a question of fairness?

Question

often i hear of people attributing george bush to hitler, maybe its because he convinced congress to o.k. going to war but other presidents have done the same thing and not recieved as much ire as him.

this kind of thing has happened so often that it is now cool to say hateful remarks about the president at my high school i see this all the time. surely people can explain their stance instead of f**k you!

Im with you on that Bob "i don't care who the president is i would stand up if they entered the room"

Answer 1

Name calling is childish when anyone does it. Usually, the people who do it are ignorant and cannot come up with anything better to say.

Answer 2

There is more than war to this, study the writings of Hermann Goering ""Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
The fear "factor" is a big component of the attitudes expressed about Mr. Bush. The over all fear from the general population is that we are capitulating back to a horrible time when a complacent population allowed atrocities to occur in their name
Laws like the Patriotic Act (great name but is that what it really is?
Warrant less Wire Tapping (against a Constitutional guarantee of freedom of search)
The endless secrecy behind national policy making ESPECIALLY when it goes against the majority will

That's how we end up equating the current occupant with former regimes

Answer 3

The only potentially valid grounds for the analogy has nothing to do with the war or their political party.

Note -- as much as I disapprove of Bush, I do not consider him anywhere close to the same league has Hitler. The below is just an explanation of the analogy some people propose.


Bush and Hitler share one common trait. Both believe in their own infallibility, and both believe because of that infallibility that they should have final decision making power.

Hitler achieved this by taking over his country, and changing it from a republic to a tyranny. Thus, gaining supreme power.

Bush attempted to achieve this by causing Congress to give him all kinds of power, and by refuting any attempts by Congress or the Courts to impose checks and balances.

Bush's concept of the Unitary Executive is that the President has ultimate final authority, and both other branches are lesser. Hitler didn't allow other branches at all.

Answer 4

I have wondered about this from day one of Bush's presidency. The hate began when he took office and never stopped. For about 15 minutes, right after 9/11, people supported him. Since then, nothing pleases them. If he does something that normally they'd support, they dismiss it as some plot to do something dastardly somewhere else. I think its just fashionable to hate Bush right now. If you ask people why, you'll probably just get canned slogans that the liberal blog spew all the time. No president can please everybody, but even so the presidency should be respected. The buffoon who preceded Bush got respect and he was the laughingstock of the world. It seem the louder the wailing, the more extreme the stance is. I'm just sick of the whole business. The office of President should be respected regardless of who holds it.

Answer 5

George Bush is the polar opposite of Hitler. Hitler was born into modest means, Bush was born into wealth. Hitler fought for his country as an enlisted soldier. Bush evaded combat as an officer. Hitler was self-educated, forming his ideas from reading philosophy, tactics, and politics. Bush attended Ivy League schools and had a C average. He admits that he doesn't read, and is suspected of being dyslectic. Hitler formed his party through force of will and personality. Bush assumed his role through the cronies of his father. Hitler openly propagated his beliefs and convinced his countrymen to follow them. Bush uses obfuscation, trickery, and closed-door meetings to administer his views. Hitler promoted the ascension of his people as the dominant force for world politics. Bush promotes corporations, and their interests, as the driving force behind his politics. In short, Hitler was a self-made man, while Bush relys on cronyism and his inherited position. Hitler was a much better leader and accomplished far more in his life, given his start, than George Bush has. Bush pales in comparison to Hitler.

Answer 6

i think george bush is the worst one cause now bush is hated in all over the world not in us only and that because of the unfairness war on some islamic countries without any reasons or false reasons

Answer 7

I agree with you but youre young and you have to understand this. Life is not fair, people dont care, and one day you and everyone you know is gonna die. If I were to take something from this its that the world belongs to the strong. People with talent who make proper use of it and know the right people to work with.

Answer 8

i think that leaders go stale and pass their sell by date same here in the uk with blair we all want a nice new broom to sweep our house and keep it clean

Answer 9

It wouldnt be such a uproar if it was a dem doing it...
the libs are just P!ssy because they didnt think of it first!!
so they just go cry in mommies apron hug trees and smoke weed......
oh yeah and cry on yahoo answers...
like someone really cares

Answer 10

How have you NOT noticed?