In January of this year MoveOn.org got into trouble because in a contest for making AntiBush commercials a contributor created an ad that compared Bush to Hitler. Article here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107426,00.html

Now if you go here: http://www.georgewbush.com/Default.aspx and click the WATCH button you can view a video that compares Kerry, Gore, Moore, Dean and Gephardt to Hitler.

Pot meet kettle...kettle meet pot.


Mark

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Skywalker...You know...that metaphor/phrase or what ever it is, is used waaay to much on this forum. I will agree though that neither candidate can be compared to hitler....I would compare Kerry to many people but as far as I know he has not been responsible for Genocide or starting any world wars.</font>

Not by me....lately anyway.

Mark

I will agree though that neither candidate can be compared to hitler

no, kerry could best be compared, if to any nazi, as an underling... i mean, he only supports the wholesale deaths of 43 million babies since roe v wade, but he didnt start it, and he certainly isnt the formost figure in it.

My point is...why is it not okay to compare Bush, but okay to compare any of the Democrats I listed?

promethius9594, I guess since I also support a woman's right to choose, I am akin to a Nazi as well?

Mark

:::coughs the phrase "emergency powers":::

I don't get it. It doesn't seem to be comparing them to Hitler at all. In fact, the footage of Hitler is used in juxtaposition with Bush.

Maybe the ad is saying that the 'wild eyed' ravings of the Democratic party just can't succeed in equating the action in Iraq(action anywhere for that matter) or President Bush, with Hitler as was tried earlier this year.

If there is a comparison between the Democrats and Hitler in the ad, what is it? ;)

I guess since I also support a woman's right to choose, I am akin to a Nazi as well?

no, you'd just be a citizen. (j/k, of course). 43 million babies though, man, thats ALOT of dead kids.

Ah yes, the endless comparisons of politician X to Hitler followed by the quick retraction to avoid political fallout. Doesn't it get tiresome? Really, there are only a few people in recent history that could ever be compared legitimately to Hitler. As for the rest of it, he was a human being in political office, so there will always be *some* way to compare him to other people in political office. It's too bad Bush's detractors (I admit I am at least partially one) can't come up with more original and useful ways to criticize him. Off-the-wall statements like that just make them look like lunatics with no grasp of proportion.

And I will not touch the abortion issue with a 39 1/2 foot pole.

Yeah, Aerich is right...why can't we just compare Bush to a bad president instead of the "worst person of all time besides satan." Why not call him an Andrew Jackson ripoff, or a stupid, impulsive version of Woodrow Wilson, or an imperialist like Teddy Roosevelt? Those comparisons are closer to being relevant.

It's not as much fun, that would make him human and we can't have any of that going on. He's got to be as close to the anti-Christ as possible. ;)

Yes, rationalism in politics is heresy. [img]smile.gif[/img]

They aren't babies, they are fetuses and part of a woman's body.

This thread is derailing ! Let's start another one on abortion !

(Hehe, mods will hate me)

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Well mainly because heisn't a bad president for starters, And we as a whole are neither Imperialists nor empire oriented....any suggestion that we are would be just ignorant..so we can toss out that theory now. The comparisons you made may be closer to being relevent but just as false. Strike 1.
</font>

They aren't babies, they are fetuses and part of a woman's body. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
So then you are against late term partial birth Abortions Chewie? Since as part of the abortion process they are partially delivered from the womans body and in many cases capable of survivng ...if they did not have their spinal cords severed that is.....Right? I mean once the head is out...can you say its part of the womans body?</font>

For you Magik (and others as well if they wanna answer), what previous president has been a bad one (if any) and why ?

And for once Magik, I agree with you. Things would have been handled very differently if the US were indeed imperialists and just that. They are just doing what they think is good for them...in a very wrong way.

Why not call him an Andrew Jackson ripoff

funny you should mention this... andrew jackson is only a few steps higher than hitler on the crappy people list. lest we not forget, he used the military to force the indians on the trail of tears where they were marched to death, less than half of those who left arrived. when congress tried to stop them he sent a letter asking which army they intended to use.

OH NO, wait, let me put on my rose colored glasses and... what indians, there were indians in america? naw, they've always lived on reservations, and andrew jackson is just some great guy on the twenty dollar bill. thats right, the only bad guys in the world are hitler and the guys alive in america today.

instead of the "worst person of all time besides satan."

okay, hitler is up there, but im not sure you could call him the worst person of all time. egyptions lorded over the hebrews for much longer, and millions of hebrews died in the decades it took to build the pyramids. nero ceasar and his persecution of the christians nearly wiped an entire religion from the world. russia starved, abducted, or cold bloodedly slaughtered a third of its population. china allowed 20 million to starve, and in eighteen years, estimates show that sadam was responsible for 12 million deaths... 4 million more than the total number who died in concentration camps. we live in a world of bad dudes, not just one.

They aren't babies, they are fetuses and part of a woman's body.

oh, sure, and the jews arent human, theyre part of a conspiracy to bring germany down. OH, and the kurds, they arent human, they dont even have a country. Lets not forget the black slaves, they weren't human, they were black.

justify it however you want... what you consider "enlightened" perspective is just barbarianism recycled.

[ 06-26-2004, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: promethius9594 ]

The worst man in the entire worlds history is Lenin. The maniac started it all, the Gulags the executions and the siberia transports. He had no teachers, unlike Hitler and Stalin. I find it interesting-every one says that hitler was an evil man (he was indeed), but forget the more obvious evilry-the USSR commies.

On topic now: Is not there a law in USA that will permit Kerry to sue the film makers? Law about making a bad name or something. If not, there is a need to promulgate one.

*sigh*
I'm really, really tired of below-the-belt argumentations like the one quoted above. I could say about a million things right now, but good chance you won't listen to them anyway - I suppose that's why religious topics were banned in current events. Really, let's not go there and just let the subject rest already. No use beating that horse fetus, it was never alive to begin with. ;)

[ 06-26-2004, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

To quote Penn Jilette:
"I don't wanna sound like Mel Gibson's dad here, but we can't find any evidence of that. None. Really, none. Floods we find, but enslaved jews in Egypt? Nowhere outside of the [*beep*] Bible."*


That's a bit of a stretch - even the most negative reports don't get any further than 1 million deaths Saddam was responsible for, and that includes 500,000 Iraqis wo died in the war with Iran and those who died during the Gulf War. Source.*

<font size=0> * Penn & Teller's Bullshit, Season 2, episode 6.
** I don't necessarily imply that I agree with all of John F. Burns's calculations and conclusions (even though Saddam was a cruel dictator either way, period), just that this is one of the more extreme death counts I was able to find.</font>

[ 06-26-2004, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Well that's my sense of humour theory shot down in flames!

Once again, my point is wht can they use images of Hitler in their video, but cry foul when it was used by a Democrat on MoveOn.org? It's part of a pattern of hypocrisy.

Mark

Well, if you have clips or footage of Hitler in a political campaign ad, and in the same ad show clips or footage of your political opponenets, the intentions are clear. ;)

[ 06-26-2004, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

Why didn't you follow you own advice? But NO you had to throw in that last part about: "it was never alive to begin with." The smilie doesn't cut it, it's just an attempt to diguise the below-the-belt parting shot as a joke. Why should anybody be willing to listen to any agruements posed, when there is a accusation about them not listening, meaning they are hard headed and close minded yet a parting shot has to be fired? If there is such and open mind why make a parting shot? If there is confidence in one's position why stoop to making a cheap parting shot? Just some questions to think about, if they are answered or not doesn't matter.

[ 06-26-2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

For you Magik (and others as well if they wanna answer), what previous president has been a bad one (if any) and why ?

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Jimmy Carter comes to mind as being the president with the singular worst record while in office in modern times. During his term the economy was truely aweful with double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, our military was cut and training was ignored to the point were the US could not even fly it's helicopters in dusty areas without having them crash....Economicly and Militarily he failed big time, he was unable to do anything about the Hostages in IRAN (and please do not bring up all those conspiracy theories about Reagan arranging that before he became president)

Lyndon Johnson was not great success either he was one of the direct causes of the mess the US Military was in in Vietnam, I think the two of them are without a doubt the two true failures while in office.

As matters of opinion on philosophical matters I think President CLinton was a bad president...Nuclear secrets being sold, Missile tech being sold to china and a complete failure to realize the significant threat terrorists posed for the nation....however he did manage some good things while in office...he didn't stop the GOP on their Welfare reform and also supported most of the GOP's contract with America...or at least didn't oppose it..and basicly took a hands off approach to the economy...so its hard to evaluate his goodness or badness as a president...(and really you need to wait 10 or 12 years for some things to come out to make a really informed decision as there are ALWAYS secrets involved that the press and public do NOT know about).

For winning the War and getting us out of the Depression Roosevelt was a good president...however he got us into a really bad situation we face now with too many people thinking welfare is a way of life...and HE is directly responsible for the Soviets posing as greast a threat to the world as they did since Against the advice of his security advisors he put Soviet Spies into positions of power in the government and allowed them access to our biggest military and technology secrets....the press used to really lambaste anyone brought this information up, but in 1990's secret government documents were released that proved beyond a doubt that those people were in FACT soviet spies...and Roosevelt had been told as much....so was he a good or bad president? I would say for building the Soviets into what they were by allowing Spies into the government....I think that makes him guilty of a serious crime.....so anyway....as for presidents before World War II...there were many bad ones..but I don't have my history notes handy to delve into to relate the hows and whys.</font>


</font>[/QUOTE]

Well that's my sense of humour theory shot down in flames! </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
You have a sense of humor?</font>

And here I thought you of all people had at least some sense of humour...
Look, I don't *care* about debating abortion; I don't think I ever *really* debated it with someone in my entire life. I don't *care* about the tiresome and circular semantic nitpicking as to in what status the foetus is considered to be alive or not (I think that entire discussion is retarded to begin with, hence the remark). I may be pro-choice by default because I'm of the opinion that every person has to decide for themselves whether they think having an abortion is a moral thing to do or not, depending on the circumstances; but I'm not the kind of person to force my views on this particular matter onto others.
The remark was a playful, lighthearted joke. Nothing less, nothing more.

[ 06-26-2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Well that's my sense of humour theory shot down in flames! </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
You have a sense of humor?</font> </font>[/QUOTE]you want him to get it out ?

"I don't wanna sound like Mel Gibson's dad here, but we can't find any evidence of that. None. Really, none. Floods we find, but enslaved jews in Egypt? Nowhere outside of the [*beep*] Bible."

really, what hebrew slaves were the ones who built the pyramids then? i mean, archeolgists all agree that there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions of slaves involved in building the egyption temples. again, if the bible is the only historical record, throwing it out doesnt make your hypothesis any more accurate, especially since the study of archeology seems to agree... although if penn and tellar are the magicians i'm thinking of, then maybe TV magic has taught them something all the scholars dont know yet.

That's a bit of a stretch - even the most negative reports don't get any further than 1 million deaths Saddam was responsible for, and that includes 500,000 Iraqis wo died in the war with Iran and those who died during the Gulf War.

the source fails, right off the bat, to include the nearly 800,000 kurds who were killed by the iraqis, nor the number of kuwaitis who died, nor the number of iranians who died because of saddam. it only accounts for iraqi lives lost... and even then it doesnt include all the factors over the 18 years that Saddam ruled iraq, such as those who's ears he had cut off, and then allowed them to starve to death because no one would sell them food.

I'm really, really tired of below-the-belt argumentations like the one quoted above... I suppose that's why religious topics were banned in current events

first off, i didnt say anything religious in what you responded to. i simply noted that the line of thought that a fetus isnt human resembles the nazi dehumanization of the jews. it wasnt under the belt, it was a good point and it rubbed you the wrong way because it struck too close to home and you dont know how to refute it without trying to red herring it as a "below the belt" attack. as i seem to do alot lately, i suggest you read the cool off message from the moderators and respond with logic, not simple complaint.

If there is confidence in one's position why stoop to making a cheap parting shot?

agreed, but defense mechanisms are GREAT arent they?

[I'm making an exception today since I am bored and GD is slow and I'm going to post in the snakepit that is Current Events... ]


You are not a human, until you are in my phonebook
-Bill Hicks


As for the original question, I hate to defend the Bush machine but I watched both ads and the Hitler footage in the second one is the first ad. I think their point was to show all "naysayers" and "pessimists"... ie those who don't support Bush. I don't think they were trying to compare them to Hitler though.

[ 06-26-2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Jorath Calar ]