If you think President Bush is a Nazi, then you MUST think Clinton is, too.
The point has been made in recent years that President George W. Bush is a Nazi/fascist. This is the typical rhetoric of children who know nothing of politics but feel that calling someone a fascist will help them look sophisticated.…
Article comments
26 - sr
Doc your a kind man. Will remember you in my will.
sr. Chief of the Pussy Willow Tribe on the plain's of tall grass and corn where beautiful naked indian women roam free and no white man we can see. HOME ON THE RANGE.
27 - Media Tycoon
Well I know that in India you are often judged by the actions of your relatives. They do that in a lot of backwards places around the world.
However, in America we judge people not on their ancestors but by the content of THEIR character.
BTW...did you know Bill Clinton's brother is a drunk...so that must mean that Bill is also guilty of this crime. Maybe we should stone them all to death. Or maybe we should just burn them all alive.
As for big business...
As a libertarian, I disagree with any sort of welfare - corporate or social. My point is not that Clinton is bad and Bush is good. It is mostly that they are BOTH bad. Corporations had no bid contracts under Clinton as well. In fact, he gave no bid contracts to Halliburton.
Trust me, I am open to changing my mind. I have on a lot of things. However, no one has ever demonstrated that president Bush and his "fascist" policies are any worse than Clintons.
28 - Media Tycoon
And btw, although they are fairly rare, I am against no-bid contracts. The point is, President Bush didn't invent them. To believe that is to be...dumb.
29 - alessandro Nicolo
Um, has anyone bothered to MR to South America's own history of genocide which actually was a deliberate process? Yeah, the Spanish and Portuguese were really enlightened when it came to that subject. They left behind a basket case (I can just feel her cheeks turing red with fury) in many respects.
I can't speak for South America but I know here in the North great efforts are being made to make amends for our often shameful behaviour to integrate Natives. Part of that strategy is to empower and help preserve various Native communities. We're already seeing results of this. At least, it's recognized. Needless to say, I am sure Natives want more to be done.
Of course, someone can cynically dismiss this for there remains a lot of work to be done. Many serious issues need to be addressed but at least the interest and awareness is there.
I learnt all of this on 'North of 60.'
In any event, are we not all a result of some form of clash of civilizations - genocide or otherwise? Cultures have been colliding for thousands of years. Just look at the clash of the Romano-Germics world and how it led to what we see in modern Europe in terms of countries?
I'm pretty sure that even though I'm Italian in heritage and Canadian as defined by my nation-state, that I have many a cultures running through my veins.
There's no such thing, for the most part I think, as a pure race in its purest sense. Unless, you are a hidden tribe nestled in a jungle somewhere isolated from the world. But I am sure an anthropologist or archeologist can correct me here.
30 - alessandro Nicolo
I meant 'Germanic' world. Typo.
31 - bliffle
Media:
"...no one has ever demonstrated that president Bush and his "fascist" policies are any worse than Clintons."
Well, oldtime republicans used to expect that they would be better, that the rectitude and responsibility of experienced businessmen would result in superior policies, superior honesty and superior government efficiency.
Alas, for our dreams! We have a phony with no business experience who has never accepted responsibility and whose reign is as corrupt (gasp!) as the democrats! Not only that, he has the democrats proclivity for starting wars!
Oh! Shame be upon the Witless Ones who elevated this oaf to power, and even greater shame upon those who defend him still.
32 - Media Tycoon
Again, I expect better from Bush. There are dozens of things I would change if I could. However, I expect that from every president. My point isnt that Bush is good. Just that he is not exceptionally bad.
The reason I do this is because it seems that a lot of people say "Bush has done "x, y, and z" and that is EXTREMELY BAD for our country. Implying that these things have never been done before, or even that they are new. My point is that they are not new or even the exception. It is business as usual.
33 - alessandro Nicolo
"The reason I do this is because it seems that a lot of people say "Bush has done "x, y, and z" and that is EXTREMELY BAD for our country. Implying that these things have never been done before, or even that they are new. My point is that they are not new or even the exception. It is business as usual."
Absolutely. The hysteria around him is quelled after one actually examines the history of America and American Presidents. Even his foreign policy doesn't deviate all that much - if at all. Taken as a whole Bush is ho-hum in many ways.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton made some decisions that could have led to the same reactions we are seeing by the anti-Bush crowd. It seem sthey hang on his every move. Would they do the same for their preferred leader?
34 - Shaun
Media Tycoon - Yes, backwards place... I was just saying my grandfather didn't own slaves (like you suggested) - I was born in America by the way, thanks for calling my culture backwards.
There's a difference between character (alcoholism, honor, principles), and a family trend or staked interest.
The Bush's have always been corrupt, SINCE Grand daddy Bush - that was my point.
Prescott Bush financed Nazi party and traded them up and into WW2.
George Bush Sr. funded Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and the Taliban. Why? Oh yeah, to destabilize then current regimes and gain control of the oil in the region. Didn't quite work though. Also look into ties between Bush Sr. and Bechtel.
George W. - used unconfirmed CIA data (read: unreliable) to justify a war on Iraq, really a war of aggression. Research how the oil is being divided in Iraq by the way (funny how a council of oil companies get to authorize bids from themselves). Also, George W. is responsible for a huge number of unconstitutional executive orders & resolutions to be passed. (Yes it involves corruption in Congress too, don't get me started... but he's the President, the buck stops here they say).
I could talk for hours about the corruption in that family and how they've used our country. Oh one last thing - why do you think they're so buddy buddy with Saudis? Oh yeah, the Saudi royals funded the Bush's personal business ventures in exchange for letting them use our country. Look it up, it's all there sir.
Again, not to say Clinton is better - I think the whole government is so corrupt it's sick. But hey, let's talk about the latest poll on abortions and gay marriage, because that's so much more important.
35 - Shaun
By the way - point 13 in your essay proves that checks & balances WORKED in Clinton's era; he was caught for his vices and indiscretions.
and point 14 is ridiculous - how can you compare campaign funding to rigging actual votes & ballots?
I think campaign financing needs huge reform, don't get me wrong - but I'm almost positive every politician is guilty of it. Even George W's campaign money came in large quantities from Saudis, through lawyers to legalize it. (e.g. Saudi prince gives lawyers $$$, lawyers contribute to Bush campaign)
36 - Media Tycoon
Ok the backwards thing was out of line. I admit. I just got mad.
As for 14...from everything I have read, I do not believe Bush stole either the 2000 or 2004 election. Some may not agree with the Supreme Court decision in Bush V Gore, but their is no real evidence that Bush was personally involved in a rigging of the election.
What Clinton actually did regarding fundraising appears to be about the same as Bush. There is a lot of talk about corruption possible corruption, but none linked directly to the president.
The only major difference between the two is that we know for a fact that serious illegal activity happened in the 96 election. I am not sure we can say that about 2000 or 2004.