This dude is a bit out of touch... ... ... .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer
-
TDR Magazine subscribers receive more than the magazine! You also gain additional forum privileges!
Details here: TDR Privileges
Subscribe to TDR Magazine here: https://www.tdr-online.com/
Bush a Nazi?
- Thread starter Sled Puller
- Start Date
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.
Thanks, TDR Staff
You have admit $15. 5 million is a lot contributed just to make sure a guy doesn't get reelected without supporting another candidate.
Just because Bush's grandparents financed the Third Reich doesn't mean Junior is a Nazi. Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. But comparisons of the Bush administration's fear-mongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler are not at all out of line.
#ad
Just because Bush's grandparents financed the Third Reich doesn't mean Junior is a Nazi. Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. But comparisons of the Bush administration's fear-mongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler are not at all out of line.
#adOn the contrary, Bill, Bush's acts are much more in line with Winston Churchill.
Nobody believed him Hitler was coming-until they had a smoking gun. The entire city of London, and Europe, I believe.
Bush is a good man, defending his country, and doing the job he was ELECTED to do.
Nobody believed him Hitler was coming-until they had a smoking gun. The entire city of London, and Europe, I believe.
Bush is a good man, defending his country, and doing the job he was ELECTED to do.
Soros is way out of touch. Guess he doesn't consider the fact that Bush has more minorities in his cabinet than any other President in History. He has relied quite heavily on Condaliza Rice and Colin Powell during his presidency. To compare Bush to a Nazi is Ridiculous.
If Soros wants to bash our President, maybe he should consider going back to his home town.
If Soros wants to bash our President, maybe he should consider going back to his home town.
Minoritys?
The minoritys mentioned in Bush's cabinet are hand picked right wingers. Just like some of the judges picked by them, records of cutting civil rights, and calling minimum wage communist. These people can hardly be called minoritys, they can be called puppets.
The minoritys mentioned in Bush's cabinet are hand picked right wingers. Just like some of the judges picked by them, records of cutting civil rights, and calling minimum wage communist. These people can hardly be called minoritys, they can be called puppets.
CF,
Please define "minority"
Please define "minority"
"fear-mongering tactics", oh brother! Oh and I'll bet no leftist liberal president ever had any left wingers on his cabinet huh?
Re: Minoritys?
Powell and Rice are centerists and are certainly not right wing... yes Bush did try to appoint a Latino Judge to the circuit court but was shot down by an ex KKK member and his cronies.
Originally posted by Champane Flight
The minoritys mentioned in Bush's cabinet are hand picked right wingers. Just like some of the judges picked by them, records of cutting civil rights, and calling minimum wage communist. These people can hardly be called minoritys, they can be called puppets.
Powell and Rice are centerists and are certainly not right wing... yes Bush did try to appoint a Latino Judge to the circuit court but was shot down by an ex KKK member and his cronies.
Re: Minoritys?
NO, they can be called conservative.
Originally posted by Champane Flight
The minoritys mentioned in Bush's cabinet are hand picked right wingers. Just like some of the judges picked by them, records of cutting civil rights, and calling minimum wage communist. These people can hardly be called minoritys, they can be called puppets.
NO, they can be called conservative.
Just what would you call "you're either with us or against us" resulting a great number of Americans afraid to voice their opinion for fear of becoming "Dixie Chicked"?
Add to that orange alerts, duct tape, etc.
Proof that many Americans aren't going for it any more is any poll where people are voting anonymously, even ones here on TDR.
Most recent Newsweek poll said 52% won't vote for Bush no matter who runs against him.
Same thing will happen next Nov when we get to anonymously vote our opinion on whether we want more living in fear.
Yep, Bill, and when some punk terrorist, does soemthing else, you will be the first to say "Bush should have done something, its his fault. "
As long as we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, the rest of the world seems pretty quiet, a link perhaps?
I fully support Bush and his efforts, my only wish is he would be more aggressive on the "with us or against us" pledge.
BUSH'04!!!!!!!
As long as we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, the rest of the world seems pretty quiet, a link perhaps?
I fully support Bush and his efforts, my only wish is he would be more aggressive on the "with us or against us" pledge.
BUSH'04!!!!!!!
SledPuller, Your right... I believe, the "Your either with us or against us" statement was directed at foreign countries who weren't taking a stance on terrorism. This was directed at countries offering safe harbor for terrorist groups to set up camp. I agree 100% with Bush's sentiment on this!
BTW: I also believe Bush will be re-elected overwhelmingly, in 12 months. Who do the Dem's have that will challenge him?
BTW: I also believe Bush will be re-elected overwhelmingly, in 12 months. Who do the Dem's have that will challenge him?
Of course I'm RIGHT!
However, I feel the election will be hard fought. The leftists have not stopped their anti-Bush campaign since the night of the election that Bush won.
Not only that, but we made a grave mistake, when we did not prosecute, the vote fraud. They will be back, 1000 times worse this time, because they got away with it.
It is also hard to win, when the other side votes multiple times.
However, I feel the election will be hard fought. The leftists have not stopped their anti-Bush campaign since the night of the election that Bush won.
Not only that, but we made a grave mistake, when we did not prosecute, the vote fraud. They will be back, 1000 times worse this time, because they got away with it.
It is also hard to win, when the other side votes multiple times.
Last edited:
Rusty, amen!!!
Now
We are sacrificing men and women everyday now for your safety? What a line of hooey! Do you really think we are safer now? Ask Israel how safe they are with there war of retaliation. The only thing that has helped them is the wall they beginning to build. We have NO wall, we have no fence, we have no defense, all we have is a new bureaucracy. Yes a bureaucracy to end all bureaucracy! Which the American people have given a few more billion that is not there to give.
Iraq is just beginning, just getting started. Our occupation is already swelling the ranks of the terrorists. It is working to the point of Bush even changing his tactics to rushing the Iraqi people into taking over. Even this moroon can see the handwriting on the wall. We are not fighting against a country, we are fighting a idea. You cannot fight against a idea with an army.
Don't worry, there is only one candidate that has a chance of uprooting Bushy and he will not be backed by the Democrats. So Bush can lead this country down the tubes. It will not take a full four years of his next term to do it, he has a nice start now.
I have a feeling that even if this country was thrown into a deep depression, with terror attacks everyday (which is happening now) , that the pro-Bush crowd here would blame it on Clinton. Can't anyone see? This administration has done nothing but spend since it came to power, then it cuts taxes. DUH? Sooner or later the dollar is going to be worth nothing, it is like a kid with a gold card, first payment is due!
Voter fraud, don't worry, Republicans now own most of the Governorships out there now. They can claim a victory no matter. He will not even need his campaign manager and brother to run the state he needs now.
We are sacrificing men and women everyday now for your safety? What a line of hooey! Do you really think we are safer now? Ask Israel how safe they are with there war of retaliation. The only thing that has helped them is the wall they beginning to build. We have NO wall, we have no fence, we have no defense, all we have is a new bureaucracy. Yes a bureaucracy to end all bureaucracy! Which the American people have given a few more billion that is not there to give.
Iraq is just beginning, just getting started. Our occupation is already swelling the ranks of the terrorists. It is working to the point of Bush even changing his tactics to rushing the Iraqi people into taking over. Even this moroon can see the handwriting on the wall. We are not fighting against a country, we are fighting a idea. You cannot fight against a idea with an army.
Don't worry, there is only one candidate that has a chance of uprooting Bushy and he will not be backed by the Democrats. So Bush can lead this country down the tubes. It will not take a full four years of his next term to do it, he has a nice start now.
I have a feeling that even if this country was thrown into a deep depression, with terror attacks everyday (which is happening now) , that the pro-Bush crowd here would blame it on Clinton. Can't anyone see? This administration has done nothing but spend since it came to power, then it cuts taxes. DUH? Sooner or later the dollar is going to be worth nothing, it is like a kid with a gold card, first payment is due!
Voter fraud, don't worry, Republicans now own most of the Governorships out there now. They can claim a victory no matter. He will not even need his campaign manager and brother to run the state he needs now.
CF, I think we have had very good success over the years fighting against ideas and ideals... this is some good reading for you:
Did you ever wonder how today's media/press would have covered World War II? Read the below
article which I think gets it
about right:
Dog Bites Man in Baghdad The media's reports overemphasize the bad when the real news is
the return to normal.
By:
Max Boot
Listening to the gloomy news from Iraq, I can't help but wonder how today's news media
might have covered D-day. I can
just imagine the story: "More than 8,000 Allied servicemen were wounded, 3,000 of them
fatally, during an assault on
Normandy beaches yesterday. Despite those heavy casualties, almost all of France remains
under Nazi occupation. The
supreme Allied commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, claimed that everything had gone
according to plan, but a number
of retired military officers suggested that the invasion is in grave danger of failing. "
I don't mean to make light of the casualty figures from Iraq or to minimize the dangers
and challenges that U. S. troops face
there. Every death is a tragedy, every service member lost is one too many. And it's not
just Americans who are being
murdered. Almost all the victims of Monday's car bombings in Baghdad were Iraqis.
But as awful as the car bombings and mortar attacks and roadside ambushes are, it's
important to keep things in
perspective, which is something the news media have a tough time doing. During the "major
combat" phase in Iraq, which
ended May 1, the U. S. lost 115 soldiers to enemy fire. Since May 1, we have lost 113 more.
In fairness, it must be added
that more than 700 have been wounded since May 1, many severely, and that dozens more have
died from accidents or
other causes. But so far, Saddam Hussein and his gang have killed just 228 Americans. This
isn't Vietnam (47,355 battle
deaths). It's not even the Spanish-American War (385).
For purposes of comparison, I went to the Defense Department Web site that lists U. S.
military deaths from all causes.
Look at the figures and you see that 1,007 service people died last year, only 17 of them
in combat (presumably in
Afghanistan). The other 990 were victims of accidents (538), illness (178), suicide (130),
homicide (46) and causes yet to
be determined (98). Assuming that the noncombat death figures for this year will be
roughly similar to last year's, it appears
likely that far more service people will have died of accidents or illness than from Iraqi
bullets and bombs.
Other national statistics add to the context. According to the National Law Enforcement
Officers Memorial Fund, 114
police officers have died in the line of duty this year, almost exactly the number of
service people who have been killed by
Iraqi insurgents since May 1. And more than 41,000 people are killed on the nation's
highways every year, according to
the Department of Transportation. So during the last six months, while more than 300
Americans were dying in Iraq,
more than 20,000 were dying on the roads at home.
Clearly the amount of violence in Iraq is unacceptable, and more needs to be done to
curtail it. The point is simply that the
myopic media are focusing far too much on counting casualties and not enough on assessing
the larger state of the campaign.
The frenzy reminds me of the way local TV newscasts cover major American cities: "If it
bleeds, it leads. " In general, the
news is a catalog of horrors - child abuse, murder, celebrity rapes and other
transgressions. No one bothers to announce:
Oh, and by the way, millions of people went to work yesterday, ate lunch, came home,
watched TV and went to sleep.
That's not considered news, and rightly so when covering L. A. or New York.
But the fact that such normality is returning to Iraq is news. When I visited Iraq in
August, I was surprised to see crowded
streets where people were calmly going about their business. Nothing in the media had
prepared me for this. Since August,
even more progress has been made. Iraq has more electricity than it did under Hussein; yet
after obsessively reporting on
electricity woes during the summer, the news media is all but silent about how these
concerns have been addressed.
By all means, report on terrorist attacks. But don't lose sight of the bigger picture.
Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "The Savage
Wars of Peace: Small Wars and
the Rise of American Power" (Basic Books, 2002
*********************
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:13:52 -0500 "Patrick Barron" writes: There's an article in
today's paper that Virginia state
police will begin patrolling the high crime areas of Richmond, because there have been 83
murders in Richmond this year.
Sounds as if Baghdad is just about as safe or unsafe as Richmond, Virginia.
Like Max, I was mentally speculating about what history would have said if Winston S.
Churchill had been British Prime
Minister in the middle '30s and had convinced the French to help him kick the Germans out
of the Rhineland and had
toppled the Nazi regime. Churchill would have been seen by today's liberals as a
reactionary, I'm sure. But of course we
know that the British were not wise enough to make Churchill PM in the 1930s and that
millions upon millions died in
WWII. Just keep that in mind when liberals harp that we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq and
that Iraq didn't have anything to
do with 911. Yep, those Baathists were just a peaceful bunch of alternate style
politicians and W wanted to go to war in
order to..... well, fill in the blank. What we will never know is what would have happened
in five or ten years if the Baathists
had remained in power with their full oil wealth restored and their nation's
infrastructure rebuilt by the Europeans who are
only after a quick buck. Frankly, I'll live with the liberal harping rather than face that
unknown.
Did you ever wonder how today's media/press would have covered World War II? Read the below
article which I think gets it
about right:
Dog Bites Man in Baghdad The media's reports overemphasize the bad when the real news is
the return to normal.
By:
Max Boot
Listening to the gloomy news from Iraq, I can't help but wonder how today's news media
might have covered D-day. I can
just imagine the story: "More than 8,000 Allied servicemen were wounded, 3,000 of them
fatally, during an assault on
Normandy beaches yesterday. Despite those heavy casualties, almost all of France remains
under Nazi occupation. The
supreme Allied commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, claimed that everything had gone
according to plan, but a number
of retired military officers suggested that the invasion is in grave danger of failing. "
I don't mean to make light of the casualty figures from Iraq or to minimize the dangers
and challenges that U. S. troops face
there. Every death is a tragedy, every service member lost is one too many. And it's not
just Americans who are being
murdered. Almost all the victims of Monday's car bombings in Baghdad were Iraqis.
But as awful as the car bombings and mortar attacks and roadside ambushes are, it's
important to keep things in
perspective, which is something the news media have a tough time doing. During the "major
combat" phase in Iraq, which
ended May 1, the U. S. lost 115 soldiers to enemy fire. Since May 1, we have lost 113 more.
In fairness, it must be added
that more than 700 have been wounded since May 1, many severely, and that dozens more have
died from accidents or
other causes. But so far, Saddam Hussein and his gang have killed just 228 Americans. This
isn't Vietnam (47,355 battle
deaths). It's not even the Spanish-American War (385).
For purposes of comparison, I went to the Defense Department Web site that lists U. S.
military deaths from all causes.
Look at the figures and you see that 1,007 service people died last year, only 17 of them
in combat (presumably in
Afghanistan). The other 990 were victims of accidents (538), illness (178), suicide (130),
homicide (46) and causes yet to
be determined (98). Assuming that the noncombat death figures for this year will be
roughly similar to last year's, it appears
likely that far more service people will have died of accidents or illness than from Iraqi
bullets and bombs.
Other national statistics add to the context. According to the National Law Enforcement
Officers Memorial Fund, 114
police officers have died in the line of duty this year, almost exactly the number of
service people who have been killed by
Iraqi insurgents since May 1. And more than 41,000 people are killed on the nation's
highways every year, according to
the Department of Transportation. So during the last six months, while more than 300
Americans were dying in Iraq,
more than 20,000 were dying on the roads at home.
Clearly the amount of violence in Iraq is unacceptable, and more needs to be done to
curtail it. The point is simply that the
myopic media are focusing far too much on counting casualties and not enough on assessing
the larger state of the campaign.
The frenzy reminds me of the way local TV newscasts cover major American cities: "If it
bleeds, it leads. " In general, the
news is a catalog of horrors - child abuse, murder, celebrity rapes and other
transgressions. No one bothers to announce:
Oh, and by the way, millions of people went to work yesterday, ate lunch, came home,
watched TV and went to sleep.
That's not considered news, and rightly so when covering L. A. or New York.
But the fact that such normality is returning to Iraq is news. When I visited Iraq in
August, I was surprised to see crowded
streets where people were calmly going about their business. Nothing in the media had
prepared me for this. Since August,
even more progress has been made. Iraq has more electricity than it did under Hussein; yet
after obsessively reporting on
electricity woes during the summer, the news media is all but silent about how these
concerns have been addressed.
By all means, report on terrorist attacks. But don't lose sight of the bigger picture.
Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of "The Savage
Wars of Peace: Small Wars and
the Rise of American Power" (Basic Books, 2002
*********************
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:13:52 -0500 "Patrick Barron" writes: There's an article in
today's paper that Virginia state
police will begin patrolling the high crime areas of Richmond, because there have been 83
murders in Richmond this year.
Sounds as if Baghdad is just about as safe or unsafe as Richmond, Virginia.
Like Max, I was mentally speculating about what history would have said if Winston S.
Churchill had been British Prime
Minister in the middle '30s and had convinced the French to help him kick the Germans out
of the Rhineland and had
toppled the Nazi regime. Churchill would have been seen by today's liberals as a
reactionary, I'm sure. But of course we
know that the British were not wise enough to make Churchill PM in the 1930s and that
millions upon millions died in
WWII. Just keep that in mind when liberals harp that we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq and
that Iraq didn't have anything to
do with 911. Yep, those Baathists were just a peaceful bunch of alternate style
politicians and W wanted to go to war in
order to..... well, fill in the blank. What we will never know is what would have happened
in five or ten years if the Baathists
had remained in power with their full oil wealth restored and their nation's
infrastructure rebuilt by the Europeans who are
only after a quick buck. Frankly, I'll live with the liberal harping rather than face that
unknown.
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
Turbo Diesel Register
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
