Hitler or Bush? Osama is small change next to Bush's death and destruction. Iraqis go to get a carton of milk and get blown to bits! Soldiers die in gutters everyday for oil and war profits. Kids its never been about freedom, grow the heck up, its $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ you naive idiots.
2007-07-18 13:29:50 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Wow.... Watch out with all this truth.. You know how truth angers the Neo-Cons. They only like to hear spin and Rhetoric, like Fox News.
2007-07-18 13:34:09 · answer #1 · answered by usefulidiot230 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hitler slaughtered millions, and WWII was quite hard on the environment. George Bush has not yet killed a million (only 750,000 Iraqi civilians have died needlessly since our occupation). Although Bush has been very hard on our environment, it is hard to say that the billions yet to die from the after effects of global warming would not have died anyway if someone equally as incompetent had not become in charge of US (and hence global) environmental policy.
Avg_Human--you are completely right. I notice "USA Today" headlines--Dow Jones averages break 14,000. In an adjacent column only a fraction of the disputed government war contracts are withheld. Why no one seems to see the reason the "economy is booming" is tied to half trillion dollar annual federal deficits simply astounds me.
Dekardkain: Osama killed 3000 Americans. Bush has waxed 750,000 Iraqi and Afghani civilians, and perhaps a billion more around the world may perish as the effects of his environmental deprivations settle in.
Mathassignment: I have fought long and hard against unprovoked war and against this administration's war against the environment, science, logic, and reason. Yes, I pay taxes, but I don't see how I can be held responsible for the 2000 election shenanigans or the 2004 GOP "swift boat" tactical lies that may have cost Kerry the election. Not that Kerry would have made a good president. But even a really bad president like John Kerry would have been significantly superior to who we suffer now.
Yeah--that is a good idea. Make ME responsible for the antics of someone I opposed at almost every possible turn.
2007-07-18 20:40:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No matter how advanced your case of BDS, you souldn't be comparing the accomplishments of the Fuerer with this piker, Bush. Hitler didn't just get elected and make some bad decisions, he converted a democracy into a fascist dictatorship, orchestrated the attempted genocide of an entire race, succeeded in systematically snuffing out some 10 million lives, and started a world war that devestated an entire continent (I mean, if you consider Europe a continent, even though it's attached to Asia - not that Asia exactly escaped unscathed).
All your precious George Dubya has accomplished is the slight curtailment of a few rights in his own country, and a war that hasn't even managed to kill million yet - even counting all concieveable casualties no matter how ancilliary. Has he put millions of people into concentration camps yet? Where is his Night of Long Knives? His Mein Kampf?
To compare Bush to Hitler - really, to compare anyone except, perhaps Comrade Stalin, to him - shows a complete lack of apreciation for the enormity of evil it takes to be a truely accomplished genocidal fascist dictator.
2007-07-18 20:48:48 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd have to go with Hitler, but not through any love of Bush.
The influenza epidemic of 1918 was pretty horrible, too.
But the bubonic plague still holds the #1 slot, what with wiping out between 20% and 50% of the population.
2007-07-18 20:35:11 · answer #4 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Bush and the neocons have made the world hate the USA and we will be targets for years to come. But Haliburton has made a fortune. Hey. Are they still planning on leaving the US to avoid investigations of war profiteering?
2007-07-18 20:37:32 · answer #5 · answered by expose_neocons 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Who cares anymore? This last vote in the Senate drew the line in the sand about who wants to continue this bloodbath... and it AIN'T the Democrats. The Republicans can sink with Iraq. They've been warned a million times what would happen. So long, GOP.
2007-07-18 20:37:20 · answer #6 · answered by Gemini 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Since you are a US citizen and pay taxes, are you not also then responsible for all those people you say Bush is killing. Why don't you go to a nice country like Venezuela or Cuba?
2007-07-18 20:38:27 · answer #7 · answered by leo 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
One, we're not killing most of the Iraqis that die in bombings, terrorists and insurgents are. Two, how exactly can you compare 3000 American lives to the millions people like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot killed? Seriously, I am not George Bush's biggest fan, but when people like you make comparisons like this, it just shows how out of your depth you really are.
2007-07-18 20:35:29 · answer #8 · answered by Dekardkain 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
i thinks politics are stupid right now they are arguing about a aquarium in Chicago wow what a bunch of bull ****
2007-07-18 20:34:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
george w bush
2007-07-18 20:33:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋