It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Byrd said Bush's moves to destroy time-honored Senate rules parallel Hitler's ramming fascist legislation through his gutted Reichstag. "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality," said Byrd. "He recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."
Originally posted by RANT
Byrd said Bush's moves to destroy time-honored Senate rules parallel Hitler's ramming fascist legislation through his gutted Reichstag. "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality," said Byrd. "He recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."
It's Bush's moves to destroy time-honored Senate rules parallel Hitler's ramming fascist legislation through his gutted Reichstag.
And the analysis of the article goes on to draw many more comparisons of Bush Neoconism to fascism and totalitarianism (though it forgot making Gays the new Jews) none of which means Bush = Hitler. :shk:
Are we so Godwinized and reactionany in our Bush loving political correctness, history may not be spoken of!?! We can't learn anything from history's political movements except to dare not speak the name of their most infamous leaders?
I can say Bush Doctrine is similar to components of Hitler's Totalitarian Fascism all day long and back it up, but noooooooooooooo... not without umpteen harumphs from people that probably didn't read the article in the first place. And each Bush supporter may say his policies aren't like Hitler's Totalitarian Fascism all day long too, but they should AT LEAST address the comparisons in the article!!!!
Originally posted by Realist05
It is far easier to compare, say Abraham Lincoln. who suspended habeus corpus,
Originally posted by Kidfinger
Bush, who happens to be the president (not Kerry)
Originally posted by mrmulder
Okay, I know this has been discussed numerous times on this board but I found this article that is supposedly new that compares Bush to Hitler. It makes alot of sense and is IMO a really good article.
Senator Byrd is correct to equate Bush with Hitler
March 7, 2005
The U.S. Senate's senior Constitutional scholar has correctly equated Bush with Hitler, and the usual attack dogs are howling. But they are wrong, and Americans must now face the harsh realities of an increasingly fascist and totalitarian GOP.
Octogenarian Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia made the equation in the context of Bush's attack on Senate procedures which might slow or halt his on-going attempt to pack the courts with extreme right-wing fanatics. Byrd said Bush's moves to destroy time-honored Senate rules parallel Hitler's ramming fascist legislation through his gutted Reichstag. "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality," said Byrd. "He recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal."
Anti-Defamation League Director Abraham Foxman has played the holocaust card for the Republicans, saying "It is hideous, outrageous and offensive for Senator Byrd to suggest that the Republican Party's tactics could in any way resemble those of Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party.
FULL STORY
I like what the writer has to say in this article it points out alot of interesting things. For example when Bush is trying to push for a one party leadership, I find this to be true. Hitler did the same. Did he not?
Originally posted by sigung86
*SNIP*
Bush and his government are not evil. They are, instead, a result of the what "We, the People" have become in the past 60+ years since WWII.*SNIP*
*SNIP*Or as Pogo, an old comic strip character, once said, "We has met the enemy and he is us"!
We were left with two, less than stellar, options for Presidential candidacy last election. Many of us sat around and decried Bush and his hooligans vs. Kerry and his hooligans. Some of us saw that there was really no marked difference in the two, save for political afiliation. But most of us did not do much more than sit around the keyboards and type in vituperation.