You make the Call?
Printable View
You make the Call?
goddamn hitler had some intense eyes
I have a strong feeling too that Bush is the third anti-christ; Mabus, and a reincarnation of Hitler. Read my posts!
"See in my line of work you have to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in" - George W. Bush
Strange. Thats what the Nazis did! Click on the first picture and notice the pins on Bush and Hitler's left.
Listen to this clip starring Gee Dubya!
Anti christ man Hitler was very close with the pope. Vatican record tells they were like room mates for two years. Some his his shady childhood began at the vatican. Here I got a place you may feel more comfortable at... http://www.christianforums.com/f200-praise-worship.html
One love
c
I don't know, for some reason I feel that Mr. Bush is just a puppet, with someone like Chaney as the puppeteer.
Hitler was certainly no puppet, whatever else we can say about no one can deney his fantasic ability as an oriator and as a chasimatic leader.
That is crazy. People like you all make people like me look bad. I'm a liberal, and I think bush sucks, but Hitler was muchhhh worse. Can't even compare.
There was an article in the times i believe a while back basically saying that anyone who compares bush to stalin or hitler is denying the atrocities committed by hitler. Bush is a pacifist compared to Hitler. Comparing them is an insult to one of them, I can't figure out which.
Lets just say Hitler worked hard to kill 6 million jews and 20 million (?) russian soldiers. He deserves some (negative) credit for it. Don't compare him to Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Spirit
Are you really going to compare something as facile as pins to the way they conduct themselves in there profession? Thats a little fucking stupid if you ask me.I mean those two men arn't my two favorite people either but just because they have fucking pins on there jackets don't mean shit...?
That's ridiculous.
Anyone could find SOME similarities between any two people. It doesn't really prove anything if you're basing your hypothesis on personal opinions and not facts.
Considering they both used them AFTER a "disaster" struck their countries. Hitler wore it after the Reichstag Fire and Bush uses them after 9/11. History repeats son. If we ignore our history, we are condemned to repeat it. As a German once said about Bush "don't make the same mistake we did." And remember, Bush was not even elected President. He was APPOINTED by the Supreme Court. Strange how Hitler was APPOINTED to by Hindenburg. I find it suspicious when a President's ratings are low, then a "terrorist attack" happens which then makes him look like a tough on terror kind of guy and one to look up to for protection. That'll boost his ratings. Same thing happened with the Nazi party and Hitler's rise. 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by VoidLivesOn
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.
Yipper, we invaded two countries, set up the U.S. flag, and declared them new states. Just like Hitler would have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Spirit
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by verklingen
"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???
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 Oneironaut
Quote:
Originally Posted by verklingen
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.
Bush and Hilter both shamelessly used the people's fear, and tough times in their nation, to further their agenda. They have also both invaded other nations. Beyond that there's no comparison. Trying to say they are equally bad diminishes Hitler's atrocities and compliments Bush for having atributes which he clearly doesn't possess.
Hitler was evil, pure and simple. Call Bush what you will but he does not possess the evil that Hitler did.
Hitler was intelligent, the classic evil genius. Bush is a dumb fuck who only rose to power because Daddy was a President before him.
See, big difference.
Everything is blamed on Bush!
Katrina comes and it's Bush's fault!
Moses catches something burning and it's the Bush's fault!
Catch a case of crabs and it's the Bush's fault!
WTF!!!
I agree. Gore won, but Bush wouldn't have it. The republicans worked hard to get that man elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Spirit
I agree. What a coincidence. And how fortuitus that when Bush was up for re-election, Bin Laden came out of his hole and made a speech. That really helped the average person to become afraid again.Quote:
I find it suspicious when a President's ratings are low, then a "terrorist attack" happens which then makes him look like a tough on terror kind of guy and one to look up to for protection. That'll boost his ratings.
I watched The Day After. Scary stuff. It should be enough to get people(and governments) to think twice about using nukes, but I'm not holding my breath.Quote:
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.
My greatest consolation is that Bush will not spend another 4 years in office. Now we have to get someone in there who knows what they are doing.
Bush vs. Hitler? It's a tough call sometimes.
Comparing Bush to Hitler is such a piss poor attack by the left. It makes no sense and only shows the ignorance of the left.
Bush is in office get over it. Try again in 08. I certainly hope we have decent choices but I'm not holding my breath. My only consolation for the last 2 elections is that we didn't end up with a coward in office or someone that would hand over our sovereignty to the UN or NATO like Clinton did.
For the record I am not a blind Bush supporter, I disagree with many of his domestic policies.
Agreed. And I'm not a Bush supporter. I disagree with all of this policies, just about. The reason this comparison makes me mad is because it compares Hitler who killed roughly 6,000,000 JEWS to Bush who has killed 25,000+ through his war in Iraq. Comparing them makes Hitler look good, and Hitler should NEVER look good.Quote:
Originally Posted by mont974x4