Why do you still support Bush?

NickFun wrote:

Bush could be considered a small-scale Hitler. He attacked a country without provocation and killed 150,000 innocent people so far. He has bankrupted the US and eliminated many of our civil liberties. I hope this is how history remembers him.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Of course, America has hardly "gone all the way" and is unlikely to become as psychotic as Nazi Germany any time soon. But what do you suppose God thinks of preventative war based upon deception? Or about the use of depleted uranium? Or about dropping napalm on civilians? Are Iraqi insurgents are any less certain that God is on their side than our own Evangelical Marines?

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal thug, but why do so many insist on forgetting that the U.S. helped him to power in the first place? Does God see our role in all of this as lightly as we do? And how many U.S. citizens do you know, who, mired in fear, readily dismiss America's use of torture and rationalize our disregard for international law? What else might they overlook?

In 1937, Hitler said that because of Germany's belief in God and God's favoritism towards Germany, the country would prevail and prosper. "We, therefore, go our way into the future with the deepest belief in God. Would all we have achieved been possible had Providence not helped us? I know that the fruits of human labor are hard-won and transitory if they are not blessed by the Omnipotent. Work such as ours which has received the blessings of the Omnipotent can never again be undone by mere mortals,"he said.

While attempting to solidify his power, Hitler also denounced those who denounced religion -- as if he were talking about Hollywood or blue states or Noam Chomsky. "For eight months we have been conducting a fearless campaign against that Communism which is threatening our entire nation, our culture, our art, and our public morals, "Hitler said in a speech in Oct. 1933. "We have made an end of denials of the Deity and the crying down of religion."

There will be no more crying down of religion in George Bush's America, either. Though oft-repeated assertions made by the media in the immediate aftermath of the election have proven to be nothing more than myth, propagandists would have you believe that the American people have spoken: "Moral values" reign supreme.

But how can any one of us know God's desires -- especially when our enemies claim to have God on their side as well? And doesn't it seem that religious hubris -- believing that God sanctions one's own inhumane treatment of others -- always invites a fall?

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever," Thomas Jefferson said, of the price America would eventually pay for slavery. "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions," Ulysses S. Grant advised, describing karmic retribution without pointing hateful fingers at lesbians.

And long before that, the poet John Milton tried to "justify the ways of God to Man." But yet, the world, with its conflicting visions of morality, ethics and truth, still struggles to comprehend.

Perhaps Truth, for want of a better definition, is what God sees when he looks at any given situation. And perhaps it is ultimately impossible for us to know God's mind. After all, it's obvious that Hitler wasn't telling the truth when he spoke of God and country -- and by the same token, it's difficult to look at Najaf or Fallujah or Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay and see God's hand in any of it.

After one of Bush's operatives promised to "export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation" Bob Woodward wrote: "The president was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God's Master Plan." And sure enough, when Woodward asked Bush if he had discussed the impending invasion of Iraq with his father, President George H.W. Bush (who could have offered sage advice), the President responded: "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength; there is a higher father that I appeal to."

But, without knowing God's mind, most of us have only History to help us judge. And the fact is, without the benefit of History, some of the "moral values" Hitler embraced sound eerily like those being peddled today.

George Bush is not Hitler. America is not Nazi Germany. But buying into religious assertions or thinking that God is on your side is not wise when it comes to matters of war -- particularly when that war is an aggressive preventative war based on false premises and assumptions.

So, aside from Jerry Falwell, who speaks with hate-filled authority, most of us do not know how God will judge us. We will have to settle for History's imperfect record.

All of this begs the question, however. Given his assertions regarding God's role in helping him decide policy ("I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible" Bush told Woodward. . . "I felt so strongly that [invading Iraq] was the right thing to do") how does Bush view the more mundane, secular implications of his actions? When asked by Woodward how History would judge the war in Iraq, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."

I challenge anyone to find the moral value in that.

CI, This pretty much looks like an exhaustive accusation on your part comparing Bush with none other than, Hitler.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, People like you will always be confused about how other people look at presidents and potential presidents. FYI, McCain is not Bush, and Bush is not McCain. See the difference?

So you would have voted for Joseph Goebells? He wasn't Hitler, but he was a supporter of his policies, so is that where we're at now, imposter?

0 Replies

okie, 1) I did not write that post. Show me anywhere where I said "Bush is Hitler?"

Goebels? Your projecting again. I'm sure you would have voted for Hitler and Mao; makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it?

0 Replies

Supporters of Hirohito, Mussolinni and Hitler all fell back on that "I love my country" thing.

0 Replies

okie, If you bother to write "bush = hitler" in any search engine, you'll find thousand sof articles that makes the claim Bush is Hitler or Hitler is Bush. BTW, I was not the author of any of those articles. Here's one example:

From Hitler to Bush

The editor of La República del Uruguay replies to the US ambassador, Martin Silverstein, ( Uruguay ) who had complained about the comparisons the newspaper had drawn between Hitler and Bush.

by Dr. Federico Fasano Mertens

March 30th, 2003 "La República del Uruguay" A few days ago I received a letter from Martin Silverstein, the US ambassador to Uruguay, accusing La República, a publication which I am honoured to edit, of "totally lacking any sense of journalistic integrity" by comparing George Bush, the president of his country, to Adolf Hitler, the chancellor of the Third Reich. Men like Bush believe that crimes are easily swept under the carpet. Wrong. They come back to haunt us.

People are sick of violence. Sick of petty vendettas that pitch groups against one another. They want to see an end to the days of murderers. And if they are led up the garden path, they will react.

The sinister dialogue between master and slave nearly always ends in the ferocity of the slave as he has nothing to lose. Spartacus dixit.

The protests in every corner of the planet do not cease. There has never been an empire so lacking in support as the one today incarnated by this power freak.

But this immense world movement against Bush, only comparable to the world movement against Hitler, has one thing in its favour: the classic cockeyed view of the new messiahs which prevents them from clearly seeing the truth. To be cockeyed is a vicious condition of the eyes where the two visual axes can not hold the same subject at the same time. Reality is then distorted.

The murmur of millions can then become the weapon that stops this madness.

We need not fear these giants who ignore the laws of history. They use cunning more than intelligence, sending them back to the age of dinosaurs, those gigantic animals who developed an enormous body, and a minuscule head. When disaster struck their small heads were incapable of inventing the necessary mutation. Mosquitoes had no trouble.

There's a German saying referring to Hitler which says, "when you see a giant, first look at the position of the sun, make sure you're not looking at the shadow cast by a dwarf". We still cannot say how much of the giant and how much of the dwarf there is in our new Hitler.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Righties keep missing parts of their own dialogue. Bush said Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were the Axis of Evil, and after all these years, Iraq and North Korea has WMDs while Iraq has none - and guess who we attacked?

Talk about incompetence and stupid statements, it comes from only one leader of this world; Bush.

So you are saying that we should attack Iran and North Korea?

0 Replies

mm, You're so stupid, a ten year old knows better than to ask such stupid questions.

Do you?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

mm, You're so stupid, a ten year old knows better than to ask such stupid questions.

Do you?

You need to make up your mind.

You criticize Bush for not attacking NK and Iran,then you say he shouldnt attack them.

0 Replies

mm, I'm 100 percent convinced you're an idiot! I didn't say anything about "criticizing bush for not attacking NK and Iran." I said Bush attacked Iraq based on their WMDs, but had none. Bush is the one that criticized Iraq, Iran and NK as the "axis of evil." Gee, you're dumb: did you graduate from elementary school? But, how? Any sane teacher should have flunked your a##..

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

Supporters of Hirohito, Mussolinni and Hitler all fell back on that "I love my country" thing.

So did the followers of Washington, Joan d'arc and Eisenhower...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

NickFun wrote:
Supporters of Hirohito, Mussolinni and Hitler all fell back on that "I love my country" thing.

So did the followers of Washington, Joan d'arc and Eisenhower...

Actually...not Washington!

I am assuming you are talking about George Washington.

The people saying "I love my country" back during Washington's day...were the conservatives of that day...the Tories...

...who expressed loyalty and love of England and King George.

There was no "country" here for them to love...not that they would have done it anyway. The "liberals"...like Washington, Franklin, Hale, Henry...and that group...would have loved the new country. The conservatives would have stuck with England.

Hey...American conservatives have been on the wrong side of damn near every important issue facing this country...so it makes sense that their silliness started back then.

0 Replies

Here comes Bush's only VETO:

US Senate approves stem cell bill
The US Senate has approved a controversial bill to expand embryonic stem cell research, which President George W Bush has promised to veto.
The measure passed by 63 votes to 37, falling short of the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto.

Opinion polls suggest most Americans back the research, which scientists hope will lead to cures for illnesses like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

But Mr Bush has consistently opposed embryonic research on moral grounds.

The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong
Tony Snow
White House spokesman

The vote came at the end of two days of emotional debates on three separate stem cell bills.

The most controversial bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, scraps limits on federal funding imposed by Mr Bush in 2001.

It has already been passed by the House of Representatives.

The bill was backed by 44 Democrats and 19 Republicans, while 36 Republicans and one Democrat opposed it.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Mr Bush's veto - his first in nearly six years in office - would be "pretty swift".

"He is fulfilling a promise that he has long made and he is keeping it," he said.

The other two - less controversial - bills received unanimous backing from the Senate, and are expected to be signed into law by President Bush.

One encourages stem cell research using cells from sources other than embryos, and the other bill bans the growing and aborting of foetuses for research.

Election issue

In the years since Mr Bush imposed limits on federal funding, pressure has been building for a loosening of restrictions.

Opinion polls suggest almost two-thirds of Americans support the research.

PRESIDENTIAL VETOES
George W Bush: 0
Bill Clinton: 38
George Bush Snr: 44
Ronald Reagan: 78
FD Roosevelt: 635
Thomas Jefferson: 0

Campaigners for stem cell research include prominent Republicans such as Nancy Reagan, whose husband, former President Ronald Reagan, died after a long battle with Alzheimer's.

But Mr Bush - along with many other conservative Republicans - has remained firmly against any change to the law.

"The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong," Tony Snow said.

"The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research."

It seems set to become an issue in November's mid-term congressional elections.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/5193216.stm

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Supporters of Hirohito, Mussolinni and Hitler all fell back on that "I love my country" thing.

So did the followers of Washington, Joan d'arc and Eisenhower...

Actually...not Washington!

I am assuming you are talking about George Washington.

The people saying "I love my country" back during Washington's day...were the conservatives of that day...the Tories...

...who expressed loyalty and love of England and King George.

There was no "country" here for them to love...not that they would have done it anyway. The "liberals"...like Washington, Franklin, Hale, Henry...and that group...would have loved the new country. The conservatives would have stuck with England.

Hey...American conservatives have been on the wrong side of damn near every important issue facing this country...so it makes sense that their silliness started back then.

Give it a rest.

0 Replies

False Dilemma On Stem Cells

By Michael Kinsley
Friday, July 7, 2006; A17

The issue of stem cell research -- which is back before the Senate -- is often described as a moral dilemma, but it simply is not. Or at least it is not the moral dilemma often used in media shorthand: the rights of the unborn vs. the needs of people suffering from diseases that embryonic stem cells might cure. As one of those people myself (I have Parkinson's), I am not an objective analyst of what the U.S. government's continuing near-ban on stem cell research is costing our society and the world. Naturally, I think it's costing too much. No other potential therapy -- including adult stem cells -- is nearly as promising for my ailment and others. Evaluate that as you wish.

Against this, you have the fact that embryonic stem cells are extracted from human embryos, killing the latter in the process. If you believe that embryos a few days after conception have the same human rights as you or me, killing innocent embryos is obviously intolerable. But do opponents of stem cell research really believe that? Stem cell research tests that belief, and sharpens the basic right-to-life question, in a way abortion never has.

Here's why. Stem cells used in medical research generally come from fertility clinics, which produce more embryos than they can use. This isn't an accident -- it is essential to their mission of helping people have babies. Often these are "test tube babies": the product of an egg fertilized in the lab and then implanted in a womb to develop until birth. Controversy about test-tube babies has all but disappeared. Vague science-fiction alarms have been crushed by the practical evidence, and potential political backlash, of grateful, happy parents.

In any particular case, fertility clinics try to produce more embryos than they intend to implant. Then -- like the Yale admissions office (only more accurately) -- they pick and choose among the candidates, looking for qualities that make for a better human being. If you don't get into Yale, you have the choice of attending a different college. If the fertility clinic rejects you, you get flushed away -- or maybe frozen until the day you can be discarded without controversy.

And fate isn't much kinder to the embryos that make this first cut. Usually several of them are implanted in the hope that one will survive. Or, to put it another way, in the hope that all but one will not survive. And fertility doctors do their ruthless best to make these hopes come true.

In short, if embryos are human beings with full human rights, fertility clinics are death camps -- with a side order of cold-blooded eugenics. No one who truly believes in the humanity of embryos could possibly think otherwise.

And, by the way, when it comes to respecting the human dignity of microscopic embryos, nature -- or God -- is as cavalier as the most godless fertility clinic. The casual creation and destruction of embryos in normal human reproduction is one reason some people, including me, find it hard to make the necessary leap of faith to believe that an embryo and, say, Nelson Mandela are equal in the eyes of God.

Proponents of stem cell research like to emphasize that it doesn't cost the life of a single embryo. The embryos killed to extract their stem cells were doomed already. But this argument gives too much ground, and misses the point. If embryos are human beings, it's not okay to kill them for their stem cells just because you were going to kill them, or knowingly let them die, anyway. The better point -- the killer point, if you'll pardon the expression -- is that if embryos are human beings, the routine practices of fertility clinics are far worse -- both in numbers and in criminal intent -- than stem cell research. And yet, no one objects, or objects very loudly. President Bush actually praised the work of fertility clinics in his first speech announcing restrictions on stem cells.

Even strong believers in abortion rights (I'm one) ought to acknowledge and respect the moral sincerity of many right-to-lifers. I cannot share, or even fathom, their conviction that a microscopic dot -- as oblivious as a rock, more primitive than a worm -- has the same human rights as anyone reading this article. I don't have their problem with the question of when human life begins. (When did "human" life begin during evolution? Obviously, there is no magic point. But that doesn't prevent us from claiming humanity for ourselves and denying it to the embryo-like entities we evolved from.) Nevertheless, abortion opponents deserve respect for more than just their right to hold and express an opinion we disagree with. Excluding, of course, the small minority who believe that their righteousness puts them above the law, sincere right-to-lifers deserve respect as that rarity in modern American politics: a strong interest group defending the interest of someone other than themselves.

Or so I always thought -- until the arrival of stem cells. Moral sincerity is not impressive if it depends on willful ignorance and indifference to logic. Not every opponent of stem cell research deserves to have his or her debater's license taken away. There are a few, no doubt, who are as horrified by fertility clinics as they are by stem cell research, and a subset of this subset may even be doing something about it. But these people, if they exist, are not a political force strong enough to stop a juggernaut of medical progress that so many other people are desperate to encourage. The vast majority of people who oppose stem cell research either haven't thought it through, or have thought it through and don't care.

I wish they would think again.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Supporters of Hirohito, Mussolinni and Hitler all fell back on that "I love my country" thing.

So did the followers of Washington, Joan d'arc and Eisenhower...

Actually...not Washington!

I am assuming you are talking about George Washington.

The people saying "I love my country" back during Washington's day...were the conservatives of that day...the Tories...

...who expressed loyalty and love of England and King George.

There was no "country" here for them to love...not that they would have done it anyway. The "liberals"...like Washington, Franklin, Hale, Henry...and that group...would have loved the new country. The conservatives would have stuck with England.

Hey...American conservatives have been on the wrong side of damn near every important issue facing this country...so it makes sense that their silliness started back then.

Give it a rest.

Nah. I am enjoying this very much.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Supporters of Hirohito, Mussolinni and Hitler all fell back on that "I love my country" thing.

So did the followers of Washington, Joan d'arc and Eisenhower...

Actually...not Washington!

I am assuming you are talking about George Washington.

The people saying "I love my country" back during Washington's day...were the conservatives of that day...the Tories...

...who expressed loyalty and love of England and King George.

There was no "country" here for them to love...not that they would have done it anyway. The "liberals"...like Washington, Franklin, Hale, Henry...and that group...would have loved the new country. The conservatives would have stuck with England.

Hey...American conservatives have been on the wrong side of damn near every important issue facing this country...so it makes sense that their silliness started back then.

Give it a rest.

Nah. I am enjoying this very much.

You enjoy being wrong?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Supporters of Hirohito, Mussolinni and Hitler all fell back on that "I love my country" thing.

So did the followers of Washington, Joan d'arc and Eisenhower...

Actually...not Washington!

I am assuming you are talking about George Washington.

The people saying "I love my country" back during Washington's day...were the conservatives of that day...the Tories...

...who expressed loyalty and love of England and King George.

There was no "country" here for them to love...not that they would have done it anyway. The "liberals"...like Washington, Franklin, Hale, Henry...and that group...would have loved the new country. The conservatives would have stuck with England.

Hey...American conservatives have been on the wrong side of damn near every important issue facing this country...so it makes sense that their silliness started back then.

Give it a rest.

Nah. I am enjoying this very much.

You enjoy being wrong?

I'm not wrong!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
NickFun wrote:
Supporters of Hirohito, Mussolinni and Hitler all fell back on that "I love my country" thing.

So did the followers of Washington, Joan d'arc and Eisenhower...

Actually...not Washington!

I am assuming you are talking about George Washington.

The people saying "I love my country" back during Washington's day...were the conservatives of that day...the Tories...

...who expressed loyalty and love of England and King George.

There was no "country" here for them to love...not that they would have done it anyway. The "liberals"...like Washington, Franklin, Hale, Henry...and that group...would have loved the new country. The conservatives would have stuck with England.

Hey...American conservatives have been on the wrong side of damn near every important issue facing this country...so it makes sense that their silliness started back then.

Give it a rest.

Nah. I am enjoying this very much.

You enjoy being wrong?

I'm not wrong!

For what reason did those that fought under and died for Washington do so if not for the love of their country? Please tell me.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

For what reason did those that fought under and died for Washington do so if not for the love of their country? Please tell me.

For hatred of country, McG.

Their "country" was England...their liege lord was George III.

They hated him and it...and fought to be rid of both.

They were rebels, McG. Those good folk who fought under George Washington were rebels. If they had lost...they would be remembered as traitors...to their "country."

Get your head screwed on straight, will ya.

0 Replies

Why do you still support Bush?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know