Jump to content

Muslim Congressman: Bush Like Hitler


Passion

Recommended Posts

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

 

Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.

 

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

 

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

 

Vice-President Dick Cheney's stance of refusing to answer some questions from Congress was "the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship", he added.

 

Mr Ellison also raised eyebrows by telling his audience: "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want."

 

A convert to Islam who was previously linked to the extremist Nation of Islam, Mr Ellison, 42, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November, concentrating on issues such as health and education.

 

He is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq. But he angered his own anti-war supporters by voting for a budget bill that aims to end the war over the next 18 months. His followers want an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

 

After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy.

 

Mark Drake, of the Republican party in Minnesota, said: "To compare the democratically elected leader of the United States of America to Hitler is an absolute moral outrage which trivialises the horrors of Nazi Germany."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...14/wbush114.xml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

 

Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.

 

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

 

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

 

Vice-President Dick Cheney's stance of refusing to answer some questions from Congress was "the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship", he added.

 

Mr Ellison also raised eyebrows by telling his audience: "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want."

 

A convert to Islam who was previously linked to the extremist Nation of Islam, Mr Ellison, 42, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November, concentrating on issues such as health and education.

 

He is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq. But he angered his own anti-war supporters by voting for a budget bill that aims to end the war over the next 18 months. His followers want an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

 

After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy.

 

Mark Drake, of the Republican party in Minnesota, said: "To compare the democratically elected leader of the United States of America to Hitler is an absolute moral outrage which trivialises the horrors of Nazi Germany."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...14/wbush114.xml

 

That's just ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be written with a very right wing take there.

 

The comparisons of using a tragedy of large proportions then lead a country down paths that no sane man should walk is rather accurate. It has been done many times in history. Look at the spanish american war, a warship "blew up" so the US attacked. Of course that warship exploding is often believed to be our own fault and twisted around.

 

Now we do have a sitting president that is torturing innocents and some american citizens upon the basis of religious affiliation within internment camps. Individuals that were illegally placed there without a trial or even charges in most cases.

 

It is an extreme comparison but yes Bush does show totalitarianism in some of his under-takings.

 

My hope is the next president will restore the balance of power to this country and stop seeing the executive branch grow in such authoritarian lengths no matter which party is elected and to stop the abuse and torture which is counter to everything we, as a country should stand for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be written with a very right wing take there.

 

The comparisons of using a tragedy of large proportions then lead a country down paths that no sane man should walk is rather accurate. It has been done many times in history. Look at the spanish american war, a warship "blew up" so the US attacked. Of course that warship exploding is often believed to be our own fault and twisted around.

 

Now we do have a sitting president that is torturing innocents and some american citizens upon the basis of religious affiliation within internment camps. Individuals that were illegally placed there without a trial or even charges in most cases.

 

It is an extreme comparison but yes Bush does show totalitarianism in some of his under-takings.

 

My hope is the next president will restore the balance of power to this country and stop seeing the executive branch grow in such authoritarian lengths no matter which party is elected and to stop the abuse and torture which is counter to everything we, as a country should stand for.

What exactly can you take from that article that was written in a 'right wing take'?

 

There isn't a single bit of speculation or opinion in the article outside of Ellison's comments.

 

The Telegraph does have a conservative stance, I know that, but I don't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellison is flat out wrong and stupid on this. But let me ask you..why does it matter that he is a Muslim? He is also black. We wouldn't say black congressman compares Bush to Hitler, right? Or Christian congressman caught molesting house pages?

 

Islam is not his main constituency. Can he ever have an independant view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellison is flat out wrong and stupid on this. But let me ask you..why does it matter that he is a Muslim? He is also black. We wouldn't say black congressman compares Bush to Hitler, right? Or Christian congressman caught molesting house pages?

 

Islam is not his main constituency. Can he ever have an independant view?

I simply played off the actual article's title.

 

That said, I think when talking about 9/11, Iraq war, etc. the fact that he is a Muslim (the 1st ever) congressman is at least part of the discussion or a fact that should be placed in the article. If it were a black congressman or woman who I was posting about dealing with something where their race was part of it I'd make mention as well.

 

If you think that makes any difference in what he said or not, is probably a whole 'nother conversation.

 

Subconsciously, and maybe not appropriately, I'll admit that I personally use Muslim and Jew to describe a person whereas I wouldn't for a white or black Christian. Just what I've always done and probably little reasoning behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be written with a very right wing take there.

 

The comparisons of using a tragedy of large proportions then lead a country down paths that no sane man should walk is rather accurate. It has been done many times in history. Look at the spanish american war, a warship "blew up" so the US attacked. Of course that warship exploding is often believed to be our own fault and twisted around.

 

Now we do have a sitting president that is torturing innocents and some american citizens upon the basis of religious affiliation within internment camps. Individuals that were illegally placed there without a trial or even charges in most cases.

 

It is an extreme comparison but yes Bush does show totalitarianism in some of his under-takings.

 

My hope is the next president will restore the balance of power to this country and stop seeing the executive branch grow in such authoritarian lengths no matter which party is elected and to stop the abuse and torture which is counter to everything we, as a country should stand for.

 

You cannot compare George Bush to Adolph Hitler. At all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be written with a very right wing take there.

 

The comparisons of using a tragedy of large proportions then lead a country down paths that no sane man should walk is rather accurate. It has been done many times in history. Look at the spanish american war, a warship "blew up" so the US attacked. Of course that warship exploding is often believed to be our own fault and twisted around.

 

Now we do have a sitting president that is torturing innocents and some american citizens upon the basis of religious affiliation within internment camps. Individuals that were illegally placed there without a trial or even charges in most cases.

 

It is an extreme comparison but yes Bush does show totalitarianism in some of his under-takings.

 

My hope is the next president will restore the balance of power to this country and stop seeing the executive branch grow in such authoritarian lengths no matter which party is elected and to stop the abuse and torture which is counter to everything we, as a country should stand for.

What exactly can you take from that article that was written in a 'right wing take'?

 

There isn't a single bit of speculation or opinion in the article outside of Ellison's comments.

 

The Telegraph does have a conservative stance, I know that, but I don't see it.

 

 

 

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

 

After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy

 

 

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

 

 

 

 

Those two statements are polar opposites of the first statement to put the spin on the article. Not saying you dont see it in the times and half of the libral papers doing the same thing. But they are subjectively making the guy look like an extremist on purpose just because of the basis of his religion and stance of the issues.

 

 

 

As for this:

 

 

You cannot compare George Bush to Adolph Hitler. At all.

 

 

 

Yes I can, I live in america. I have the right to compare our president and his flaws or good points how I feel. I have the right and in my opinion the Requirement to point out these faults in the characters of individuals.

 

Do I believe Bush is as bad as Hitler? No of course not.

Do I believe there are elements that are akin? Yes as I laid out in my statement.

 

He is locking up a race of people, most of whom have committed no crime (as per lack of charges), and torturing them some even to death. :blink:

 

 

If Egypt started to do that to all catholics in their borders or any denomination of majority in this country we would put an end to it. (Not that I expect Egypt to do so or even know if they have the demographics of population for a reference point, merely an example of a muslim nation having the reverse done).

 

 

All of that said no Bush isnt Hitler, but is perhaps the worst leader in the history of the Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have proof that we are torturing people to death?

 

 

When will people learn that I can throw sh*t on a wall too and hope it sticks?

 

 

Did you know that all milk cows are behind the Bush administrations every move!?! I mean its SO OBVIOUS that the cows told Bushie to read about goats on Sept. 11th while they let their maniac plans come to fruition to bolster their puppet's every move!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be written with a very right wing take there.

 

The comparisons of using a tragedy of large proportions then lead a country down paths that no sane man should walk is rather accurate. It has been done many times in history. Look at the spanish american war, a warship "blew up" so the US attacked. Of course that warship exploding is often believed to be our own fault and twisted around.

 

Now we do have a sitting president that is torturing innocents and some american citizens upon the basis of religious affiliation within internment camps. Individuals that were illegally placed there without a trial or even charges in most cases.

 

It is an extreme comparison but yes Bush does show totalitarianism in some of his under-takings.

 

My hope is the next president will restore the balance of power to this country and stop seeing the executive branch grow in such authoritarian lengths no matter which party is elected and to stop the abuse and torture which is counter to everything we, as a country should stand for.

What exactly can you take from that article that was written in a 'right wing take'?

 

There isn't a single bit of speculation or opinion in the article outside of Ellison's comments.

 

The Telegraph does have a conservative stance, I know that, but I don't see it.

 

 

 

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

 

After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy

 

 

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

 

 

 

 

Those two statements are polar opposites of the first statement to put the spin on the article. Not saying you dont see it in the times and half of the libral papers doing the same thing. But they are subjectively making the guy look like an extremist on purpose just because of the basis of his religion and stance of the issues.

 

 

 

As for this:

 

 

You cannot compare George Bush to Adolph Hitler. At all.

 

 

 

Yes I can, I live in america. I have the right to compare our president and his flaws or good points how I feel. I have the right and in my opinion the Requirement to point out these faults in the characters of individuals.

 

Do I believe Bush is as bad as Hitler? No of course not.

Do I believe there are elements that are akin? Yes as I laid out in my statement.

 

He is locking up a race of people, most of whom have committed no crime (as per lack of charges), and torturing them some even to death. :blink:

 

 

If Egypt started to do that to all catholics in their borders or any denomination of majority in this country we would put an end to it. (Not that I expect Egypt to do so or even know if they have the demographics of population for a reference point, merely an example of a muslim nation having the reverse done).

 

 

All of that said no Bush isnt Hitler, but is perhaps the worst leader in the history of the Union.

 

Dude, you have the right to say whatever the f*** you want. I'm obviously not pointing out that you can't. Especially on a message board.

 

Franklin Roosevelt has much more similarities to Hitler in the area of locking up a race of people. Not sure if you've heard of the Japanese internment camps, maybe you should look it up...

 

Now, I'm not saying Roosevelt is like Hitler at all, I'm just saying you should think a little bit before you make comments like

All of that said no Bush isnt Hitler, but is perhaps the worst leader in the history of the Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be written with a very right wing take there.

 

The comparisons of using a tragedy of large proportions then lead a country down paths that no sane man should walk is rather accurate. It has been done many times in history. Look at the spanish american war, a warship "blew up" so the US attacked. Of course that warship exploding is often believed to be our own fault and twisted around.

 

Now we do have a sitting president that is torturing innocents and some american citizens upon the basis of religious affiliation within internment camps. Individuals that were illegally placed there without a trial or even charges in most cases.

 

It is an extreme comparison but yes Bush does show totalitarianism in some of his under-takings.

 

My hope is the next president will restore the balance of power to this country and stop seeing the executive branch grow in such authoritarian lengths no matter which party is elected and to stop the abuse and torture which is counter to everything we, as a country should stand for.

What exactly can you take from that article that was written in a 'right wing take'?

 

There isn't a single bit of speculation or opinion in the article outside of Ellison's comments.

 

The Telegraph does have a conservative stance, I know that, but I don't see it.

 

 

 

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

 

After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy

 

 

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

 

 

 

 

Those two statements are polar opposites of the first statement to put the spin on the article. Not saying you dont see it in the times and half of the libral papers doing the same thing. But they are subjectively making the guy look like an extremist on purpose just because of the basis of his religion and stance of the issues.

 

 

 

As for this:

 

 

You cannot compare George Bush to Adolph Hitler. At all.

 

 

 

Yes I can, I live in america. I have the right to compare our president and his flaws or good points how I feel. I have the right and in my opinion the Requirement to point out these faults in the characters of individuals.

 

Do I believe Bush is as bad as Hitler? No of course not.

Do I believe there are elements that are akin? Yes as I laid out in my statement.

 

He is locking up a race of people, most of whom have committed no crime (as per lack of charges), and torturing them some even to death. :blink:

 

 

If Egypt started to do that to all catholics in their borders or any denomination of majority in this country we would put an end to it. (Not that I expect Egypt to do so or even know if they have the demographics of population for a reference point, merely an example of a muslim nation having the reverse done).

 

 

All of that said no Bush isnt Hitler, but is perhaps the worst leader in the history of the Union.

 

Dude, you have the right to say whatever the f*** you want. I'm obviously not pointing out that you can't. Especially on a message board.

 

Franklin Roosevelt has much more similarities to Hitler in the area of locking up a race of people. Not sure if you've heard of the Japanese internment camps, maybe you should look it up...

 

Now, I'm not saying Roosevelt is like Hitler at all, I'm just saying you should think a little bit before you make comments like

All of that said no Bush isnt Hitler, but is perhaps the worst leader in the history of the Union.

but unlike bush...we were legally at war with both Japan and Germany...not that it makes the pressure on roosevelt to make these internment camps any less racist or wrong...but the time period was different...people of different origin were not equal in the eyes of the law back then...and we hadnt had a civil rights movement yet...i bet in fact...that something like 75% or higher actually supported internment camps for germans and japanese

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be written with a very right wing take there.

 

The comparisons of using a tragedy of large proportions then lead a country down paths that no sane man should walk is rather accurate. It has been done many times in history. Look at the spanish american war, a warship "blew up" so the US attacked. Of course that warship exploding is often believed to be our own fault and twisted around.

 

Now we do have a sitting president that is torturing innocents and some american citizens upon the basis of religious affiliation within internment camps. Individuals that were illegally placed there without a trial or even charges in most cases.

 

It is an extreme comparison but yes Bush does show totalitarianism in some of his under-takings.

 

My hope is the next president will restore the balance of power to this country and stop seeing the executive branch grow in such authoritarian lengths no matter which party is elected and to stop the abuse and torture which is counter to everything we, as a country should stand for.

What exactly can you take from that article that was written in a 'right wing take'?

 

There isn't a single bit of speculation or opinion in the article outside of Ellison's comments.

 

The Telegraph does have a conservative stance, I know that, but I don't see it.

 

 

 

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

 

After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy

 

 

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

 

 

 

 

Those two statements are polar opposites of the first statement to put the spin on the article. Not saying you dont see it in the times and half of the libral papers doing the same thing. But they are subjectively making the guy look like an extremist on purpose just because of the basis of his religion and stance of the issues.

 

 

 

As for this:

 

 

You cannot compare George Bush to Adolph Hitler. At all.

 

 

 

Yes I can, I live in america. I have the right to compare our president and his flaws or good points how I feel. I have the right and in my opinion the Requirement to point out these faults in the characters of individuals.

 

Do I believe Bush is as bad as Hitler? No of course not.

Do I believe there are elements that are akin? Yes as I laid out in my statement.

 

He is locking up a race of people, most of whom have committed no crime (as per lack of charges), and torturing them some even to death. :blink:

 

 

If Egypt started to do that to all catholics in their borders or any denomination of majority in this country we would put an end to it. (Not that I expect Egypt to do so or even know if they have the demographics of population for a reference point, merely an example of a muslim nation having the reverse done).

 

 

All of that said no Bush isnt Hitler, but is perhaps the worst leader in the history of the Union.

 

Dude, you have the right to say whatever the f*** you want. I'm obviously not pointing out that you can't. Especially on a message board.

 

Franklin Roosevelt has much more similarities to Hitler in the area of locking up a race of people. Not sure if you've heard of the Japanese internment camps, maybe you should look it up...

 

Now, I'm not saying Roosevelt is like Hitler at all, I'm just saying you should think a little bit before you make comments like

All of that said no Bush isnt Hitler, but is perhaps the worst leader in the history of the Union.

 

Indeed what FDR did was completely wrong and again another example of people taking the extreme methods. I would not ever defend what he did and I believe it was completely wrong but making a mistake and then repeating it is twice as bad. Again I personally didnt state he is Hitler and I said that he is taking it to the extreme nature of a comment there. I said I understand the reasons for the comparisons that he is trying to convey, bush is very totalitarian it seems in his office. Which I am against for a democrat or republican in office. I trust a strong legislature (aka congress) over a strong executive and I believe the checks and balances of this country have been torn down way too far for the past three decades time.

 

 

 

All that said, yes I believe this:

 

All of that said no Bush isnt Hitler, but is perhaps the worst leader in the history of the Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be written with a very right wing take there.

 

The comparisons of using a tragedy of large proportions then lead a country down paths that no sane man should walk is rather accurate. It has been done many times in history. Look at the spanish american war, a warship "blew up" so the US attacked. Of course that warship exploding is often believed to be our own fault and twisted around.

 

Now we do have a sitting president that is torturing innocents and some american citizens upon the basis of religious affiliation within internment camps. Individuals that were illegally placed there without a trial or even charges in most cases.

 

It is an extreme comparison but yes Bush does show totalitarianism in some of his under-takings.

 

My hope is the next president will restore the balance of power to this country and stop seeing the executive branch grow in such authoritarian lengths no matter which party is elected and to stop the abuse and torture which is counter to everything we, as a country should stand for.

What exactly can you take from that article that was written in a 'right wing take'?

 

There isn't a single bit of speculation or opinion in the article outside of Ellison's comments.

 

The Telegraph does have a conservative stance, I know that, but I don't see it.

 

 

 

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

 

After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy

 

 

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

 

 

 

 

Those two statements are polar opposites of the first statement to put the spin on the article. Not saying you dont see it in the times and half of the libral papers doing the same thing. But they are subjectively making the guy look like an extremist on purpose just because of the basis of his religion and stance of the issues.

 

 

 

As for this:

 

 

You cannot compare George Bush to Adolph Hitler. At all.

 

 

 

Yes I can, I live in america. I have the right to compare our president and his flaws or good points how I feel. I have the right and in my opinion the Requirement to point out these faults in the characters of individuals.

 

Do I believe Bush is as bad as Hitler? No of course not.

Do I believe there are elements that are akin? Yes as I laid out in my statement.

 

He is locking up a race of people, most of whom have committed no crime (as per lack of charges), and torturing them some even to death. :blink:

 

 

If Egypt started to do that to all catholics in their borders or any denomination of majority in this country we would put an end to it. (Not that I expect Egypt to do so or even know if they have the demographics of population for a reference point, merely an example of a muslim nation having the reverse done).

 

 

All of that said no Bush isnt Hitler, but is perhaps the worst leader in the history of the Union.

 

Dude, you have the right to say whatever the f*** you want. I'm obviously not pointing out that you can't. Especially on a message board.

 

Franklin Roosevelt has much more similarities to Hitler in the area of locking up a race of people. Not sure if you've heard of the Japanese internment camps, maybe you should look it up...

 

Now, I'm not saying Roosevelt is like Hitler at all, I'm just saying you should think a little bit before you make comments like

All of that said no Bush isnt Hitler, but is perhaps the worst leader in the history of the Union.

but unlike bush...we were legally at war with both Japan and Germany...not that it makes the pressure on roosevelt to make these internment camps any less racist or wrong...but the time period was different...people of different origin were not equal in the eyes of the law back then...and we hadnt had a civil rights movement yet...i bet in fact...that something like 75% or higher actually supported internment camps for germans and japanese

:lol

 

 

We are legally at war with Iraq according to the Constitution. Now the fact that our Representatives are pretty dumb is a whole other matter.

 

Bush is not the worst leader in the history of the Union. See Grant, Ulysses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

according to the U.N., the iraq war is illegal...and being that the president had to LIE to us, LIE to congress, and LIE to the world in order to get his war...id say that there is quite the case for this war to be illegal...and U. Grant had alot of corruption during his presidency yes...but his presidency looks like a shining gold trophy when compared to the quagmire known as the W.(orst) Presidency ever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

according to the U.N., the iraq war is illegal...and being that the president had to LIE to us, LIE to congress, and LIE to the world in order to get his war...id say that there is quite the case for this war to be illegal...and U. Grant had alot of corruption during his presidency yes...but his presidency looks like a shining gold trophy when compared to the quagmire known as the W.(orst) Presidency ever

And the UN is the world's shining beacon on diplomacy. :rolleyes:

 

 

George W. Bush has done a lot of things in his Presidency that would deem him in the lower rung of Presidents. But by no means has he been the worst ever. The Grant administration had far more grevious corruption than Bush.

 

 

Just because Congress is a bunch of dopes doesn't mean the war is illegal. It is legal in our country according to the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

according to the U.N., the iraq war is illegal...and being that the president had to LIE to us, LIE to congress, and LIE to the world in order to get his war...id say that there is quite the case for this war to be illegal...and U. Grant had alot of corruption during his presidency yes...but his presidency looks like a shining gold trophy when compared to the quagmire known as the W.(orst) Presidency ever

And the UN is the world's shining beacon on diplomacy. :rolleyes:

 

 

George W. Bush has done a lot of things in his Presidency that would deem him in the lower rung of Presidents. But by no means has he been the worst ever. The Grant administration had far more grevious corruption than Bush.

 

 

Just because Congress is a bunch of dopes doesn't mean the war is illegal. It is legal in our country according to the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellison is flat out wrong and stupid on this. But let me ask you..why does it matter that he is a Muslim? He is also black. We wouldn't say black congressman compares Bush to Hitler, right? Or Christian congressman caught molesting house pages?

 

Islam is not his main constituency. Can he ever have an independant view?

I simply played off the actual article's title.

 

That said, I think when talking about 9/11, Iraq war, etc. the fact that he is a Muslim (the 1st ever) congressman is at least part of the discussion or a fact that should be placed in the article. If it were a black congressman or woman who I was posting about dealing with something where their race was part of it I'd make mention as well.

 

If you think that makes any difference in what he said or not, is probably a whole 'nother conversation.

 

Subconsciously, and maybe not appropriately, I'll admit that I personally use Muslim and Jew to describe a person whereas I wouldn't for a white or black Christian. Just what I've always done and probably little reasoning behind it.

 

In that sense, I am more critical of the article. I reminds me of when newspapers reported that "American defeats Kwan" during the figure skating events at the Olympics.

 

Along that line, the problem is Ellison has basically been asked to swear his allegience to this country(via Glenn Beck) because he is a Muslim. He is basically treated as a foreigner by a lot of people. Therefore it perpetuates this impression that if you are Muslim, you can't be American. Or worse yet, if one is Muslim, you cannot be capable of having views that are for the best interest of the country, but only for the best interest of Muslims. I don't think Ellison has ever reflected such views. It's like those people(not personally accusing you), have never actually met a Muslim person.

 

A lot of things become relevant if we bring a person's religion into the fold. Does Joe Lieberman now become a Jewish person authorizing the invasion of a Muslim country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was not a smart move by a junior congressman.

 

I wonder if he is just angry after the God-awful interview he had with Glenn Beck, which was despicable...

 

I can tell you that if my patriotism had been questioned like that on national television, I would hope that I was on a videoconference and not in the studio. Otherwise I might have taken a swing at a douchebag like Beck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

according to the U.N., the iraq war is illegal...and being that the president had to LIE to us, LIE to congress, and LIE to the world in order to get his war...id say that there is quite the case for this war to be illegal...and U. Grant had alot of corruption during his presidency yes...but his presidency looks like a shining gold trophy when compared to the quagmire known as the W.(orst) Presidency ever

And the UN is the world's shining beacon on diplomacy. :rolleyes:

 

 

George W. Bush has done a lot of things in his Presidency that would deem him in the lower rung of Presidents. But by no means has he been the worst ever. The Grant administration had far more grevious corruption than Bush.

 

 

Just because Congress is a bunch of dopes doesn't mean the war is illegal. It is legal in our country according to the Constitution.

no...but we arent exactly a country that knows much about diplomacy in the last past 150 years of world history...so we shouldnt be allowed to go wherever we choose on this earth and disperse our own brand of democracy and diplomacy...we are the country that argues with a rather large gun pointed at the guy we argue with...and the UN...should we have chosen to support it rather than kill it we may been able to get what we wanted(capturing bin laden)...and no...it took what...5 days to get water to new orleans? we are fighting a country for no good reason and we are losing billions in money monthly and already lost thousands of our own soldiers...look at all the presidential scandals in the last 7 years...im sorry...but W.'s legacy is already cemented in stone as being not in the lower rung of bad presidents...he takes the sh*t cake...W. is the worst of all time...

 

also...lying to make a law, it doesnt make that law right...and congress isnt the bunch of idiots for going to war...remember...the PRESIDENT LIED to get his way...he lied to the American people to rally support to go to war...no different that Teddy Roosevelt crying foul when the U.S.S Maine was sunk in Havana...only different is we arent fighting some pansy imperial army, we are fighting people ready to die to kill us...yeah...smart move...seriously...its like making up a country and putting it smack dab in the middle of countries that want to wipe it from the face of the earth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

according to the U.N., the iraq war is illegal...and being that the president had to LIE to us, LIE to congress, and LIE to the world in order to get his war...id say that there is quite the case for this war to be illegal...and U. Grant had alot of corruption during his presidency yes...but his presidency looks like a shining gold trophy when compared to the quagmire known as the W.(orst) Presidency ever

And the UN is the world's shining beacon on diplomacy. :rolleyes:

 

 

George W. Bush has done a lot of things in his Presidency that would deem him in the lower rung of Presidents. But by no means has he been the worst ever. The Grant administration had far more grevious corruption than Bush.

 

 

Just because Congress is a bunch of dopes doesn't mean the war is illegal. It is legal in our country according to the Constitution.

no...but we arent exactly a country that knows much about diplomacy in the last past 150 years of world history...so we shouldnt be allowed to go wherever we choose on this earth and disperse our own brand of democracy and diplomacy...we are the country that argues with a rather large gun pointed at the guy we argue with...and the UN...should we have chosen to support it rather than kill it we may been able to get what we wanted(capturing bin laden)...and no...it took what...5 days to get water to new orleans? we are fighting a country for no good reason and we are losing billions in money monthly and already lost thousands of our own soldiers...look at all the presidential scandals in the last 7 years...im sorry...but W.'s legacy is already cemented in stone as being not in the lower rung of bad presidents...he takes the sh*t cake...W. is the worst of all time...

 

also...lying to make a law, it doesnt make that law right...and congress isnt the bunch of idiots for going to war...remember...the PRESIDENT LIED to get his way...he lied to the American people to rally support to go to war...no different that Teddy Roosevelt crying foul when the U.S.S Maine was sunk in Havana...only different is we arent fighting some pansy imperial army, we are fighting people ready to die to kill us...yeah...smart move...seriously...its like making up a country and putting it smack dab in the middle of countries that want to wipe it from the face of the earth...

You are missing my point entirely. WHAT IS SO DAMN ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT THE WAR? Answer me for goodness sake. I didn't ask for the moral view of the war, I asked for the legal view.

 

 

W is not the worst president of all time. If he was, this country would be falling apart at the seems.

 

 

And what is with your arrogance about the Spanish-American War? If Spain wasn't in such a haphazard state at the time, thousands and thousands of Americans would have been killed for the good of the Manifest Destiny. If they had some semblance of real leadership, we'd be remembering the Spanish-American War as one of the greatest embarassments in the history of this fine nation. Spain had superior technology. They just didn't have much in the way of leadership.

 

 

And yes, we are allowed to conquer nations and promote our brand of democracy. You know why? Cause history says so. Doesn't make it right. Are you going to throw sh*t at the Roman Empire just because they subjugated millions of people over the years for their brand of lifestyle. Or how about India with every single invader known to man bringing their own brand of lifestyle?

 

 

Your moral superiority bothers me a lot. Especially when you refuse to answer a question as simple as legality according to the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so wait...let me get this right...our "elected" leaders have the right to piss on the constitution of the united states because they want to fight a war? last time i checked the constitution...it said the President could go to war if he had the approval of congress to do so...what i didnt find is that little piece where it says that lying is ok to go to war...sorry...a LYING SON OF A BITCH who has the blood of thousands and thousands of people on his hands doesnt put you on the scale with bottom rung presidents...i mean damn...at least lyndon johnson when he lied to us, was at least advancing the civil rights movement for the good of humanity...what has bush done for humanities sake? take the rath of muslims everywhere off of israel and onto America doesnt exactly count as a good move in my book...but hey...im not jewish either...

 

and ok...what is your point about the Spanish-American war? we fought them here and around the world and won...it was a small pointless little war other than the U.S. for the first time reinvolved itself with European affairs...exactly what George Washington told us not to do...

 

and no...history says nowhere that we are allowed to make a mockery of ourselves by enslaving other countries with our own moral high ground(which is bulls***)...and no...im not going to throw sh*t at the Romans because they enslaved the lands they conquered...that is the past...a past in which we should not be repeating the same mistakes...we should be doing everything humanly possible to avoid those mistakes rather than falling into the same trap generation after generation...

 

nowhere is it written in the constitution that we are a government by the people, for those in power to do with as they please...maybe im more idealistc than you are...but just because leaders throughout history have abused their power, doesnt make it acceptable at any rate...if this were any other country on earth...our citizens would have tarred, feathered, lynched, and shot bush and cheney in the head...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of that said no Bush isnt Hitler, but is perhaps the worst leader in the history of the Union.

 

Watch Assume the Position 201 with Robert Wuhl on HBO. We really have had some terrible leaders and I would hesitate to put Bush with most he profiled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CrimsonCane

so wait...let me get this right...our "elected" leaders have the right to piss on the constitution of the united states because they want to fight a war? last time i checked the constitution...it said the President could go to war if he had the approval of congress to do so...

 

Like it or not, Congress did give him the approval. It was called the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" (Here's the PDF: http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf) While it may not be an outright declaration of war, we haven't issued one of those since WWII so it's not like there isn't precedent for it. (Gulf War, Korea, Kosovo, Bosnia, Vietnam, etc.) Having seen how the war's progress has reached a stand still, many Congressional leaders are now looking to repeal/amend that authorization. Notice, however, you can't repeal something unless you've initally authorized it to begin with. How much our current strategy in Iraq differs from what the 2002 resolution outlined is a matter of debate. However, the idea that Congress didn't give the President approval to get involved to begin with is just flat out wrong.

(Current debate about the resolution: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...071500878.html)

 

and no...history says nowhere that we are allowed to make a mockery of ourselves by enslaving other countries with our own moral high ground(which is bulls***)...and no...im not going to throw sh*t at the Romans because they enslaved the lands they conquered...that is the past...a past in which we should not be repeating the same mistakes...we should be doing everything humanly possible to avoid those mistakes rather than falling into the same trap generation after generation...

 

I'm not a very big proponent of this war, but classifying what we're doing in Iraq as "enslavement" is a pretty gross mischaracterization. The effort has been largely mismanaged (understatement of the year, I know) but we're attempting to set up a democratic government in a nation that has only known dictatorship. That's a far cry from enslavement. If anything, believing that the two are similar enough to merit comparison only dilutes how incredibly tragic those actual instances of enslavement were. In a completely hypothetical world, do you think an Iraqi alive today could approach an African from the 19th century and truthfully say, "After what the US has done to us, I know what pain you must have gone through as the British, French, Germans, and Dutch ravaged the African continent, shipped you to all ends of the earth, and treated you as less than human?" I don't think so.

 

if this were any other country on earth...our citizens would have tarred, feathered, lynched, and shot bush and cheney in the head...

 

I'm confused. Are you lauding other countries because they're unstable enough to actually resort to killing their leaders to initiate change. You know why citizens in most other countries would had to have killed Bush and Cheney? Because they have no democratic alternatives. Don't like Bush / Cheney or any Republicans for that matter? That's perfectly fine in the United States. Vote for someone else in 2008. What if you had that same opinion about your leader and you happened to live in North Korea, Syria, China, Zimbabwe, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Cuba or Pakistan? Good luck and enjoy your dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...