President Bush Or Hitler

If Bush is really the third Anti-Christ, you first have to prove:
a) Christ existed.
b) Christ was divine.
c) There is reason to believe multiple Anti-Christs would come after Christ.
d) Two men in history were, without a doubt, Anti-Christs.
e) Bush is also, without a doubt, an Anti-Christ and not a loyal Christian like he claims.

So far, I have not seen any conclusive evidence for any of those five statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great Spirit

We've already invaded 2 countries so far and Iran will be next one to invade based on the false premise that they will attack us because of the nuclear weapon controversy.

---

Yipper, we invaded two countries, set up the U.S. flag, and declared them new states. Just like Hitler would have done.

Nostradamus
Hisler=Hitler
Mabus=Bush????

I can see the similarity!:thumbsup:

Right. It would be more appropriate to compare this kind of imperialism to Stalin, who created satellite states which were free on paper but their economies and politics were at the mercy of the Red Army.

If Hitler was the anti Christ, what does that make Churchill?
I mean, I appreciate his leadership skills in times of war, but proclaiming him as the second coming is a bit strong I reckon.

A post I made in another thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verklingen

Nazis killed alot of people and that's bad, but Hitler did nothing to try and create a world-wide system of socialist democracies (as Bush and his directors are doing). Hitler only aimed for autonomy for the European countries: for them to be free from the influences of internation banks and commerce. He could have gone about attempting this in some other manner, but that was his intent nonetheless. Bush propagates globalism, Hitler fought against it.

---

I don't see how either of these men can be considered any sort of "anti-christ." Most communist/socialist regimes were much more monstrous.

"Originally Posted by verklingen
Nazis killed alot of people and that's bad, but Hitler did nothing to try and create a world-wide system of socialist democracies (as Bush and his directors are doing). Hitler only aimed for autonomy for the European countries: for them to be free from the influences of internation banks and commerce. He could have gone about attempting this in some other manner, but that was his intent nonetheless. Bush propagates globalism, Hitler fought against it."

THIS HAS TO BE THE FUNNIEST SHIT YET!!! Hitler was just out to liberate the Euro countries?? Are you fuckin' serious???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Right. It would be more appropriate to compare this kind of imperialism to Stalin, who created satellite states which were free on paper but their economies and politics were at the mercy of the Red Army.

---

Ya.....I can recall Stalin calling for open elections to elect governments and vote in constitutions. And like Afghanistan, he ALWAYS used United Nations troops to help with security!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verklingen

I don't see how either of these men can be considered any sort of "anti-christ." Most communist/socialist regimes were much more monstrous.

---

Spot on!
What makes Communist regimes even more threatening is that they don't undergo the same kind of scrutiny from the media and Western populations that Fascist regimes do, despite the fact that they have enslaved and killed far more people.
For some reason, the far right are treated as a much greater threat than the far left, despite evidence to the contrary.
In this way, a Communist regime has far greater scope for achieving its goals today than a Fascist one.
And this is precisely what is happening.

Could it be that the powers that be feel more threatened by a far right regime that hands power and freedom to the people, than a far left one that empowers the state?

I cant even believe this.

Bush is a pacifist liberal compared to Hitler or even Stalin.

>>>>>Ya.....I can recall Stalin calling for open elections to elect governments and vote in constitutions. And like Afghanistan, he ALWAYS used United Nations troops to help with security!


Stalin didn't have the same kind of control over the elctorial process and UN (global gov back then) than Bush and his religeous right "New World Order" croanies have today. Bush can push for elections knowing that he can control the outcome. He has the UN blackmailed into doing his bidding. Even the world's food supply is under attack by corporate america and the average american doesn't have a clue. Hundreds of thousands of americans are dying annually because of this corporate greed and yet americans remain oblivious. Yes, Bush and his Neoconservative group are just as evil as others mentioned here, he just has a better handle on controlling public perception.