Comments on: Did CBS’s Source Call Bush Hitler?

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:16:14 +0000

Daniel, for once you're right, but only on one extremely narrow point. Burkett didn't actually write Bush IS Hitler. However, Burkett's overall message IS that morally Bush=Hitler=Napoleon. His claim that Bush Sought to rule thru tyranny is bogus. Bush doesn't even make the top 100, let alone 10,000. Yet Burkett says Bush ranks in the top three. Huh??? If one objectively considers the fact that Burkett posted his ravings on sites that espouses the Bush=Hitler and likes throwing around hyerbolic terms like "BushHitler", "Bush is evil" and so on. Rose is then perfectly correct in asking if Bush is as bad as Hitler as claimed by Burkett, where are the atrocities? Where is even a shred of truth? The biggest problem with the Moonbat thinking process, that you subscribe to, is that context is always optional. 1) ALWAYS EVIL: Bush IS evil. And accordingly, the facts are spun to support this meme, such as the current topic. 2) ALWAYS GOOD: Byrd IS NOT a racist. Moonbats defend him by using the that-was-then-this-is-now context; he used to be a KKK leader and fought against civil rights, BUT that was the realities of the Jim Crow era, and now he's rehabilitated himself by simply being a member of the democratic party. That he never repudiated his past, like say George Wallace, makes Byrd a closet racist which IS a dangerous thing. That he no longer publically organizes lynchings and voter suppression, but now supports "progressive" programs is simply the political equivalent of keeping the underclass on the plantation. Different vehicle, same goal! 2) ALWAYS NUANCED: Lincoln is a prime example of a person being good or evil, depending on the oxymoron: Lincoln WAS a racist. He once said he'd rather not go to war over the issue of slavery. Where's the context? Where's the acknowledgement that Lincoln, like other abolitionists, personally thot that slavery was a sin against humanity and was trying to find any possible alternative short of war? But inconsistently so, when it suits a particular argument, Moonbats readily point to Lincoln as a beacon of enlightenment. Come again?? Which is it? Lincoln is evil or Lincoln is good?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:01:51 +0000

Rose,
When did Burkett say Bush is Hitler? if you read the part which Le Shawn Posted it says “…compared Bush to Hitler, and Napoleon as one of “the three small men” who sought to rule through tyranny.” i dont think that literally means that hes alleging Bush is setting up concentration camps for Jews and gassing people of the US for the purpose of retaining power.

By: Rose

Rose — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:41:05 +0000

Isn’t it amazing that the libs call George Bush “Hitler”. As far as I can tell, I dont see Jews, Christians, or any other religion being rounded up into concentration camps. Havent seen any crematoriums…..havent seen it. If anything, they have the wrong person…..Saddam is more like Hitler. Gassing his OWN people….the mass graves…the shredders….the cutting off of hands and ears…and the list goes on and on and on.

We live in the best country in the world. We have so much freedom that we dont know what to do with. We are so blessed and people take it for granted.

By: ThePrecinctChair

ThePrecinctChair — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:19:35 +0000

Well, that should be sufficent for us to discredit anything that he has to say.

Bush=Hitler — the surest sign of a lack of credibility.