Bush is the Worst President in History

[IcarusAngel]

Thought I'd post this here as there are probably cappies who worship this man; even their own are starting to oppose der fuhrer...

http://peterrost.blogspot.com/2007/03/trum...esident-in.html (http://peterrost.blogspot.com/2007/03/trump-bush-is-worst-president-in.html)

[MrDoom]

Der Fuhrer? WTF?

[Cryotank Screams]

Bush is in no way comparable to Hitler(der führer/blödes arschloch), saying so is just being stupid, Bush is a fuckwad to, but no where near as bad as Hitler.

[( R )evolution]

I personally think that Bush probably isn't a horrible person. But he is the puppet of the ruling class. Do I hate Bush? Yeah probably, but not as much as I hate the people who are pulling the strings above him.

[IcarusAngel]

It's interesting when Donald Trump is making more sense than some leftists on a blatantly obvious issue. Trump is right of course; the US policy has been a "boon" to terrorists, has not made the US safer, had nothing to do with Iraq, and Saddam Hussein was easily able to crush the terrorists in his country, whereas today entire divisions of the US military are held down by a rag tag group of militias.

Trump is also right to fault Bush, not any "puppet master" for these crimes. To be a puppetmaster indicates you have complete control; but no one has complete control of the executive branch but the executive branch. So who is the puppet master? Furthermore, PNAC and other neocon documents called for a "pearl harbor" like event to occur before they could pursue their policies -- which happened of course -- which includes a "unilateral action" to force "US wishes" down the throats of other nations, which is a doctrine of global imperialism.

As for the "der fuhrer" comment that the first two posters didn't understand (their ignorance has been duly noted) it doesn't automatically mean "Hitler"; and two, it comes from an Author Schlesinger comment that people were hanged for crimes far lesser war crimes.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:31 pm
Thought I'd post this here as there are probably cappies who worship this man; even their own are starting to oppose der fuhrer...

http://peterrost.blogspot.com/2007/03/trum...esident-in.html (http://peterrost.blogspot.com/2007/03/trump-bush-is-worst-president-in.html)
I don't know if you would consider Trump "one of their own." Sure he's regestered republican. (last time I heard.) But seems to support only the moderates in that party.. and has been known to support democrats. I think he gave money to Kerry in the last election.

Funny though, I used to think he was just a pompus ass. I see him in a bit of a different light.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 19, 2007 11:56 pm
Bush is in no way comparable to Hitler(der führer/blödes arschloch), saying so is just being stupid, Bush is a fuckwad to, but no where near as bad as Hitler.
No Bush is not really comparable to Hitler, Hitler actually weilded power over the nation he ruled, Bush is merely a puppet, but Neoliberalism is comparable to Nazism if you look at the statistics. Something like 10 million preventable starvation deaths a year is comparable, yet of course very different, to 12 million people being exterminated in 13 years.

Aparthy and Extermination are different, and Extermination is much more of a blatant crime against humanity, but the Apathy adds up, and at they end of the decade we will see 100 million dead of starvation.

Thats of course only mentioning starvation, we wont even get into the use of white phosphorus in Iraq or the many Fascistic regimes supported by the Neoconservative governments.

[Jude]

I still say Trump is a pompous jerk...

[colonelguppy]

why would anyone, including capitalists, worship bush? i disagree with almost everything he's done.

[Zero]

Unless you have a few hundred shares in the arms business; war is bad for business. Duh Trump is going to be against blatant military confrontations, but 'cultivating' "free" markets around the globe to take advantage of cheap labor markets with subtle military useage is more than welcome.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Imagine Hitler with Bush's power. I think we'd see Israel quickly nuked into oblivion...

You can't compare the two.

-Alex

[redcoughsyrup]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:33 pm
Imagine Hitler with Bush's power. I think we'd see Israel quickly nuked into oblivion...

You can't compare the two.

-Alex
hitler had much more power than bush, barring obvious technological differences.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The technological differences are exactly the point, I'm referring to military might rather than limitations to domestic power or lack thereof.

-Alex

[IcarusAngel]

The analogy is still false. Israel was formed after the war, so if he had Bush's power (the United States') technological powers it wouldn't have made a difference to a country that didn't exist. Hitler's plan was originally exportation of all Jews from Germany, but the United States and Britain, as well as other European countries, refused to take them. Hitler's campaign against the Jews started in 1934 and the US and Britain didn't seem too concerned, even after the war began the US and Britain refused to take steps that would have saved thousands, or millions, of lives. (Ex: Raul Hilberg, a holocaust scholar, points out that in 1942, the Jewish leader Stephen Wise was informed through a German industrialized that there was a plan in Hitler's headquarters for the extermination of all the Jews and he brought that to the attention of Sumner Welles, who asked him not to release the story and didn't investigate it. About a million jews were killed in Europe during that time. In 1943, US Secretary of State Hull pressed British FM Anthony Eden on plans to rescue tens of thousands of Jews in Bulgaria, but Eden was worried that Polish and German Jews were also asked to be rescued). Rather than saving the Jews, the war most likely expedited the Holocaust. It was only when Hitler became too hot to handle and declared war on the allies did he become "out of control" and the US supposedly "concerned" about freedom and democracy: Churchill had praised both Hitler and Stalin (whom FDR adored) in cabinet meetings and even said that if the Axis won at least the world would be in pretty good hands.

If you meant Hitler in Bush's shoes, that also doesn't make much sense. Hitler wanted the Jews gone, Europe didn't want them, and that is one of the reasons why Israel was established. Ironically, Hitler's position would probably be closer to the Libertarian/Leftist position of not offering US support to Israel, which means Israel probably would have collapsed on its own without the 50 billion a year or so the US gives them.

As for Hitler having more power, no, Hitler never had more power than the allies technological wise or man wise. Furthermore, after World War II, the US had an influence over the world far greater than what Hitler had. I don't remember Hitler exercising his imperial dominance over the people in Indochina. Even in places like Japan the US made sure that they controlled its oil imports in order to give them "veto power" over the Japanese (as late as the late 1970s, the US still controlled about 70% of Japan's oil important) so Japan was actually more independent in terms of influence from other countries when it was part of the Axis.

Germany, later Russia, interrupted "business as usual" for Britain and the United States, who both have their own history of being mean to minorities (the Indians, the blacks, the east indians) and imperialism (the British have been doing this for centuries). After World War II, the Untied States engaged in what's call the Third World Wars (look it up on Google) which, according to our own CIA was "the third bloodiest war in history" and killed about 6 million people in Latin America, about 3-4 million in Indochina, and later millions more due to massive poverty, disease, and lack of food, with the only country opposing most of their actions, and holding them back in certain areas, was the USSR, who, perhaps ironically, was often voting on the side of independent democracy in the UNSC. Now with the USSR gone, the US is free to exercise its power at its will, with little or no resistance from Europe (and even support in some cases, i.e. Britain). The worst massive case of death wasn't the Holocaust, but in India where, after they became "democratic-capitalist" in 1949 and started implementing free-market reforms, about 100 million people had died within three decades. So historians of tomorrow may not see the allied victory as such a better vision for the world, but a worse.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:54 am
why would anyone, including capitalists, worship bush? i disagree with almost everything he's done.


I meant Trump, of course. And you don't disagree with almost everything Bush has done, in fact, you obviously agree with a lot of it. You agree with the tax cuts which a two year old could tell you would plunge the US into red, the war on social security, the Bush "education" plan (which includes some privatization), the allotting of public money to private charities (religious churches), the withdrawal of foreign aid to programs that mention abortion and birth control (foreign aid to the Columbian warlords is just fine), the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush environmental bills (coupled with Orwellian names like the "Clean Skies Initiative" and "healthy forests," which are bills which ally allow _more_ pollution), the rejection of UN inspection of our elections, the rejection of the UN human rights commission, the opposition to the UN regarding biological and chemical warfare, the rejection of the Geneva conventions, the privatization of our elections, and so on.

Mostly, Bush's economics is Libertarian. But he's also a "moral conservative" (the death penalty, abstinence, war on drugs, and so on), which you don't agree with. Finally, he's imperialist, which you may or may not agree with. But most Americans have no problem with imperialism and moral conservatism, and agree with some of Bush's economics, which is why he was reelected.