George Bush -- the reincarnation of Hitler?

Farenheit 9/11 is a propaganda movie with distorted truth. i've talked to people who are anti-Bush, but they agree that F9/11 isn't true.

Everybody that has any common sense knows that the movie is about 85% bullshit and the rest is just wise character assassination.

D3V may not know that, Signior zagggon

He knows it, he just does not want to know it.

Meh, probably the way it is. Michael Moore: King of Bullshit in Media.

Fat people like Moore deserve nothing more than to be shot continually with pellet guns until they keel over dead.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/189866

lmao Sov that was great, asshole.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/131059

I can post links too!

Yeah but the difference is that people won't click on your link cuzz you like the fucking moron, oh wait you are one!

http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread....&highlight=eat

What was that?

Hahaha. That was ownage.

I don't think I agree entirely with you MJ. OK, I'm not American, but I still don't agree entirely.

Point 1: Yes, OK. Hindenburg did appoint Hitler to Chancelor of Germany. Beforehand though, he had built on the hatred of the Treaty of Versaille in German's hearts to rise in Parliament, and get the majority. He used propaganda, hatred of the Treaty, scapegoats - he 'slagged off' the Communist, Jewish and rival parties, saying they would do nothing. Before him, was the Weimar Republic. They signed the Treaty of Versaille, they were in power during the Wall Street Crash, so were blamed. Hitler blamed them for everything, and everyone listened. He sent out the Brownshirts - SA - his own personal army, to break up othr parties meetings. He rose to power legitimately, he got the majority in the Reichstag, got ultimate power form Hindenburg, then passed the Enabling Act before banning all other parties. You say that Bush did not rise to power legitimately, Hitler did. OK, Bush was appointed, so was Hitler. End of similarities.

Point 2: Agree entirely, what type of idiot passes a law to allow Military grade guns. Oh wait, it gets him votes. So what? I agree with you - Hitler passed laws that were...'bad', Bush just passes stupid laws.

Point 3: Hitler attacked soveriegn nations, because he needed to. His promises were to destroy the Treaty of Versaille. The Treaty did not allow joining up with Austria, and it took away most of Germany's lands. Hitler promised to retrieve these lands (parts of Poland, Austria etc), and make Germany great again. He then attacked countries like France because they were thinking of opposing him, and he could only make Germany great if he had no opposition. Look at how well he did - Blitzkrieg destroyed France, and he was in power of his 'great nation' (--> Drei Reich - Third Great Empire) for almost 5 years! Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq etc. in a war against Terrorism, and to stop the cruelty of Saddam. No connection.

Point 4: Hitler's concentration camps were there to send prisoners, and to carry out Genocide - kill all the Jews. Bush has Prison camps - house the terrorists his army captures. No connections.


The odd similarity, but apart from that, nothing is similar.

And NO! I'm a communist not a Nazi. Some conservatives say there's no difference, but they're idiots.

You are a tool. Have you read Marx's book? Have you read Adam Smith's book? Just answer those two questions.

I don't know if you believe any of this, but I thought this was pretty interesting. http://mirrors.meepzorp.com/geocitie...sh-antichrist/ Also, I found this link somewhere a long time ago. According to them, the US has brainwashed us. http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scr...h/welcome.html

Is that page a joke? All of the pictures are photoshopped... are those just like for added effect? I am confused.

Is that page a joke? All of the pictures are photoshopped... are those just like for added effect? I am confused.

Yeah, they were photoshopped.




By the way, Hitler hated communism and was a socialist.

Vote Peroutka '04!

http://daveblackonline.com/no_more_excuses1.htm

This thread is bullshit. The American citizens that are criticizing and ridiculing Bush are about as big of flip-floppers as your hero, Mr. Kerry.

If all you morons would so kindly remember back to when America was cowardly attacked on 9/11 and remember all the speeches that Dubya made, I want you to realize that you're all freakin' hypocrites. George Bush stated many, many times that he would retaliate to whoever attacked us AND declare war on terrorism. Everyone was so happy! We're going to bring vengeance upon those bastards that killed our families. Everything was smooth.

Bush actually stood behind what he said(despite Kerry's inconsistent attitude) and attacked Afghanistan. What!?!?!?! He actually meant he was going to attack somebody? Oh shit, why would he do that? Maybe we were wrong about supporting him and his war on terrorism.

We attacked Iraq because they had specific links to Al-Queda. Saddam Hussein is a terrorist who killed his own people and terrorized innocent civilians in many other countries. Remember Kuwait, pinpricks? Yeah, he's a terrorist. Yeah, we're at war with terrorism. PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER, MORONS. Of course, some people are going to die; it's a freakin' war. I'm sorry if one of your friends/relatives has died because of this, but that's life. You Kerry supporters have made up so many excuses as to why we're over there in Iraq. Oil, power, show our strength, war-monger; STICK WITH ONE CONCLUSION. I can't wait to hear the next reason as to why we're in Iraq, I swear one comes up every other week.

You know what? If Gore had been elected in 2000 and we had been attacked, he would have done the same thing as Bush did. Every president would have. You all would be singing the same f*cking song as you are now; making up excuses as to why we're attacking people. It's because we're at war with terrorism. Stand by your country, damn hippies. I'm sick of all you bastards being so hypocritical about everything the Bush administration has promised.

I don't think I agree entirely with you MJ. OK, I'm not American, but I still don't agree entirely. Point 1: Yes, OK. Hindenburg did appoint Hitler to Chancelor of Germany. Beforehand though, he had built on the hatred of the Treaty of Versaille in German's hearts to rise in Parliament, and get the majority. He used propaganda, hatred of the Treaty, scapegoats - he 'slagged off' the Communist, Jewish and rival parties, saying they would do nothing. Before him, was the Weimar Republic. They signed the Treaty of Versaille, they were in power during the Wall Street Crash, so were blamed. Hitler blamed them for everything, and everyone listened. He sent out the Brownshirts - SA - his own personal army, to break up othr parties meetings. He rose to power legitimately, he got the majority in the Reichstag, got ultimate power form Hindenburg, then passed the Enabling Act before banning all other parties. You say that Bush did not rise to power legitimately, Hitler did. OK, Bush was appointed, so was Hitler. End of similarities. Point 2: Agree entirely, what type of idiot passes a law to allow Military grade guns. Oh wait, it gets him votes. So what? I agree with you - Hitler passed laws that were...'bad', Bush just passes stupid laws. Point 3: Hitler attacked soveriegn nations, because he needed to. His promises were to destroy the Treaty of Versaille. The Treaty did not allow joining up with Austria, and it took away most of Germany's lands. Hitler promised to retrieve these lands (parts of Poland, Austria etc), and make Germany great again. He then attacked countries like France because they were thinking of opposing him, and he could only make Germany great if he had no opposition. Look at how well he did - Blitzkrieg destroyed France, and he was in power of his 'great nation' (--> Drei Reich - Third Great Empire) for almost 5 years! Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq etc. in a war against Terrorism, and to stop the cruelty of Saddam. No connection. Point 4: Hitler's concentration camps were there to send prisoners, and to carry out Genocide - kill all the Jews. Bush has Prison camps - house the terrorists his army captures. No connections. The odd similarity, but apart from that, nothing is similar.

1.) The details were different. I agree on that much. That wasn't the point I was really trying to make though, in my first argument. What the point was, neither of them were elected to power. Though both of them gained power in a technically legal fashion, neither of them should have really gotten power. They both got it underhandedly.

2.) Your point three says that Hitler needed to attach these countries because of whatever reason, it doesn't really matter. That's an excuse. Bush uses the same excuse, just different details. Instead of needing to destroy the Treaty of Versailles Bush needs to "rid the world of terrorism." It's his self-appointed duty. He's required to do it, supposedly.

3.) We don't know what these concentration camps are going to be used for. If you want to imprison someone, you use prisons. These concentration camps are sick.

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

That means any muslim living in America is a possible target.

Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant" stamp for any citizen whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy.

This sounds a lot like the McCarthy era.

Once the government is given that much power, they know that their power is unchecked. They can do whatever they need to, which might mean completely "getting rid of the menace."

Like I said before, the details might not be exactly the same, but the idea is.

Nice

George Bush stated many, many times that he would retaliate to whoever attacked us AND declare war on terrorism.

Saddam Hussein did not attack us, regardless of how similar his name may sound to "Osama Bin Laden" in your ears.

Bush actually stood behind what he said(despite Kerry's inconsistent attitude) and attacked Afghanistan.

Yes...and then he diverted attention away from capturing Bin Laden in order to instigate an unneccessary and frivolous war with a completely separate and uninvolved country.

We attacked Iraq because they had specific links to Al-Queda.

Show me the specific links. You show me where Iraq currently has specific and dangerous links to Al Qaeda. I want sources. Credible ones. As it stands now, the only genuine link between Hussein and Bin Laden is that they hate us and live in the same part of the world.

Saddam Hussein is a terrorist who killed his own people and terrorized innocent civilians in many other countries. Remember Kuwait, pinpricks?

And it's not our fucking job to go policing other countries. Yeah, he was an asshole, yeah he deserved to be removed from power, but at the expense of our own security and freedom? No. We didn't attack him because he was a terrorist, we attacked him to flex muscle and play the role of "World Cop", like we have been doing unnecessarily for the last fifty years.

Yeah, he's a terrorist. Yeah, we're at war with terrorism. PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER, MORONS.

Because fighting a war against an idea works so fucking well. Communism still exists, and we've been fighting that idea since the 50's.

You Kerry supporters have made up so many excuses as to why we're over there in Iraq. Oil, power, show our strength, war-monger; STICK WITH ONE CONCLUSION. I can't wait to hear the next reason as to why we're in Iraq, I swear one comes up every other week.

You know why all of those reasons are still flying around today? BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL STILL VALID AND ARE ALL STILL TRUE, YOU FUCKING MORON. We're not limited to picking one reason for abhorring this war and sticking with it when more and more reasons come to the surface every day. I abhor this war for all of those reasons and more simultaneously.

You know what? If Gore had been elected in 2000 and we had been attacked, he would have done the same thing as Bush did.

I'm absolutely positive that he would have attacked Afghanistan, just like any good president should have. I'm also relatively positive that he would not have dragged us into a war with a completely unrelated country based on assumptions that have been proven 100% and entirely wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Hussein had no capability to produce WMDs, and his resources in that area were actually diminishing over time, not increasing.

He was not a threat to us. He simply didn't like us. If the simple fact that a country doesn't like us is all the explanation we need to give in order to justifiably attack them, then we should have flattened France decades ago.

I'm sick of all you bastards being so hypocritical about everything the Bush administration has promised.

I'm not being hypocritical in the slightest. I absolutely agree that Hussein was a horrible man and needed to be ousted, but it needed to be done by his own fucking people. It's not impossible, it's been done before by countless nations. Considering the fact that his people didn't do it for, what 30 or 40 years, you'd imagine that they weren't terribly interested in having him removed from power.

But, since we absolutely had to stick our fucking noses in it, we should have done it for the right reasons and by executing the actions in the right way. Bush did neither. He caused the needless deaths of thousands of American lives and even further tarnished the international reputation of this country by randomly and spastically instigating a war based on 100% bullshit.

Pull your head out of your ass.