percent of its total economy within a few years — "an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country," according to the fund, that could play havoc with the value of the dollar and international exchange rates."

The markets are also weak this morning on the news that initial jobless claims rose last week.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Sure it was legal. However, as you know, in 1950 Harriman and Bush each got a payout of 1.5 million dollars. The Holocaust survivors? They got zip. I don't recall hearing about them offering those people any of their war booty.
As I have said before, their wealth is in large part due to this. 1.5 million would be quite a bit in today's money.

Perhaps, but if you want to "go there" so to speak , then the entire nation of Switzerland should be divided up and given to the Jewish people whose property (and we are talking billions of dollars here) was taken by the Nazis and has never been returned to this day. Everyone knows it is there, but no one will return it due to legal technicalities like no one can confirm it was stolen because the only people who know that were gassed or cooked in a concentration camp. The whole thing just sickens me.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401070805.asp

January 07, 2004, 8:05 a.m.
Of Course They Think Bush Is a Nazi

"George Soros, the billionaire financier who is MoveOn's most generous benefactor (in November, he gave the site $2.5 million) has compared the Bush administration to the Third Reich. Soros, who was born in Hungary and grew up under both Nazi and Soviet domination, told the Washington Post last November, "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." He added, "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me." Soros repeated his accusations in his new book, The Bubble of American Supremacy."

Let's all remember one thing:

I made that comparison first, right here on this very board.



PS: You're probably right about living on the liberal east coast. In MA, you couldn't walk down the street and find more than two Republicans, and their votes are the swing votes.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Let's all remember one thing:

I made that comparison first, right here on this very board.

and it is still incorrect and unfair spin

Once again, how many Jews and gays are being gassed today? How many newspapers are being forced to print propaganda?

[strandinthewind]

Another view on the WMD and quite a slam. actually, on the Bush Administration if not the prior administration as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/spr...ort/index.html

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
and it is still incorrect and unfair spin

Once again, how many Jews and gays are being gassed today? How many newspapers are being forced to print propaganda?

It depends on what you call propaganda. How about the Wall Street Journal? No one said Bush was murdering anybody. We just said there were similarities in the regimes. Other people made the Holocaust leap.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Another view on the WMD and quite a slam. actually, on the Bush Administration if not the prior administration as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/spr...ort/index.html

Yes but it wasn't Clintons idea to invade, er, liberate Iraq.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It depends on what you call propaganda. How about the Wall Street Journal? No one said Bush was murdering anybody. We just said there were similarities in the regimes. Other people made the Holocaust leap.

I think that most people would correctly infer that calling the leader of the free world another "Hitler" smacks of the holocaust. I mean they certainly weren't noting Bush is a dynamic speaker

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I mean they certainly weren't noting Bush is a dynamic speaker

"I know it''s hard for you to put food on your family."