(no subject)

[andrewducker]

All of you that hate Bush go and read this.

Because, frankly, you're causing more problems than you're solving.

Comments

[asim.livejournal.com]

Just posted it to sos_usa.
Waiting for the big blog boys and girls to catch it...

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

I'm not a big blog guy?

*snif*

[derumi.livejournal.com]

See, I tell my liberal anti-Bush friends that the reason he'll be re-elected is because too many of them think he's a genuine idiot. What is it then, bumbling idiot or evil mastermind? I view him to be just as politically smart as Clinton, and my conservative anti-Willy friends thought he was either a bumbling idiot or evil mastermind. Oh, look! 4 more years of a President you don't want...

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I don't find strawman arguments to be convincing.

[andrewducker]

Surely that was the point?

[asim.livejournal.com]

Care to explain? What's fake about the people who say Bush sucks, and compare him to Hitler? Because there is a perfect example of what he's talking about.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

You can find anyone who's willing to endorse any opinion, pretty much, but the question is whether there are people who anyone listens to who are saying that Bush equals Hitler, and I certainly don't know of any. The author's argument would be more credible if he cited actual examples of the people he is arguing against (imagine that).

[andrewducker]

Oh, right.

I've certainly heard it said on several occasions.

"I think George Bush is the most corrupt American president since Harding in the Twenties.

"He is not the legitimate president."

He later added: "This really is a completely unsupportable government and I look forward to it being overthrown as much as I looked forward to Saddam Hussein being overthrown."

That was the mayor of London.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

The first two statements are completely reasonable, IMO, and whether they're reasonable or not, are certainly not as extreme as saying "Bush is Hitler" for example. The last one is a little more extreme, but isn't totally unreasonable... I'd rather have Bush be overthrown and Hussein stay in place than the opposite, just based on self-interest, though I'd prefer they both be overthrown.

[andrewducker]

I'd rather Bush not be overthrown. I'd rather he was voted out.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. I hear many people saying that Bush is an impressively terrible and deeply corrupt President, arguably the worst we've had in the last century. However, except for a few people on the furthest radical fringe (who even people on the left rarely listen to), I don't hear anyone seriously comparing him to Hitler or claiming that he has set up death camps in the US. In short, this is a straw man argument that does not impress me.

[minkboylove.livejournal.com]

Ken Livingstone recently declared war on pigeons, although his desire to rejoin the Labour Party as Tony's Prodigal Best Friend was the thing that convinced me that Ken has finally gone completely tonto.

Although I do agree that Bush isn't the legitimate president and the election was a fix, I think it's like some quote I heard and I don't know who said it, but it was something like "Strong opinions make for poor rhetoric."

If you caught Vanessa Redgrave on Question Time last night, you'll know what I mean. Agreed with her on most things, but...oh dear.

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

Amazing. I need to cite examples?

The author's article would be less credible, ironically, because then it would look like I was attacking a specific person (or group of persons) and less like I was making a global point. And then the very idiots I was trying to reach could go, "Well, I'm not as bad as that guy" and write me off.

But cha can't please everyone, I guess. Trust me; look briefly through some of the anti-Bush blogs, and you'll see it. Or just stop by your local war protest.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I've been to anti-war protests, in Berkeley, no less, and I haven't seen or heard anyone there comparing Bush to Hitler. And I don't think that blogs influence the public's opinion of anything, sad to say, because most people don't know what blogs are.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

If your argument is that people who are listened to don't make the comparison that Bush is similar to Hitler or Osama, I think you're supporting theferrett's point.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

No, I think there's a difference: theferrett is saying, "if liberals start saying that Bush equals Hitler, they won't be listened to." I'm saying, "those who are listened to don't say that and will never say that, so they don't need your advice."

[andrewducker]

I ignore people on marches, because I see Bush/Hitler placards. The people standing next to them may be perfectly reasonable and rational, but by standing chanting with them, they're tarring them with the same brush.

If the liberals don't deliberately distance themselves from the loonies nobody will listen to them.

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

I think you have a skewed view of what influences Americans' popular opinions. Popular opinion in the US is in favor of Bush and war because they think supporting Bush and the war is the only way to be a true patriot. Whatever influence the actions of actual anti-Bush/anti-war protestors have on opinion is minimal compared to this.

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

There was a good comment someone posted on the BBC site a few days ago. Bush had said the the protesters "were lucky to live in a country where they could say what they liked" and this person posted that in a democracy you can say what you like and the leaders are supposed to listen

Also the guy you linked to said When you compare Bush to Hitler and Hussein, you are in a very real sense saying to the everyday Joe, "I wouldn't mind if he got knocked off." I'm not saying this is what you believe. I'm saying this is how people interpret it.

In all honesty, I wouldn't mind, probably as much as I wouldn't mind about any dictator imposing their agenda on the world being knocked off. That he isn't torturing Americans is a very insular argument to prove he is not Evil. He is ignoring the world because he has a bigger stick and can do what he likes. He is invading countries on a whim.

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

That he isn't torturing Americans is a very insular argument to prove he is not Evil.

Maybe, but I was talking to Americans in this case. The ones who, y'know, vote?

He can be Evil, but generally pointing at a friend or trusted confidante of yours and saying, "Eeeeeeevil!" isn't enough. There are better ways.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

Taken from the essay:

Bush is the next Hitler. Bush wants to kill all the gays.

You think anyone's hearing you?

The point of this essay, if you haven't gotten it already, is that I see a lot of anti-Bush propaganda in my comments. And I'm not one of Bush's big fans, but the one thing I keep seeing are these ridiculously overblown statements about how Bush is just as bad as Hitler (or worse yet, Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden), and the talk of his eventual plans for world domination. Many times, they back it up with figures and facts that are actually convincing.

But lemme tell you this: It doesn't matter how well-backed your arguments and comparisons are. You may be right.

Every time you do that, you're marginalizing the entire anti-Bush movement.

theferrett is speaking to the people who use these arguments, and offering a viewpoint as to how their comparison is making their argumentation weaker.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Isn't that an argument against people who hate Bush making stupid arguments, not an argument for not hating Bush? Or, indeed, making high-handed statements about activists in general?

[andrewducker]

Yup.

But I wanted it read, which pretty much demanded hyperbole.

"People who like Bush, go over the top and say stupid things, read this." wouldn't have reached the people I wanted it to.

I'm a politician at heart.

[webmacher.livejournal.com]

There was a great pair of articles in the National Review in their September 29 issue on the subject of Bush hatred, and Molly Ivins had a great column on the subject too, which I think you can find at www.alternet.org

I have to say -- I am an American who does strongly dislike Bush and I have trouble seeing his charms. Yet comparing him or anybody to Hitler is really over the top. Hitler was like Hitler. Other leaders may do things we think are bad, but why can't you just say something is bad without sinking into cliches? It would be cool if people just stated their thesis, "I think Bush's policies have caused some harm", documented their reasons why, and let the facts speak for themselves.

Also, reading about past campaigns, it seems like the successful ones attacked policies, not people. That's how Clinton got in...

Luckily, some people manage to do that. I think Bushwacked by Molly Ivins is a great example.

[themongkey.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, "I think Bush's policies have caused some harm" followed by a reasoned list doesn't fit readably on a placard. This, however, does:

[webmacher.livejournal.com]

I love it!!!!!

Comparing Bush to Hitler is one thing. Ruthlessly mocking him is quite another. :-)

(http://www.womeninit.net/blog/archives/images/dodos.jpg, which I did in response to Jeb Bush making some comment to the effect that San Francisco liberals were an endangered species)

[coffeeinhell.livejournal.com]

Y'know, not all of us who hate Bush and despise the policies of the current administration resort to dumb hyperbole.

In fact, some us just keep seethe quietly (with the occasional passionate outburst), wait anxiously for the next election to approach so we can work for our own candidates, and avoid posting about it in our LiveJournals because we really don't want to get into back-and-forth arguments over it.

Call us the New Silent Majority, if you will.

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

A good point, and I have heard arguments that make the comparison, though of the "It's 1939 and we've just invaded Poland" kind. (By Americans to Americans.) Meaning Hitler before the death camps.

But if not Hitler and the Nazis, then who? The British Empire would be my pick. There's the same self-interest masquerading as doing good for the countries they've occupied for starters. It's a much better fit, I think.