Login/Sign Up




Is Bush just as bad as Hitler?
Politics

lou1
Feb 22, 2007
83 votes
35 debaters
11
9
6
4
4
3
2
2
1


+ Add Argument

14
Yes


chasbas
Feb 23, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
There's a good argument that even if the *only* thing Bush did was start an unnecessary war with cherry-picked evidence killing hundreds of thousands of people, thousands of Americans, maiming tens of thousands of Americans, wasting what will end up being a trillion dollars, destroying our position as the most respected superpower in the world, and putting Islamic fundmentalists in the best position they have ever had to unite against non-Muslims and start a world war of religion, that he would have committed a worse crime against humanity than Hitler.

But Bush's legacy is not simply the Iraq war. His actions have weakened the wall between church and state that has fostered religious freedom in our country for over 200 years, and put that freedom at risk (note how divided the country has become, and how militant the Christian fundamentalists have become, and how the argument has changed from *whether* government should be involved in religion to *how much* government should be involved in religion).

Bush has changed the image of America from moral and above reproach to defending torture and maintaining permanent bases in invaded countries, where such bases are the *captured palaces* of the tyrant whom we deposed!

Bush has at every turn weakened civil rights in this country, turning the Constitution on its head and defying any authority to stop him. He has eliminated habeus corpus (we now rely on the good will of the chief executive not to use the power he now has to imprision anyone anytime he wants). He uses an obscure Executive power few Americans had ever heard of (signing statements) to defy the will of the legislative branch of our government. He has turned the relatively orderly process of passing laws and following them into a mess of Constitutional battles and trying to outwit and outplay an Executive gone wild with power.

Bush has used lies and deceipt as a weapon of mass destruction. His staff puts CIA agents at risk in order to defend his lies; then that staff gathers together to lie more to protect him. They can't stop lying, about anything. Nobody believes anything the President of the United States says any more.

George W. Bush has taken a strong, proud nation and brought it to its knees. If you don't hate the President it's because you are ignorant (either accidentally or purposely). The harm he has done will scar the entire world for decades.

Maybe Htiler killed more people, but there's still time for Bush to catch up. And in the meantime, he has destroyed the spirit of this country, which even Hitler was unable to do.

 
chasbas
Feb 24, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reezer Show

I disagree with your summary of my reasoning why Bush is worse than Hitler. If I had to summarize it would be: because Bush has weakened the Constitution, the Presidency, and the American people while simultaneously giving the rest of the world reason to hate us, and specifically giving Muslims a clear, direct reason to join together to fight America and the West, which is a direct path to the jihad that Muslim extremists and terrorists have wanted for decades.

That Bush also managed to funnel huge, unbelievable amounts of American wealth into the pockets of his friends and relatives, while replacing competent and honest political appointees with agenda driven hacks whose purpose is to undermine secular America and invigorate a Christian hegemony in this country, is just a side issue.

Let the crazy person ask you a question: if Muslims around the world do unite against the West (because they believe the environment created by Bush has left them no choice) resulting in one or more wars against us, isn't that as bad a result as anything Hitler did? Or does any comparison to Hitler have to involve the exact same actions taken by Hitler to be accurate? If it's the latter, then no one will ever be as bad as Hitler. However, no one will ever be as bad as Bush, either, for completely different reasons.

 
chasbas
Feb 24, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thewhitedwarf Show

My thesis is that Bush is single-handedly destroying what once was the most moral, most respectable superpower on earth. Some people may feel that the mass killing of Jews (my people) and homosexuals (also my people) as well as millions of others by Hitler outweighs the dismantling of our once shining city by Bush, but that is subjective question. I personally believe Bush's acts are worse because his crimes were committed for money, for power, and with the imprimature of religiosity and morality, and millions of people have agreed with his acts of destruction.

Thousands have profited from Bush destruction (Haliburton and the whole military industrial complex) but do not have the slightest sense of guilt. They will come out of the Bush years multi-billionaires and millionaires and sitting on top of the world, a world made up of an even lower lower class, an even higher upper class, and billions of Muslims arrayed against billions of Christians, setting the stage for the war to end all wars.

All because of Bush. Worse than Hitler? Absolutely.

 
chasbas
Feb 24, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kinetic Show

Your ad hominem attacks (calling me a moron, using "liberal" as a insult just the way your handlers taught you to, etc.) just prove you have no point to make. All you have done in your post is repeat my arguments and scoff at them. Some debate.

Hitler tried to take over the world, create a master race, and killed lots of people trying. He was a monster. Is there a direct comparison to Bush? No, not direct. Bush has not tried to take over the world and has not murdered millions of people because of their ethnicity or beliefs. There - does that make you happy?

But the question was not whether Bush and Hitler did the same things. Obviously they didn't. The question was: are things Hitler did as bad as the things Bush has done and might still do (can you say "war in Iran"?).

Let's say I present to you a man who murdered 20 people in cold blood and then put next to him a man who raped a single child. I ask you: which one is worse? There is no realistic answer to that question. They both deserve to die (oops - did I betray the fact that I am not a liberal?). They are both evil. Is one more evil than the other? Damned if I know. They're both evil monsters. I have no way to compare their evilness. All I know is the world would be better off if neither of them had ever lived. On that level they are equally evil.

That is why Bush and Hitler are equivalent. Not because Bush committed the same crimes against humanity that Hitler did, but because Bush has harmed America and the world in ways we have not begun to understand, and the ways that we *do* understand are sickening.

How about debating any one of my points? Torture: America, home of the free and the brave, is now in the business of defining what types of torture are "okay!" and which "cross the line." That is not *my* America - that is George Walker Bush's America, and it is monstrous.

George Bush and/or Dick Cheney outed an undercover CIA agent for political purposes. That is treason. Treason. Committed possibly by the President, but definitely by the Vice President. What's the result? Nothing but lies. A constant stream of lies.

Republicans berated Clinton because of how he changed America and its values. What has Bush done to America with the destruction of our trust in the Presidency? Bush has zero credibility with Americans and the world. He could say it was raining while standing in a downpour and people would have trouble believing him. He is a liar. He has turned this country into a farce. He has started us down a path toward depostism, with him as the despot.

To briefly address the few points you made in your post:
- The argument for war again Iraq could equally have been made against dozens of other countries in the world. The only reason Bush chose Iraq instead of Somalia or Cuba or someplace else is oil and animosity. Unless you're in favor of overturning despots all over the world, you should not be defending Bush's war on Iraq. Iraqis were a thousand times better off 10 years ago then they are today, even with the world sanctions against them in place. Defending Bush's folly is the stupidest thing you said in a very stupid post.

- Bush's crimes are easily named and not easily laughed off. He has upended the Constitution with signing statements, spying on Americans, lying to Americans, sanctioning torture, overriding and firing experts who disagree with him, appointing political operatives to all kinds of previously-skill-driven jobs (prosecutors, supreme court judges, agency heads, etc.), giving American tax dollars to religious institutions (mostly those who agree with him), giving Christian Right leaders direct access to the White House, replacing scientific leaders with political operatives with agendas. I'm stopping now, not because he hasn't committed more crimes but because it sickens me to contemplate the magnitude of his destruction.

- The difference between Halliburton profiting under Clinton and Halliburton profiting under Bush / Cheney is that Bush / Cheney are in bed with Halliburton. That I have to say that out loud just proves your ignorance. There's not a single person on the Board of Directors of Halliburton and the rest of the war profiteers whose children Dick Cheney doesn't know the first name of. These are his friends, and they also happen to be the primary recipients of huge sums of money spent by Bush / Cheney. If Clinton had done something simliar you would have had him hanged. Bush does it and you paint it a coincidence.

- The religious war that is coming was enabled by Bush. Before Bush it was terrorists and extremists against the West. Bush's policies have turned that around so now ordinary Muslims, not extremists or terrorists, hate the United States, and for good reason - they are scared they might be next! George W. Bush makes no secret of the fact that he will attack anyone for any reason. The muslims of the world would be stupid not to be scared of him, and therefore to unite against the West, and *that* is why the religious war is coming. It was not inevitable - it was completely avoidable and was not even a worry before Bush's "foreign policy" took hold. Now we have the end of the world to look forward to.

You are a typical purposely ignorant repulican, happily spouting all the spoon fed talking points any time someone calls the president what he is: a fool, a monster, a dupe, and yes, as bad as Hitler (though I repeat, not in the same way).

 
xeno
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bigwillie Show

"minor war. "

omfg...

please try not to bring that crap in here.

 
chasbas
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gethappy Show

You sound like a reasonable person. Does someone have to be a mass murderer on the order of several million people in order to be as bad as Hitler? What if someone does something else that's really, really bad, but not attempted genocide. Can't they reach that level of evilness?

I think they can. I think you can look at a murderer and a rapist and decide they're both terrible, evil people, but you can't say one is more evil than the other. I just don't believe that. It always depends upon circumstances (suppose the rapist cut off the victim's arms and legs first?).

Bush hasn't finished causing deaths yet, and the true number of deaths of Iraqis is not known (and will probably never be known). If Bush's actions have helped start a religious war between Muslims and the West, who knows how many people will be killed? There's a strong case to be made that the Shiia crescent Bush has created across the Middle East combined with the hatred of America he has engendered among Muslims around the world might well spark something horrible, and we can lay it all at this evil fool's feet.

Wouldn't that be enough to make him worse than Hitler, even if he didn't kill all those people himself?

 
chasbas
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

" He's just a Hitler wannabe. "

He's not done yet. He has two more years to wreak havoc around the world, and he's signalled many times that he intends to do so no matter what the cost or how much the country opposes him.

And who can really say if he will leave in 2 more years? He's wriggled out of or outright ignored so many Constitutional requirements, what's one more?

You know that he has the right to declare martial law, right? One well-timed "terrorist attack" could make him president for life. Don't tell me he hasn't thought about it - certainly many people I know have independently thought about the possibility.

I just don't think he's done destroying as much of the world as he can, while pocketing the profits from that destruction.

 
chasbas
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reezer Show

"A little over a year"? I count his last day, god willing, as January something'th 2009. That's a little under 2 years, not a little over a year. What kind of mischief could he do controlling the U.S. military for an extra year? I shudder to think.

You're counting on logistics to stop his war on Iran? That is a very wobbly molehill you're building into a mountain. Congress isn't able to do anything with it's slim Democratic majority, which it will lose in the Senate in a heartbeat if the President tells Joe to switch, and since when has the President heeded a single law that sought to restrict his actions? Do you honestly think he will not find funding for his war on Iran if he wants to? That's very naiive.

Have you heard of signing statements? Have you heard of NSA wiretapping? What kind of law could you make that the head of the military can't just ignore? No, ours is a country of laws, and when the Chief Executive ignores those laws and refuses to play by the rules, we are helpless against him. The only play we have is impeachment, which will never happen (conviction, anyway), and even if it did, he still controls the military. Martial law is in place at the stroke of Bush's pen. The Republican congress assured that.

Literally, if he chooses to push the envelope, America will be in a civil war. George W. Bush could push this country into a civil war all by himself. And he has never once shown an iota of decency that would make me believe he would not do it. He would lie about doing it, then do it in a heartbeat and say it was for our own good.

That is why he is as evil as Hitler. He believes he knows what is best for the whole world, and is willing to impose it on us if he has to.

Think I'm exaggerating? Show me one example where Bush has backed down. Show me where he has bowed to the will of the people. Show me humility. Show me an ounce of compassion for human beings that wasn't written up for him by his advisors beforehand.

On the other side I'll show you his little jokes, about not being able to find WMD under the podium while soldiers are dying in Iraq, about the ultra-rich being his base, about - for God's sake, think about this - suffering combat wounds from clearing brush while standing in a veteran's hospital with greiviously wounded soldiers watching him. Tell me that's not an evil, heartless, soulless man. I'm dying to hear why.

"name one thing he's done that couldn't be undone with a single legislative vote"

Passing laws is never easy. It is foolish to think A) that government will willingly give up power once it has been used, B) it is possible to "undo" a law with another law without unforeseeable side effects. Now that Bush has used signing statements in a way no other President had ever conceived, what President will refrain from using them? How will Congress put limits on the Executive branch (doesn't sound too Constitutional to me)? That particular genie is so far out of the bottle and so dangerous to our system of laws that all by itself it has the potential to undo our republic.

As for a particular law, what about the "give money to Christian churches" law? Can you see a politician voting against that ("You're against feeding poor people?!")? Of course not. That bill was positioned so that you could not be against it without being heartless and cruel. And it destroys the wall between church and state. It's not going to be undone. I guarantee it.

I'll give you "Christian hegemony." I was wrapping up and it popped into my head so I wrote it. I take it back. What I meant to say is that right-wing Christians want to take over this country and make it over with their laws. They've made this perfectly clear. Heck, I remember them talking about it 30 years ago, when they openly said things like "we'll start with the school boards and work our way up". With Bush in power these people have had a direct line to the most powerful person in the world, and someone who is not shy about using that power. Christians have already convinced most of the people in this country that the Founding Fathers were Christians and this country was based on Judeo-Christian values (I'll bet you can't find 10 people who even challenge that statement). They are intent on remaking the legal system to reflect their religion.

*That's* what I meant.

 
chasbas
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thethinker Show

"Bush doesn't kill you for talking crap about him. "

So that's the only way someone will ever be as bad as Hitler, if they kill people for talking crap about them? That's a pretty flimsy argument.

I say destroying the Constitution of the United States and causing WWIII is enough to make you as evil as Hitler. Even if you don't kill people who talk crap about you.

 
chasbas
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kinetic Show

No matter what you think of me, calling me a moron is ridiculous. I write better than you do, have a better vocabulary, and understand enough about the current state of the world to have a cogent conversation about virtually any aspect of it. If a moron could do that then calling someone that wouldn't be much of an insult.

Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I'm a moron. I believe a lot of things that many people think are crazy. However, none of them have yet been proven wrong. I believe Bush *will* start a war against Iran despite Congress' attempts to stop him and deny him funding, and despite this country's clear position that such a war would not be in our best interests. I believe George W. Bush is bullheaded and believes he knows what is best and doesn't care one iota about the cost in human suffering or in money (as long as he doesn't pay either one). I believe he will not willingly give up power. You can say I am foolish to believe that, but I am not a moron.

I don't believe Hitler thought of himself as a bad person. He knew what was right for his homeland and he was strong enough to do what needed to be done. I don't see any difference between that attitude and GWB's attitude. The U.S. is supposed to be a country of laws, and those laws were meant to protect us from people like Hitler and GWB. But Bush has successfully bypassed every law that sought to restrain him. He has ignored the Constitution where necessary, and I see no reason to believe he will suddenly start to acknowledge it at some point.

Call me crazy. We'll see in two years.

 
chasbas
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kinetic Show

You completely misunderstood my point about the murderer and the rapist. It was not an analogy. It demonstrated that one can't measure "evil" in any meaningful way. I was not saying that GWB was either a murderer or a rapist. So much for your reading comprehension skills.

As to Iraq: Right now Iraq is a shell of its former self. You call it "free", but it is actually "free" of the upper class (except for politicians who still hope to feed off the oil revenues) and middle class. It is free of anyone who has the capacity to escape. It is free of electricity, free of peace, free of hope.

If each of Hussein's sons raped ten women a day for the past 4 years they still would not have raped as many as have been killed in the war George W. Bush started by lying to the world. Obviously no amount of proof will convince you that Bush lied, not the Downing Street memos, not first person accounts by 5 star generals of his obsession with attacking Iraq well before September 11th, 2001, nothing. But clear-thinking people, the majority of people in this country and the overwhelming majority of people on this planet, all believe what the evidence shows: GWB intentionally misled this country and the world to justify his invasion of Iraq, and has since excused with it a dozen different reasons (you only cite the first few), the latest of which was (and this is on tape out of the president's own mouth) "to keep the price of oil low."

What is patriotism to you? By your words it is supporting a president who has committed crimes against humanity. If Hitler were president, would it be patriotic to support him, or patriotic to defy him? That's a real question: Which would be patriotic?

I am a patriot because I care about this country and I speak out when I see it being destroyed. When pictures are published of people being tortured, I don't turn off my television and intone "America is great. America is good." I see what has happened and try to figure out why. In this case there's no question why it happened. Because the president of the United States of America authorized torture. Since then the vice president has defended torture by describing it as dunking. There *is* a debate in this country about torture, with the president's men on one side saying it's okay and the decent people among us saying it's not. Where do you stand on that? We're America, right, so we can do no wrong, right? You're a "patriot," so I'm guessing I've figured out your answer.

""spying" on Americans -- who happen to be communicating with terrorists -- isn't unconstitutional"

How do you know they're communicating with terrorists before they make the call? Obviously you don't - you record everyone. That's what the NSA did (probably are still doing) - record everything from everyone. *That's* what's unconstitutional. BTW, there's a law that has been used by presidents who cared about being law-abiding. It permits recording people and getting a warrant from a judge up to 72 hours after the recording. Why didn't Bush use this law? Why did he ignore it? Why don't you care that he ignored it?

"not only are you wrong about Bush lying"

There is plenty of evidence that Bush consciously lied to the world about Iraq. There are uncontested quotes from well respected people proving this. If you don't know about any of this evidence it's because you don't want to know, not because it's hard to find. My favorite is when Bush suggested to Tony Blair that we should fly disguised U.N. planes over Iraq to entice Hussein to shoot them down. If that's true, and there's no reason to think it's not, it's unadulterated treason. So, is it true or not? If true, is it treason or not?

"firing "experts" isn't unconstitutional"

No, I suppose it isn't. But are you okay with replacing experts (that is, people who have had some experience in a field and are respected by others in that field) with lackeys (that is, people who know nothing about the field and whose loyalty is to the person who appointed them, and whose motive is not doing what the facts demand but doing what their master tells them)? This is the first presidency that has done this all throughout the government, at every level. It is undoubtedly the most corrupt government ever in power due directly to Bush's manipulations.


 
chasbas
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

"The question was not about his potential, but his status at present"

I respectfully disagree. If you were in Germany before Hitler invaded Poland, but you saw events taking place and were able to deduce what was going on, would you have stood by and said "he's not that bad - give him a chance"? Bush's status at present is treasonous. His potential is horrendous. He is evil as much for his methodology (using absolute power to do whatever he thinks is right no matter what anyone else or any facts say) as for his actions and his potential.

"Congress is ready to reign him in"

I truly wish I shared your hope. I believe he will not give up power easily, if at all. I believe he will act unilaterally, and Congress will be trailing behind him as he tramples the globe.

"the only way he could have trampled on so many rights and constitutional provisions was with the consent of Congress"

At the beginning of his reign this may have been true, but no longer. Congress is a speed bump to him now. He will act while they natter at one another. His republican stewards will delay and deny and keep anything from happening, and therefore the only thing happening will be what Bush does. And we will find out about it much too late to do anything about it.

I hope you all are right and I am a foolish dunce screaming "watch out, the sky is falling!" If I were religious I would pray that I am a fool. However I am not religious and I require evidence. I see none that supports your position.

 
gogopoet
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kinetic Show

And laughing is supposed to make you more than half a wit?

 
chasbas
Feb 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jcmyboy Show

"What a horrible debate"

What a fascinating and nuanced argument.

Why did you bother reading it if it's so horrible? Do you think my points are so obviously wrong they don't even need refutation? Coming from someone whose idea of an argument is to quote Christian dogma as if it were a logical thesis, I'm not surprised that you find facts and deductive reasoning "horrible."

 
chasbas
Feb 27, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jcmyboy Show

"Well let me see hear buddy, Hitlar killed over 5 million Jews, Bush didnt. The End."

I guess you didn't bother to read any of my other arguments where I address this point.

Let me put it simply: I don't believe there is any way to measure an "amount" of evil. Between a murderer and a child rapist, which one is "more" evil? The question is meaningless, as is any answer you choose. They're both evil. The End.

That Bush hasn't committed the exact same crimes as Hitler is not relevant. The question is not "Has Bush committed exactly the same crimes as Hitler?" but "Is Bush as evil as Hitler?".

My point has always been that even without the Iraq war, Bush has done more to destroy our republic than anyone or anything since the Civil War. If you include the Iraq war and Bush's stance on Iran and the probability that he will attack Iran before his term is up, there is no question that he has harmed this country more than anyone in history.

To me, that makes him as bad as Hitler. Even if he hasn't killed millions of people. Yet. He's only in the hundreds of thousands so far.

 
chasbas
Feb 27, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: reezer Show

" Ignoring that in favor of taking a stance of "But Bush keeps this up this *could* happen" just makes you look foolish."

I've looked foolish before. Let me ask you: if a teenager pours marbles on a set of stairs and then waits for someone to fall, has he done anything wrong yet? Does he have to wait for someone to actually slip and fall in order to be punished? Obviously not; the act of setting up the situation is a crime by itself, and marks that person as "bad".

Bush has set up the world and this country to the point where people are scrambling to try to stop him from pressing a button and starting WWIII. There is significant evidence that he is planning for war with Iran, which would spark untold devastation around the world. There is evidence that he has illicitly supported the Shiia militants in Lebanon (who are aligned with Al Qaeda) in order to foment rebellion in that county. God only knows how many plans he currently has in place to remake the world the way he wants it to be. And the rest of us are reduced to trying to find a way to stop him before it's too late.

You're telling me that *that*'s not an evil person? Just because he hasn't begun a nuclear attack on Iran *yet*, even though everything is in place so he could begin one in a second? Sounds kind of short sighted to me. If you saw someone loading a gun and downing 6 drinks and heading out the door mumbling about his ex-girlfriend, would you stop him or call the police, or would you hope for the best and say "Well, he hasn't killed anybody like that bad guy down the street who shot his ex-girlfriend"?

"Bush's decisions seem to be based more around acting on intel that matches what he believes to be true and ignoring anything and anyone who tries to tell him otherwise."

We're back to the comparison of Hitler's actions vs. Bush's actions. I agree that Bush isn't cleansing the world for a Master Race. But the basis for both Hitler's and Bush's actions are the same: the belief that *they* know better than anyone else what the world should look like, and that *they* will implement those changes no matter what the cost (to everyone else, of course).

Bush is on exactly the same plane as Hitler when it comes to that. He doesn't care, as you admit, what the facts are, what other people (including his own father or his advisors or the military or anyone) say, or how much it costs, or how many people might die, or how many people might get maimed, etc. He just doesn't care. He knows where he's going and he's going to drag us all there whether we like it or not.

That is the sign of an evil person, a madman bent on remaking the world. Hitler had it, Mussolini, Stalin, they all had it. And if you think Bush doesn't have it, show me why. Give me a fact that shows that Bush cares about whether soldiers will die or get maimed, or that he considers the will of the people to whom he is beholden, or that he bows to the Constitution of the United States to which he swore allegiance. Because I can show you dozens of facts that show the opposite, his disrespect for humanity, his disdain for the will of the people, and his utter disregard for the Constitution.

Tell me that's not evil. Tell me it matters whether he tries to institute a Master Race or just impose democracy on people at the point of a gun. Bush is a monster, and history will tell that story soon enough. The only question is whether we'll be able to stop him before he destroys what is left of our country.

 
chasbas
Feb 28, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: riddar Show

My history teachers are long gone; fortunately for them they didn't have to live through what Bush has done to this country.

When I said Hitler couldn't "break the spirit of this country", I meant break the spirit of the U.S., not of Germany (reread the sentence - you'll see it makes sense like that, and actually doesn't make sense the way you intepreted it).

A strong economy that puts billions of dollars into Bush's & Cheney's friends' pockets (coincidentally, of course), and leaves a huge debt to our children, and makes our economy so dependent on China that when their stock market falls, so does ours. A strong economy that leaves behind the poor and the lower class, and pushes the middle class ever closer to extinction. He *borrowed* a trillion dollars for this war from our children's children and China. You're proud of that!? Advantage Bush.

"Hitler MURDERED his opponents and DISSOLVED the legislature! Your lack of perspective is quite painful. "

I have perspective - you don't. Do you think Hitler was elected and immediately killed his opponents and dissolved the legislature? Of course not - it takes time. He had to work up to it, just like Bush is doing. A little law here suspending habeus corpus, a little law there enabling him to declare martial law, a loophole known as signing statements suddenly used to avoid having to obey the intent of the Legislative branch, etc. Little by little he's building up his power to the point where it won't seem so outrageous when he declares certain Senators "enemy combatants" and has them shot - you'll probably cheer when you find out how they betrayed this country, and clamor for their execution.

*That's* how you take over a democratic country, little by little, law by law, until you have absolute power. Bush is very close to that right now. The Congress is scrambling to try to stop him from starting a war with Iran. When was the last time you remember a pathetic, powerless Congress, supposedly an co-equal branch of power in the government, struggling to make its voice heard?

It kills me that people think "it can't happen here." Bush has to step down in 2009, right? No, not right. He has shown no particular desire to obey the rest of the laws of this country - in fact, he has shown time and time again his disdain for them. What will stop him from declaring the election unnecessary (it's a time of war, remember, everlasting war started by him)? He controls the troops. What's going to stop him? What?

You're the one without perspective. You're the one who thinks everything is fine and dandy and (if you like him) Bush is right about everything and (if you hate him) Bush is just doing the wrong thing but he'll be gone in a couple of years and we can fix it all up again. But you're wrong. Bush is deliberating arranging things so that he can hang on to power, so he can keep things under his finger, and make the world dance.

How again is he different from Hitler?

 
chasbas
Mar 01, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: dereksemeraro Show

"6 million deaths is more than 300,000 deaths."

I'll never understand this kind of thinking, that "worse" is purely a mathematical formula.

Suppose person A cuts off a million people's arms and legs and person B kills a million people - who is worse?

Suppose A kills 6 million people and B is leader of the only superpower in the free world and destroys democracy in that country and turns it from superpower to supervillian, attacking countries at his command, remaking the world to his specifications?

Can you really compare those two evils and find one worse than the other? The only difference I can see is that one happend 60 years ago and the other is happening right now.

I compare Hitler and Bush based on their ideals and goals and methods, not in the raw number of deaths they caused. They both took democratic countries and sent them to war with lies and used the power of that country to attack others who did nothing wrong (I'm talking about Iraq, obviously, not Afghanistan). They both have a questionalbe mental status (Hitler mad, Bush stupid), they both stripped the citizens of their countries of their civil rights (slowly, not all at once) and neither one showed or shows any sign of caring about anyone else or any other opinion.

It's like being on a speeding, out-of-control train and saying "well, we haven't crashed yet so the engineer must be better than that train that was on this track yesterday that *did* crash." We're on the same train, the same track as Hitler. Bush is the engineer.

We are the losers.

 
chasbas
Mar 01, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rolanderikson Show

If you haven't read any of my arguments then I'm not going to repeat them here. If you have then you haven't responded to a single one of them.

To say George Bush was liberating people is a lie. An outright, absolute lie. He positioned this war on Iraq as stopping Hussein from attacking us, possibly the only justification that the American people would accept.

All this other crap is just excuses and attempts to rewrite history. If not, why haven't we "liberated" the rest of the countries run by madmen? Serious question - why not? Why Iraq and not Cuba? Why Iraq and not North Korea?

[Finish in Iraq? Never going to happen. To say we can succeed there shows a complete disregard for history. Did the USSR succeed in Afghanistan? Did Britian succeed in the Middle East? Will any outsider ever succeed in moderating the behavior of other people? Of course not. At this point we *are* the reason for the violence and destruction in Iraq. We are the catalyst. We are the target for the terrorists, who, directly due to our presence and actions, are gaining converts, training new terrorists, learning new techniques, and winning.]

Finally, bringing up Hitler's atrocities may seem relevant, but it's not. For the 17th time, who's worse, a murderer or a child rapist? You tell me - which one is "worse"?

Just because Bush hasn't committed the exact same crimes as Hitler doesn't mean that he hasn't committed some terrible ones, nor does it mean that he is not in a position and shown himself ready to commit more terrible ones. Will he ever engage in the same kind of human experimentation? No, I don't believe he will. But will he drop a nuclear bomb on people who he thinks aren't liberated enough? Without question.

Can you with a clear conscience say that the first crime against humanity is "worse" than the second?

 
llwin1982
Mar 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
To answer the question: Yes, Bush is just as bad as Hitler.

But here's what is most heartbreaking to me: We have lost over 3000 American soilders in this war- and counting! People my age (I'm 24) and younger. People I went to school with (3 so far). They will never live to grow old. They will never experience life. They are dead, and there is no coming back from that.

It breaks my heart that these kids suited up and went and fought a pointless war for a government that could give a damn about them. I feel most sorry for the ones who truly believed in the cause. I always like to say, I support the troops, but I do not support this war. I pray for the troops every day, that no one else's mother has to suffer for this idiot we've got running our country. 2008 cannot come fast enough. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever.

 
chasbas
Mar 06, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: somerandomhobo Show

"you are the ONLY one arguing your side"

So? A lonely voice can't be right? What's your point?

----------------------------
Concentration camp scenario:

As a Jew and a homosexual I'm not sure either one of them would even considering letting me out. If Bush could make all the gays go away, would he do it? Maybe. If you could ask him in an unguarded moment, I bet you'd be surprised. Remember him mocking the woman in Texas who was being executed? He's not against a little bloodletting, for the right cause.

Your question is an interesting way to look at the debate, but misses the point. You're talking about a momentary decision made by a practical man in a defined circumstance. Maybe Hitler and I would have gotten along. Maybe I could win over Bush. My choice would *not* be based on their relative evilness, but on my personal relationship with each of them at that exact moment in time, and my immediate perception of my best chance to escape.

What it comes down to is: I'd happily choose the eviler one if I thought I would live longer.


Hitler (D) vs. Bush (R) scenario:

You mean Hitler is reborn after having committed all those crimes against humanity, and is nominated by the Democratic Party? You wouldn't be a Republican, would you?

Or do you mean Hitler pre-193x is reborn, before he became the leader of Germany. The people who elected him then didn't know the future he would bring - that's why they elected him. Do I know in advance?

If it's the former, that the war criminal Hitler is reborn and nominated, then I vote for Bush. Hitler is a known, Bush is as yet untested.

If it's the latter, that the German politician Hitler is reborn and nominated, I'd have to hear what he said. If it sounded anything like what Democrats say these days, I'd go with him. But I'd be crazy to go with GWB if I had any other choice, that's for sure.

--------------------------
The real comparison between Hitler and Bush (which, btw, not a single person (including you) has addressed) is world domination, remaking the world in his own image, believing that his vision is "right" and that others must be prodded into accepting it.

Hitler prodded with concentration camps after many years in power. He didn't open up the camps right after he was democratically elected. He used lies and propoganda and even burned down buildings to convince the people that his leadership was necessary to carry them through a time of terrible hardship.

Enter George Walker Bush.

Lies. Propogandizes. Sells out CIA agents who make him look bad by telling the truth. Starts wars with countries that haven't done anything to us (except try to kill his dad). The list goes on.

Then there's September 11th. The words are used over and over and over by GWB in virtually every single speech he's given since that date. Why? Because it gives him power, and he likes power, and he uses power. Much like Hitler did.

You've asked me and I've honestly answered, now answer the question I've posed over and over. Funny how no one has seen fit to answer it. I'll try again:

Who is more evil, a murderer or a child rapist? The question is, how do you measure "evil."

The potential for evil deeds caused by the actions of GWB is enormously greatly than that of Hitler, simply because we have bigger bombs now than Hitler had. So if 10 million people die in a nuclear war brought about by Bush's idiotic (at best) evil (at worst) foreign policy, *then* will you consider him "as bad as Hitler"?


 
chasbas
Jul 28, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ex0pepper Show

I guess you'll have to have your face rubbed in WW 3 before you'll believe in it.

Carriers in the Gulf, Cheney advocating (against all rational thinkers) for preemptive strikes against Iran, the building threat of a new, orchestrated "Gulf of Tonkin" incident that will magiliciously extract Bush/Cheney from a myriad of Constitutional violations and poll numbers as low as the country has ever seen...

You can choose to ignore the facts that the rest of the world hates us, that our un-constitutionally-bound leader is bent on armageddon, that the infrastructure is in place for martial law and an America ripe for dictatorship - that's your choice. But the facts remain. Some have seen it coming for years. Some are newly aware of the situation. But everyone honest person knows that Bush/Cheney are powerful, rich, hungry men who are intent on making America their own private playground, permanently. They couldn't care less that men and women are dying for their power grab. Thousands of wounded and their families will pay the rest of their lives for Bush's idiocy, but he sleeps well at night. WW 3 is just another tactic to him. It means nothing in terms of humanity.

You don't believe in WW 3? You think I'm a fool for predicting what has been happening the last 6 years? Go ahead, believe what you will. The next 1 1/2 years will decide whether I am a fool or you have been used by men so evil that Hitler looks benign in comparison.

 
jackbrown
Sep 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
We are all equal. In our minds we are just as bad as Hitler.

 
undeniabledilemma
Apr 16, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rojojo Show

The fact that you could even equivocate the two is a detriment to your intellect. I suggest you read the diary of anne frank. Also it might benefit you to go read about the holocaust so that you can be made aware of the absolute ignorance it takes to make such an assertion. Were Bush to have taken your mother and father and tied them up with a rope had them stand on a bridge and shoot one off the side so the other would be dragged down to drown in order to save bullets, then maybe you could begin to compare the two. For that is just one of the many things Hitler's army did. Not sure if you noticed but no one is being rounded up in gas chambers. How dare you even insult the memory of those horrors and what they did to the Jews and the people of Germany by even beginning to compare the two. That is extremely shameful.

 
sonrisa
May 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: riddar Show

he sh*t on the economy.

 
+ Add Argument

69
No


bigwillie
Feb 22, 2007
11 convinced
Rebuttal
It isn't even close; Hitler committed mass genocide and murdered 6 million people, Bush has lead the US into war.

Genocide, as you might have guessed, is MUCH worse than a minor war.

I realize all the "cool kids" like to bash President Bush, but please try not to bring that crap in here.

 
kinetic
Feb 24, 2007
5 convinced
Rebuttal
It is hilarious that this is even a debate -- what liberal moron started this topic?

Consider: if your answer to the question is "yes," then you must also be prepared to answer with a straight face, the question posed as "Hitler: As Bad As Bush?"

The only basis for this question at all is that Bush went to war. Let's say for the sake of argument that he went to war based on incorrect information -- let me give that to you for one second. If that's the case, then the war has ONLY liberated hundreds of thousands of people from a proven dictator that has used chemical and biological weapons against his own people and had a track record of tyranny. So let's back up once again and ask: as bad as Hitler? Hmmm ...

Some moron named chasbas said that the answer is yes because "Bush's 'crimes' (which he does not explicitly state because you'd start laughing) were committed for money [and] power." Now, he states that this is as bad as "mass killings." He goes on to state that Haliburton profited from the destruction -- an irrelevance because many companies profited from the rebuilding of Europe and Haliburton also worked for Clinton in areas where he went to war (albeit more futilely). His entire argument is based on the tired liberal statement that "the rich profited and the poor didn't," which tells you where his puny mind is.

He also states that Bush started a religious war and "set the stage for the war to end all wars." But he fails to note that Muslims have been attacking Christians via terrorism since before Bush, that they attacked us during the precious Clinton years, and that the only people who view this as a religious war ARE THE MUSLIMS, who refer to it as a "jihad." Therefore, another irrelevant point by a stupid person to support a moronic contention.

That's liberalism.

 
riddar
Feb 22, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Usually anti-Bush debates offend me on an intellectual level. Not that I like Bush, but there is a certain air of "Bush Suxx!" about most internet claims about his presidential quality. I really don't like the president so much, but unlike many, I recognize he is far from the worst on many factual levels.

However, I give the poster of this topic credit. He offends on a humanitarian level, and intellectual level, and a historical level. I rarely encounter things so... ouch. Well, someone claims we fought on Iraq's side in Desert Storm, and still holds we armed them with nuclear weapons, but what can one do. As of now, the debate's creator has yet to even post the expected "Yes" argument, which is honestly for the better.

The fact that he (perhaps) votes scares me just a little bit.

 
thewhitedwarf
Feb 23, 2007
4 convinced
Rebuttal
hey look, it is a liberal wako, that is something you don't see everyday...oh wait, you do.

I sure as heck am not a bush fan, but to compare him to hitler trivializes those who experienced the holocaust and died for no cause at all.

please, don't put these types of debates on that trivialize what people suffered for.

 
thethinker
Feb 24, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Bush doesn't kill you for talking crap about him.

 
thales
Feb 22, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Not until this question ceases to have the shock value that its author was clearly banking on.

 
reezer
Feb 23, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Can we flag a question for being wank bait?

 
kinetic
Feb 24, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

Wrong; my attacks weren't ad hominem. I didn't say you were wrong "because you're a moron." I proved you were wrong; your arguments happen to be so stupid that you have DEMONSTRATED you're a moron.

I'm glad you admitted that Bush isn't EXACTLY like Hitler. Of course, then you present this stupid analogy of a mass murderer versus a child rapist -- I guess Bush is the child rapist, apparently -- and say that the world "would be better" without both. Yeah, that would be pretty sweet because then Saddam Hussein would still be a dictator and tyrant, millions of Iraqis would not be free, Hussein's sons would still be raping women, the U.N. would still be sitting around saying "we think Hussein has WMD, but we're only going to say that we think he's a bad person because we're reasonable," and you'd still be pretty stupid. So clearly you can tell that the world would NOT be better, but the fact that you think it would be simply demonstrates how irrational you are.

Torture isn't "your America"? Yeah, tell us about "your America." You act like you're this super-patriot and yet you happen to believe that America is led by a quasi-Hitler and American troops torture people. Wow, can it get more patriotic than that? I think not!

Bush has "upended" the Constitution? Uh, note to the revisionist, but a) "spying" on Americans -- who happen to be communicating with terrorists -- isn't unconstitutional; b) not only are you wrong about Bush lying and haven't demonstrated that point, but if lying was unconstituional, you and your entire Democrat party would be in jail; c) firing "experts" isn't unconstitutional, but thanks for annointing them with "expert" status because they agree with you ...

Actually, you can tell all of your points are just typical tripe. You just blabber on about "Bush's lies," meaning that "when he said something I disagreed with, that's a lie." And you call things "unconstititonal," meaning "if I disagree with it, it's not Constitutional." You're a moron.

 
reezer
Feb 24, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

Yes, if Bush manages to spark WWIII with America vs Islam, that will be as bad as Hitler.

Unfortunately for your analogy, that hasn't happened yet, and common sense (and ohbytheway, the facts) dictates that that won't happen. Bush will be out of office in a little over a year, no matter what and his neo-con wet dream of invading Iran falls apart on sheer logistics. (Not to mention, I fully believe that Congress will block the funding of any such attempt, should Bush be insane enough to try).

And for such doom and gloom, "Sky is falling" pronouncements about Bush's destruction of the Constitution, name one thing he's done that couldn't be undone with a single legislative vote?

And "Christian hegemony?" WTF does that even mean?

 
jcmyboy
Feb 25, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
What a horrible debate.

 
jcmyboy
Feb 26, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

Well let me see hear buddy, Hitlar killed over 5 million Jews, Bush didnt. The End.

 
BennyLeo
Apr 18, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Hitler vs. Bush. Mass murder vs. Idiocy. Let's go with the murderer.

 
blmustng21
Feb 23, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I may not like Bush, but he is never going to be nearly or even close to as bad and evil-minded as Hitler was.

 
unlabled00
Feb 23, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Bush is a total nut-job but he's not in the "Hitler-bats-f***ing-loco" range.

 
t00lz
Feb 23, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I'd have to say he's a little off the mark... (that sarcasm sounds better out loud)

 
reezer
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

So... Bush is worse than Hitler... Because Bush is about profit and political gain instead of genocide and insanity?

*backs away slowly from the crazy person*

 
brivapor
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
thats giving bush way to much credit as a bad guy

bush is bad guy but not a diabolical genius bad guy like hitler

he is just a miserable pathetic embarasment

 
gethappy
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Honestly, I'm not a fan of Bush. He's a moron and I did better than him on the SATs when I was in middle school. He lead us into an unnecessary war for God-knows-why, and it doesn't look like we're leaving any time soon. But still. Hitler? No one was as bad as Hitler. No one will ever be as bad as Hitler (well, we can hope). When the president starts openly supporting the death of all Arabs, I'll reconsider my statement.

 
gogopoet
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

I agree, wholeheartedly, that Bush has attempted to match Hitler, but I really believe he has failed, fortunately. He missed his chance at genocide, failed to establish a totalitarian regime, corporate entities still have to buy influence in the legislature, the working class still has some autonomy... . He's just a Hitler wannabe.

 
kinetic
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
In response to gogopoet, who posted under "no":

This is hilarious stuff. "Bush attempted to match Hitler"? What is this, an argument on why you shouldn't be allowed to vote or something? HA HA HA HA HA!

 
gogopoet
Feb 24, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

The question was not about his potential, but his status at present. I've long believed he is a megalomaniac, but he also seems to suffer from wet-brain syndrome and Congress is ready to reign him in. You must keep in mind that the only way he could have trampled on so many rights and constitutional provisions was with the consent of Congress. He's lost that.

 
gogopoet
Feb 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

RE: "I respectfully disagree. If you were in Germany before Hitler invaded Poland, but you saw events taking place and were able to deduce what was going on, would you have stood by and said 'he's not that bad - give him a chance'?"

I can't say what I would've done, since I wouldn't have had after the fact knowledge. I don't disagree with your contention that Bush has the potential to be as bad as Hitler, except that I don't see the genius in him that Hitler had. Yes, he is diabolical, but he's not his own master. He still has some potential for mischief, but I think our biggest threat comes from the powers behind the throne, the guys who put people in office.

RE: "I believe he will not give up power easily, if at all."

No, he won't relinguish power without a fight, but his power is an illusion. He's the man behind the curtain, but someone is pulling his strings. When the powers that be want him replaced... .

 
shoomesh
Feb 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Bush is not as as bad as Hitler. But Archie Andrews....

 
reezer
Feb 26, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

This just highlights the biggest fundamental flaw in your argument:The question is "Is Bush just as bad as Hitler?", not "Is Bush potentially as evil as Hitler?". The question is about what Bush has done in comparison to what Hitler did. Ignoring that in favor of taking a stance of "But Bush keeps this up this *could* happen" just makes you look foolish.

And even if you ignore *that*, you cannot cannot CANNOT ignore intent in a debate like this. No matter what you think of Bush's policies and decisions, he is not setting out to create a Master Race while rounding up and exterminating those he deems inferior. Bush's decisions seem to be based more around acting on intel that matches what he believes to be true and ignoring anything and anyone who tries to tell him otherwise.

That isn't just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to turnips: Barely in the same category

 
thethinker
Feb 27, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

You might be taking my ideas to the extreme here.
I am not saying that my argument is the only reason that Bush isn't as bad as Hitler. Besides, if you think that Bush is all that evil, you might as well be on my side because you would be arguing that he is worse (not equal).

 
riddar
Feb 28, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

"...wasting what will end up being a trillion dollars..."

A trillion dollars of a strong economy, rather than leading us into a war that fully decimated our economy. Advantage- Hitler.

"Bush has at every turn weakened civil rights in this country, turning the Constitution on its head and defying any authority to stop him. He has eliminated habeus corpus (we now rely on the good will of the chief executive not to use the power he now has to imprision anyone anytime he wants)."

Hitler MURDERED his opponents and DISSOLVED the legislature! Your lack of perspective is quite painful.

"Maybe Htiler killed more people, but there's still time for Bush to catch up. And in the meantime, he has destroyed the spirit of this country, which even Hitler was unable to do."

Yes, 'Htlier' killed many more people. And yes, 'Htlier' DID break the spirit of his country you idiot- the genocide he performed is a source of national shame, a blight that they constantly must fight against the stigma of. They have the strongest laws against Holocaust denial campaigns, and their educational programs about it are quite pronounced. Millions were killed in this way. Millions of German soldiers died. Millions of German citizens died and cities were razed. Broke their spirit? I think so.


Your argument has actually become an insult to any history teacher you may have had. If you would like to debate this between us, feel free to message me.

 
dereksemeraro
Feb 28, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
6 million deaths is more than 300,000 deaths.

Hitler is FAR worse.

 
rolanderikson
Feb 28, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
There is no comparison between the two. Adolf Hitler killed millions, while George Bush is attempting to liberate people. Now you may say that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but the fact of the matter is, that we are there now, so we need to finish.
But I digress, Bush is not committing "evil" acts while Hitler most certainly was. For instance Hitler had an underling by the name of Josef Mengele who was the head "Doctor" at the concentration camp Auschwitz who engaged in various evil deeds such as: killing subjects simply to be able to dissect them afterwards, attempting to change eye color by injecting chemicals into children's eyes, and at least one case attempting to create artificial conjoined twins by sewing the veins of twins together.
For anyone still not convinced I urge you to see the film "the Pianist" and/or read the memoir of the same name. The film and memoir both describe the survival of Wladyslaw Szpilman in Warsaw from 1939 to 1945. I hope this helps change your mind.

 
somerandomhobo
Mar 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Ok, SOMEBODY's been drinking a little bit too much kool-aid.

Chasbas, no matter how long your arguments are, the arguments in the right column are more logical. Also notice: you are the ONLY one arguing your side.

If you really, honestly, deep-down inside think that Bush is as bad or worse than Hitler, imagine this:

You are a Jew in a concentration camp in 1944. Adolph Hitler and George W. Bush magically appear somehow, and you get to choose which one decides your fate. Which do you choose?

The year is 2004. The Republicans nominate George W. Bush for President, while the nominee for the Democrats is Adolph Hitler. You are forced to vote for one of these two to be the leader of the country. Who do you vote for?

If you really, honestly would choose Hitler in either case (wihch I really don't believe is true, no matter how much you insist that you hate Bush more) then maybe you simply don't have an understanding of historical perspective and how it applies to these two men, because no reasonable person would ever make Hitler their choice given the relative history of George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler.

 
ex0pepper
Jul 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chasbas Show

"I say destroying the Constitution of the United States and
causing WWIII is enough to make you as evil as Hitler. Even if
you don't kill people who talk crap about you."


WWIII?
WWIII?!



WORLD F****** WAR 3?!?!?!?!?

 
ex0pepper
Jul 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I can't believe whoever wrote this debate could type the topic without burning a flag


and if you voted yes, your part of the problem

 
suzieq185
Dec 11, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
No way! Bush has not shoved Jews or anyone else in ovens, shaved their heads, starved them, took away their clothes, and taken away their dignity.


 
berlinboyz
Jan 30, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
NOT YET!

 
berlinboyz
Jan 30, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
NOT YET!

 
berlinboyz
Jan 30, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
NOT YET!

 
silver
Jun 24, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
ARE YOU FRIKIN KIDDING ME.......I WANT TO KNOW WHO STARTED THIS TOPIC RIGHT NOW. EITHER YOU SHOW RESPECT TO YOUR COMMANDER AND CHIEF (THAT'S A HARD JOB YOU KNOW!) OR YOU GET THE HELL OUT OF THIS COUNTRY NOW!!! SO WHOEVER STARTED THIS TOPIC, YOU'D BETTER COME FORTH NOW YOU DISGRACEFUL SON OF A *****. HOW DARE YOU EVEN COMPARE THE RESPECTABLE LEADER OF OUR COUNTRY (REGARDLESS IF YOU AGREE WITH HIS POLITICS OR NOT) TO A GENOCIDE CAUSING, TRIGGER HAPPY, SICKO! YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THIS COUNTRY, AND YOU DESERVE TO BE TRIED IN COURT FOR TREASON (OH YEAH, I'LL FIND A REASON!). I'M SICK AND TIRED OF YOU PEOPLE COMPLAINING FOR EVERY LITTLE THING THAT DOESN'T SEEM "IN OUR BEST INTEREST" AND I'M ALSO SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR LAME, UNWARRANTED ARGUEMENTS. YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME!? THEN STOP HIDING BEHIND YOUR SO CALLED "ARGUEMENTS" AND YOU TAKE YOUR FIGHTS UP WITH ME! NOW!!!!

 
ehw19
Jan 21, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jackbrown Show

This is the dumbest debate ever. Hitler is just a disgrace to everyone. Why would anyone compare Bush to Hitler? Your everyday liberals.

 
rojojo
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
No. But similar...except Hitler was smart.

Atleast Hitler was upfront with destroying peoples lives...
Bush acts all innocent about it.

 
rojojo
Apr 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
No. But similar...except Hitler was smart.

Atleast Hitler was upfront with destroying peoples lives...
Bush acts all innocent about it.

 
kavamai
May 02, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I really, really wish I could say yes

 
lordofrhetoric
May 02, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
i don't think hitler and bush should even be compared. while i greatly dislike bush, i despise hitler. hitler was a murderer who consiously started one of the worst genocides in the history of the earth, while bush put us in debt beyond recognition due to the war in Iraq wich was unjustified. both of these acts are horrible, but i think i speak for most when i say murder is worse than financial irresponsibility.

 
zarkuna
Jul 13, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Bush was pretty bad but this is just overstating it a million times over.

Nothing stands up to Hitler as of now.

 
jafr08
Nov 16, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Hilter was a million murderer. Though people were killed in the war it is no were near that number

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong