News The World Can't Wait Drive Out the Bush Regime

[redwinter]

To sign this statement click http://www.worldcantwait.org/signcall/index.html .

The World Can't Wait!
Drive Out the Bush Regime!

Mobilize for November 2, 2005

www.worldcantwait.org

Your government, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their sights.

Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.

Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

Your government suppresses the science that doesn’t fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.

Your government is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.

Your government enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.

People look at all this and think of Hitler – and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.

Millions and millions are deeply disturbed and outraged by this. They recognize the need for a vehicle to express this outrage, yet they cannot find it; politics as usual cannot meet the enormity of the challenge, and people sense this.

There is not going to be some magical “pendulum swing.” People who steal elections and believe they’re on a “mission from God” will not go without a fight.

There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into “leaders” who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people.

But silence and paralysis are NOT acceptable. That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn – or be forced – to accept. There is no escaping it: the whole disastrous course of this Bush regime must be STOPPED. And we must take the responsibility to do it.

And there is a way. We are talking about something on a scale that can really make a huge change in this country and in the world. We need more than fighting Bush’s outrages one at a time, constantly losing ground to the whole onslaught. We must, and can, aim to create a political situation where the Bush regime’s program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office, and where the whole direction he has been taking society is reversed. We, in our millions, must and can take responsibility to change the course of history.

To that end, on November 2, the first anniversary of Bush’s “re-election”, we will take the first major step in this by organizing a truly massive day of resistance all over this country. People everywhere will walk out of school, they will take off work, they will come to the downtowns and town squares and set out from there, going through the streets and calling on many more to JOIN US. They will repudiate this criminal regime, making a powerful statement: “NO! THIS REGIME DOES NOT REPRESENT US! AND WE WILL DRIVE IT OUT!”

November 2 must be a massive and public proclamation that WE REFUSE TO BE RULED IN THIS WAY. November 2 must call out to the tens of millions more who are now agonizing and disgusted. November 2 will be the beginning – a giant first step in forcing Bush to step down, and a powerful announcement that we will not stop until he does so – and it will join with and give support and heart to people all over the globe who so urgently need and want this regime to be stopped.

This will not be easy. If we speak the truth, they will try to silence us. If we act, they will try to stop us. But we speak for the majority, here and around the world, and as we get this going we are going to reach out to the people who have been so badly fooled by Bush and we are NOT going to stop.

The point is this: history is full of examples where people who had right on their side fought against tremendous odds and were victorious. And it is also full of examples of people passively hoping to wait it out, only to get swallowed up by a horror beyond what they ever imagined. The future is unwritten. WHICH ONE WE GET IS UP TO US.

These next two months are crucial. The call you are reading has to get out to millions right away – on the internet, passed out as flyers in communities, published as ads in newspapers. DO NOT WAIT! GET ORGANIZED! If you agree with this statement, add your name to it! And do more than that: send it to friends, get them to sign it, organize a meeting, take it to your church, your school, your union, your health club, your barber shop, to concerts and libraries and family gatherings, everywhere you go. Raise money, lots of money. Get people together, make plans to be there on November 2, and to build for it. GET IN TOUCH WITH US AT OUR WEBSITE, http://worldcantwait.org

The world can’t wait! Drive out the Bush Regime! Mobilize for November 2!

Initiating signers of this call include:

Mumia Abu-Jamal, political prisoner and radio commentator
William Blum, author of Rogue State
Prof B. Robert Franza, MD, author of Control of Human Retrovirus Gene Expression
Nina Felshin, author of But Is It Art: The Spirit of Art as Activism
Margot Harry, author of Attention MOVE! This is America
C. Clark Kissinger, Revolution newspaper and initiator of Not In Our Name statement
Travis Morales, Revolutionary Communist Party, San Francisco Bay Area
Jeremy Pikser, screenwriter [Bulworth]
Frances Fox Piven, author of Regulating the Poor
Ralph Poynter, community activist
Michael Steven Smith, National Lawyers Guild-NY
Lynne Stewart, criminal defense attorney
Sunsara Taylor, Revolution newspaper

To sign this statement click http://www.worldcantwait.org/signcall/index.html .

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I haven't checked the site yet but do they make any statements about how they will get Bush out of office? Here in CA we had a recall election, is something like that accounted for in Federal Law? Otherwise he would have to be brought up on criminal charges requiring an investigation and a full legal proceedings inorder to have him impeached. That in and of itself could take the next three years by which time he would be out of office anyway.

 

[kat]

pass the fruitcake!

 

[oldunion]

pass the fruitcake!

Thats twice now i have seen you say "pass the fruitcake." Which means of the two posts I've seen, neither had substance or a credible arguement.

This thread topic has a very good message. If you disagree with it, i would like to read your disagreement.

 

[Pengwuino]

Thats twice now i have seen you say "pass the fruitcake." Which means of the two posts I've seen, neither had substance or a credible arguement.

This thread topic has a very good message. If you disagree with it, i would like to read your disagreement.

Hell better yet, if you AGREE with this psycho, I'd like to see your argument.

Lets see...

People look at all this and think of Hitler – and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.

Yes Bush is comparable to a man who committed genocide on one of the worst scales mankind has ever seen. Prove it.

Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

Yup, being told the 10 commandments cannot be displayed on government land certainly is a theocracy. Prove it.

Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

Dead of night Prove it.

Your government is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.

Wow, I can't even make a joke about this one because it does it on its own.

This will not be easy. If we speak the truth, they will try to silence us. If we act, they will try to stop us. But we speak for the majority, here and around the world, and as we get this going we are going to reach out to the people who have been so badly fooled by Bush and we are NOT going to stop.

Wait, didnt you just say before that that the people who follow your believe are simply in the "tens of millions"? Maybe the Census count was off by an OOM. And wait a second, if you spoke for the majority.... howd Bush win the election?

To that end, on November 2, the first anniversary of Bush’s “re-election”, we will take the first major step in this by organizing a truly massive day of resistance all over this country. People everywhere will walk out of school, they will take off work, they will come to the downtowns and town squares and set out from there, going through the streets and calling on many more to JOIN US. They will repudiate this criminal regime, making a powerful statement: “NO! THIS REGIME DOES NOT REPRESENT US! AND WE WILL DRIVE IT OUT!”

Again, 3 million more votes.

The list of initiators again , need no jokes, they do a good job themselves.

 

[TRCSF]

"Yes Bush is comparable to a man who committed genocide on one of the worst scales mankind has ever seen. Prove it."

Bush sure is a Nazi. At least he definitely would have been a nazi if he had lived in the thirties and forties in Germany. I doubt they would have let him advance very far, they used to execute the mentally retarded. Still, he enjoys conservative politics, ethnic and religious scapegoating, war crimes, propaganda, and invading defenseless countries. ****, he's killed a couple of hundred thousand Iraqis and he's using hatred of Muslims to support the deaths, rapes and torturing of them. Just the kind of stuff Hitler used to do. And I'll bet if he had the chance he'd wipe out the lot of them. In fact, the only thing standing in his way is liberals, God bless them.

"Yup, being told the 10 commandments cannot be displayed on government land certainly is a theocracy. Prove it."

Ten commandments, anti-gay legistlature, ban on stem cells, bans on abortion, Creationism... Hell, Creationism is enough. How anybody can post on a message board dedicated to science and support the nut that wants Creationism taught in public schools is beyond me. That's real Taliban kind of bull****.

"Dead of night Prove it."

Jose Padilla. American citizen. Three years in a Navy brig. No trial. No charges.

"Wow, I can't even make a joke about this one because it does it on its own."

Two and possibly three branches of the government are moving to curtail birth control and abortions. The attempts to ban abortions are obvious, it's laughable to deny them. The government is resisting attempts to have over-the-counter emergency contraception, despite recommendations of FDA scientists. They're pushing abstinence in schools along with creationism. They're withholding aid to third world countries if birth control is involved.

"Wait, didnt you just say before that that the people who follow your believe are simply in the "tens of millions"? Maybe the Census count was off by an OOM. And wait a second, if you spoke for the majority.... howd Bush win the election?"

How did Bush win? Let's see. He lied and started a war for his own personal profit. He spend millions of dollars slandering a war hero's record. He appealed to hatred towards homosexuals.

Without lying, slandering, bombing, and appealing to bigots, could he have one the election? I doubt it.

"Again, 3 million more votes."

And now he's got a 36% approval rating and falling. You can fool some people all of the time...

 

[kat]

OMG...it's like it's just...jumped right off the pages of the DU...eep!

And now he's got a 36% approval rating and falling. You can fool some people all of the time...

mmmmm adjusting weighting to match previous polls..and using the same methods as last year...I'm pretty darn sure you'll find he has a 49 to 50% percent rating...an hmm I seem to remember an 80% rating among repubs...
mebbe I'm wrong..but its 3:30 am and I'm to lazy to look...
Nighty night!

 

[TRCSF]

OMG...it's like it's just...jumped right off the pages of the DU...eep!

If you can't take the heat, go back to Freerepublic. Or Stormfront. Or where ever it is.

 

[vanesch]

The World Can't Wait!
Drive Out the Bush Regime!

This is silly. The US people elected him, he's their president.

The thing I'm hoping is that in the long term, having had this lying nutcase as a president will this time have caused so much VISIBLE harm to the US, that the people of the US will wake up and improve things for this not to happen anymore in the future. That they will learn that electing an oil business man who can only think about oil and his greasy friends is not a good idea, and next time a cowboy asks for their approval to go and "liberate" others with bombs, they won't be following him. That they will learn to kick Foxnews arse and look a bit at the world with a different view, with more respect for their (former?) friends. So that they can become again that great nation they once were, and not that warmonging banana republic they've become.
So if Dubya could stay in office a bit more and do some more stupid things, just to reinforce the message, that would be a good thing.

 

[oldunion]

seeing as one cannot readily propose ideas like "kill all of this denomination of people" anymore without fear of immediate disapproval, i think Bush has come very very close to Hitler in their respective successes. He did not ascend to the presidency through the use of steadfast morals. As stated above, bigotry was used, but in a way so as only the astute listener would start to wonder about what was being said.

Hitler killed massive sums of people, but stalin commited perhaps more than that in unrecorded numbers; the difference is that hitlers rampage was focused on more. Which brings us to Bush; he has now killed two countries worth of people and this was because supposedly a band of people who resided there attacked the usa.

heres my favorite part: Fox News Network. Everytime i turn on the news i see a mean looking band of jihadists with Ak's and bandannas burning random things and shouting whatever, and then you see american troops which in comparison look like peaceful liberators doing the work of God. Which you KNOW makes every unwitting person in America wish the troops the best and the arabs the axe, no matter what happens in between the lines. Few people are going to sympathize with the arab warriors, but if another country came into my town and started telling me what to do and using force with weapons...id be putting on a bandanna and getting ready for some guerilla mayhem.

Bush is hunting terrorists and searching for peace... , i wonder what ethics classes he took while earning his prestigious degree. But on second thought, someone in his organization must be a an evil genius if somehow an attack on this country led to the invasion of two others.

 

[faust9]

OMG...it's like it's just...jumped right off the pages of the DU...eep!

mmmmm adjusting weighting to match previous polls..and using the same methods as last year...I'm pretty darn sure you'll find he has a 49 to 50% percent rating...an hmm I seem to remember an 80% rating among repubs...
mebbe I'm wrong..but its 3:30 am and I'm to lazy to look...
Nighty night!

Well, then let's see you prove this. Please, feel free to readjust the weighting and show us this 49%. I know, it's all a conspiracy to make Bush look worse isn't it. People really aren't upset with the cesspool of lies and coverups coming from the Bush WH---it's Gallop's fault isn't it. High rankiing Republicans are not jumping ship and openly disagreeing with Bush now---it's all Gallop's doing.

Now, you used the term 'fruitcake' here because you disagreed with the content; however, the statement above makes me inclined to reapply the term in your general direction.

 

[Smurf]

Dead of night Prove it.

It always bothers me when people don't believe this stuff. These arn't vague accusations, these are put forth by international organizations including the red cross and amnesty international. These are not to be debated, if you want proof you can find it easily by visiting either of their websites or even doing a google search.

 

[russ_watters]

Yep, this'll surely get that college student's name in the paper, and perhaps even that job he's looking for at The New York Times. Other than that, its a pretty weak pack of rhetoric and a pointless publicity stunt.

I did find it absolutely hilarious that tops on the list of contributors was Mumia Abu Jamal. And I find it utterly astounding that some of you guys are taking this seriously. I mean - I heard the conspiracy theories about Clinton taking over the world too, but just because I'm a Republican doesn't mean I believed them.

 

[russ_watters]

It always bothers me when people don't believe this stuff. These arn't vague accusations, these are put forth by international organizations including the red cross and amnesty international. These are not to be debated, if you want proof you can find it easily by visiting either of their websites or even doing a google search.

Smurf, how much of that OP did you read, exactly? Please read it and apply a little critical thinking. Take, for example, this:

People look at all this and think of Hitler – and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.

So the Red Cross said that and its an established fact? (note: just because the Red Cross says something doesn't make it a fact - the Red Cross has opinions just like any other organization). C'mon! Just having a few actual facts on a site is not enough to excuse such mindless rhetoric.

 

[russ_watters]

Bush sure is a Nazi.

Reasonable discussions have to start with reasonable opening points, guys. That's a statement of fact that you need to substantiate. What is the proof that Bush is a Nazi? Has he stated that he's a Nazi? Has he been to a Nazi rally? Does he wear a Nazi armband?

If you want to be taken seriously (and this is something the guy who started the website should learn), be reasonable. I won't use words like kat used, but you are not being logical, reasonable, or even rational.

 

[Smurf]

Smurf, how much of that OP did you read, exactly? Please read it and apply a little critical thinking. Take, for example, this:

Actually I havn't read any of it, I was referring to that specific part Pengwuino was quoting.

 

[russ_watters]

Actually I havn't read any of it, I was referring to that specific part Pengwuino was quoting.

You have no idea how happy I am to hear that. I do have a reasonably high opinion of you...

 

[DM]

If you want to be taken seriously (and this is something the guy who started the website should learn), be reasonable. I won't use words like kat used, but you are not being logical, reasonable, or even rational.

Reasonable? What about:

Bush behaves like a Nazi? Do I have to quote articles to prove this to you? Then again this is just my opinion.

 

[Smurf]

You have no idea how happy I am to hear that.

I serve to please

I do have a reasonably high opinion of you...

shocking

 

[Yonoz]

So the Red Cross said that and its an established fact? (note: just because the Red Cross says something doesn't make it a fact - the Red Cross has opinions just like any other organization).

Israel's ambulance service, Magen David Adom, has only an observer status in the Red Cross Society. The official reason for this is because its emblem, the Star of David, is not recognised by its protocols. Actually, Arab members in the RCS have been preventing MDA's inclusion as a full member. The Palestinian Red Crescent, however, is a full member, despite the use of PRC ambulances to transport weapons.
In my service I have personally witnessed a Red Crescent ambulance distributing incendiary bottles. In the Erez crossing there used to be a "clean" PRC Ambulance waiting on the Israeli side because all their Ambulances were turned back due to discoveries of residual chemicals from various munitions types.

 

[Smurf]

Israel's ambulance service, Magen David Adom, has only an observer status in the Red Cross Society. The official reason for this is because its emblem, the Star of David, is not recognised by its protocols. Actually, Arab members in the RCS have been preventing MDA's inclusion as a full member. The Palestinian Red Crescent, however, is a full member,

Yes, the reasoning was that if the old "If I give you one, I have to give everyone one". Currently the most likely candidate for an emblem with no religious affiliation is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Red_Diamond.png

despite the use of PRC ambulances to transport weapons.
In my service I have personally witnessed a Red Crescent ambulance distributing incendiary bottles. In the Erez crossing there used to be a "clean" PRC Ambulance waiting on the Israeli side because all their Ambulances were turned back due to discoveries of residual chemicals from various munitions types.

The Red Cross is doing it's best, it's a bit unfair to blame them for this. However, I do fear they've grown a little too large to be able to effectively manage all their divisions.

 

[Yonoz]

Yes, the reasoning was that if the old "If I give you one, I have to give everyone one". Currently the most likely candidate for an emblem with no religious affiliation is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Red_Diamond.png

Do you sincerely believe that to be the reason? They already have a Cross and a Crescent. How naive can you be?

The Red Cross is doing it's best, it's a bit unfair to blame them for this. However, I do fear they've grown a little too large to be able to effectively manage all their divisions.

I wasn't blaming anyone, but if you employ http://www.israelnewsagency.com/palestinianambulancesterrorism1009.html don't be surprised when they get caught tranporting weapons in your ambulances. They could prohibit members of these organisations from working for them.

 

[kat]

Well, then let's see you prove this. Please, feel free to readjust the weighting and show us this 49%. I know, it's all a conspiracy to make Bush look worse isn't it. People really aren't upset with the cesspool of lies and coverups coming from the Bush WH---it's Gallop's fault isn't it. High rankiing Republicans are not jumping ship and openly disagreeing with Bush now---it's all Gallop's doing.

Now, you used the term 'fruitcake' here because you disagreed with the content; however, the statement above makes me inclined to reapply the term in your general direction.

Heh.
Sorry...I was wrong...I should have said 51 to 52%.

Anywhooo
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

Monday August 29, 2005--Forty-nine percent (49%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's the most positive assessment since August 2...


During 2004, reports on the President Job Approval were based upon surveys of Likely Voters. Typically, a survey of Likely Voters would report a Job Approval rating 2-3 points higher than a survey of all adults.

On Election Day, the President's Job Approval was at 52%

It appears that not much has changed since last November.

 

[russ_watters]

Reasonable? What about:

Bush behaves like a Nazi? Do I have to quote articles to prove this to you? Then again this is just my opinion.

I don't even consider "behaves like" to be a reasonable statement, but at the very least, it is a subjective statement of opinion (like you said). But what I quoted said that Bush "is a Nazi", and that is a claim of fact. Big difference.

Loose linguistics is another red-flag of an unreasonable argument.

 

[oldunion]

A quick test to prove the similarities between Bush and Nazism.

Read Mein Kampf, specifically the first six chapters, and you will be amazed at how similar the propoganda machine is. Sure maybe hitler had some good ideas and not all were bad, but seriously it is shocking.

 

[russ_watters]

Could you be more specific...?

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

 

[DM]

But what I quoted said that Bush "is a Nazi", and that is a claim of fact. Big difference.

Actually, no. "Bush is a Nazi" remains an opinion. It does not change into a fact.

 

[TRCSF]

Reasonable discussions have to start with reasonable opening points, guys. That's a statement of fact that you need to substantiate. What is the proof that Bush is a Nazi? Has he stated that he's a Nazi? Has he been to a Nazi rally? Does he wear a Nazi armband?

If you want to be taken seriously (and this is something the guy who started the website should learn), be reasonable. I won't use words like kat used, but you are not being logical, reasonable, or even rational.

If you're asking if he's an official card carrying member of the National Socialist Party, then no, obviously he's not.

But if it steps like a goose...

There's nazis and then there's nazis.

 

[oldunion]

Could you be more specific...?

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

Chapter 5. Hitler begins to speak about propoganda. I noticed many parallel's to Bush's approach as i remember what they were now...

hitler spoke of how public speeches should not be overly intellectual because much of the audience would be tuned out, they are repetative and basic in message which allows for the most national saturation of ideal.

The enemy must be portrayed as utterly evil. How often have we come across racism against arabs. However, to attract the intelligentsia the arab fundamentalists are now branded as crazy, stray dogs who do not follow the word of allah. Hate and bigotry is a very successful weapon. Hitler did not go lightly on the jews or the marxists, mentally ill or the homosexual because he knew that to destroy a people, hate is the most efficient means of brainwash.

Weapon of mass destruction, terrorist, axis of evil, fight global terrorism, etc. I have heard these words many times and each time i see them an image comes to mind that, if i didnt know better, would most likely have a slight brainwashing effect on my reasoning abilities regarding bush's missions.

 

[kat]

Aaaaaanndddd then there's Fruitcake!

BAHAHA!

 

[pattylou]

Kat: I follow Rasmussen, too.

But interestingly, if you go to Polling report

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

and look through polls by different organisations... Most show a definite downward trend, and Rasmussen is a definite outlyer.

You also have to concede that the 36% report is the first time in his residency that he has hit so low, under any circumstances ---- This is getting into Carter territory. WE may have to "weight" it and I doubt he can sink much lower as his core won't abandon him, but there is no denying we haven't seen anything as low as 36% reported before.

The trend would seem to be downwards, taking all such information into account.

 

[TRCSF]

Aaaaaanndddd then there's Fruitcake!

BAHAHA!

Feel free to address any of the points made.

 

[edward]

The latest Gallup poll shows Bush's approval rating to be the lowest of any second term president in recent history.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=18148

As for His henchmen, they are incredibly Nazi like in their media control and dissinformation tactics. Planting a fake reporter in news conferences, and sending "canned" news releases to the media, was an all time low for a presidents cabinet.

Outing the name of a CIA agent, in retaliation because someone told them the truth, was a criminal act.

As for Bush and Hitler, they do have one thing in common: Neither was particularly successful at anything until they discovered politics.

 

[Smurf]

Do you sincerely believe that to be the reason? They already have a Cross and a Crescent. How naive can you be?

Yes, I do believe that to be the reason. What do you believe then, more nazi's have it out for israel?

 

[vanesch]

Could you be more specific...?

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

This one is great: even Hitler knew that the "war on terror(ists)" was a lost cause:

One question came to the fore, however: can spiritual ideas be exterminated by the sword? Can 'philosophies' be combated by the use of brute force?
Even at that time I pondered this question more than once: If we ponder analogous cases, particularly on a religious basis, which can be found in history, the following fundamental principle emerges:
Conceptions and ideas, as well as movements with a definite spiritual foundation, regardless whether the latter is false or true, can, after a certain point in their development, only be broken with technical instruments of power if these physical weapons are at the same time the support of a new kindling thought, idea, or philosophy.
The application of force alone, without the impetus of a basic spiritual idea as a starting point, can never lead to the destruction of an idea and its dissemination, except in the form of a complete extermination of even the very last exponent of the idea and the destruction of the last tradition. This, however, usually means the disappearance of such a state from the sphere of political importance, often for an indefinite time and some-times forever; for experience shows that such a blood sacrifice strikes the best part of the people, since every persecution which occurs without a spiritual basis seems morally unjustified and whips up precisely the more valuable parts of a people in protest, which results in an adoption of the spiritual content of the unjustly persecuted movement. In many this occurs simply through a feeling of opposition against the attempt to bludgeon down an idea by brute force.
As a result, the number of inward supporters grows in proportion as the persecution increases. Consequently, the complete annihilation of the new doctrine can be carried out only through a process of extermination so great and constantly increasing that in the end all the truly valuable blood is drawn out of the people or state in question. The consequence is that, though a so-called 'inner' purge can now take place, it will only be at the cost of total impotence. Such a method will always prove vain in advance if the doctrine to be combated has overstepped a certain small circle.

 

[pattylou]

I'll give it a rest in a minute (and apologies for off-topic-ness relating to the OP) but these graphics say something (Google image "bush approval" for more similar results - I chose these because they are current)

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/NEWBUSHINDEX_3657_image001.gif

(The three major peaks correspond to 9/11, Iraq war, and Saddam captured)

Edit: Ooops! Sorry, 9/11 isn't on the graph. It would have been one month prior. The first major peak may correspond to Afghanistan, but I'm not sure.


http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/NEWBUSHINDEX_28670_image001.gif

I tried to insert the images directly, no luck.

 

[vanesch]

Some fragments of Mein Kampf on propaganda. Note that Hitler learned it from the British and the Americans :-)

There seems to have been no clarity on the very first question: Is propaganda a means or an end?
It is a means and must therefore be judged with regard to its end. It must consequently take a form calculated to support the aim which it serves. It is also obvious that its aim can vary in importance from the standpoint of general need, and that the inner value of the propaganda will vary accordingly. The aim for which we were fighting the War was the loftiest, the most overpowering, that man can conceive: it was the freedom and independence of our nation, the security of our future food supply, and-our national honor; a thing which, despite all contrary opinions prevailing today, nevertheless exists, or rather should exist, since peoples without honor have sooner or later lost their freedom and independence, which in turn is only the result of a higher justice, since generations of rabble without honor deserve no freedom. Any man who wants to be a cowardly slave can have no honor) or honor itself would soon fall into general contempt

The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.
The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself, since its function, like the poster, consists in attracting the attention of the crowd, and not in educating those who are already educated or who are striving after education and knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect.
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success in pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
Once we understand how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in sloans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely canceled out.
Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.

For instance, it was absolutely wrong to make the enemy ridiculous, as the Austrian and German comic papers did. It was absolutely wrong because actual contact with an enemy soldier was bound to arouse an entirely different conviction, and the results were devastating; for now the German soldier, under the direct impression of the enemy's resistance, felt himself swindled by his propaganda service. His desire to fight, or even to stand film, was not strengthened, but the opposite occurred. His courage flagged.
By contrast, the war propaganda of the English and Americans was psychologically sound. By representing the Germans to their own people as barbarians and Huns, they prepared the individual soldier for the terrors of war, and thus helped to preserve him from disappointments. After this, the most terrible weapon that was used against him seemed only to confirm what his propagandists had told him; it likewise reinforced his faith in the truth of his government's assertions, while on the other hand it increased his rage and hatred against the vile enemy For the cruel effects of the weapon, whose use by the enemy he now came to know, gradually came to confirm for him the 'Hunnish' brutality of the barbarous enemy, which he had heard all about; and it never dawned on him for a moment that his own weapons possibly, if not probably, might be even more terrible in their effects.
And so the English soldier could never feel that he had been misinformed by his own countrymen, as unhappily was so much the case with the German soldier that in the end he rejected everything coming from this source as 'swindles' and 'bunk.' All this resulted from the idea that any old simpleton (or even somebody who was intelligent ' in other things ') could be assigned to propaganda work, and the failure to realize that the most brilliant psychologists would have been none too good.
And so the German war propaganda offered an unparalleled example of an 'enlightenment' service working in reverse, since any correct psychology was totally lacking.

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

As soon as our own propaganda admits so much as a glimmer of right on the other side, the foundation for doubt in our own right has been laid. The masses are then in no position to distinguish where foreign injustice ends and our own begins. In such a case they become uncertain and suspicious, especially if the enemy refrains from going in for the same nonsense, but unloads every bit of blame on his adversary. Isn't it perfectly understandable that the whole country ends up by lending more credence to enemy propaganda, which is more unified and coherent, than to its own?

But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unfiagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.

But the masses are slowmoving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them.
When there is a change, it must not alter the content of what the propaganda is driving at, but in the end must always say the same thing. For instance, a slogan must be presented from different angles, but the end of all remarks must always and immutably be the slogan itself. Only in this way can the propaganda have a unified and complete effect.

 

[Burnsys]

Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops! Support our troops!

 

[edward]

Aaaaaanndddd then there's Fruitcake!

BAHAHA!

Take the recent flap over Durbin's comments concerning detention practices at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Quoting from an FBI report — which described one detainee, chained by hand and foot, covered in his own defecation — the Illinois Democrat expressed legitimate horror at our conduct. In response, no government official ever denied that the incident took place; more importantly, no government official ever offered any defense that the detainee to whom it happened was of particular consequence. Instead, the focus was on Durbin's unfortunate (and subsequently retracted) reference to the tactics of Nazi Germany.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/071005_kayyem.htm

As this article states, Durbin's entire point was lost when he used the term Nazi. His message was about the treatment of prisoners. So what do we call that treatment?

A four year long series of Administration approved, inhuman, immoral acts, works for me. If a normal person would be sent to prison for treating a dog like the prisoners were treated, something is wrong with the situation.

Historically the last time people were treated in this manner by a government approved program it was in Nazi Germany. Thinking people got to looking at the situation and realized that there were other aspects of the Administration's tactics that had similar Hitlerian overtones.

Me thinks you want to have your fruitcake and eat it too.

 

[TRCSF]

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/071005_kayyem.htm

As this article states, Durbin's entire point was lost when he used the term Nazi. His message was about the treatment of prisoners. So what do we call that treatment?

QUOTE]

The photos clearly show troops raping, torturing, and murdering human beings.

If "Nazi" isn't a perfect description of that sort of treatment, I don't know what is.

 

[edward]

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/Features/opeds/071005_kayyem.htm

As this article states, Durbin's entire point was lost when he used the term Nazi. His message was about the treatment of prisoners. So what do we call that treatment?

QUOTE]

The photos clearly show troops raping, torturing, and murdering human beings.

If "Nazi" isn't a perfect description of that sort of treatment, I don't know what is.

The problem is that if the term Nazi is used, it carries such a nasty connotation that Bush defenders (Karl Rove) can use it to distract people from looking at the facts. And that is exactly what happened in Durbin's case.

 

[TRCSF]

The problem is that if the term Nazi is used, it carries such a nasty connotation that Bush defenders (Karl Rove) can use it to distract people from looking at the facts. And that is exactly what happened in Durbin's case.

Yup, which is probably why he retracted it. Nevertheless, he was right.

So what does that say about the Bush defenders?

 

[Hurkyl]

If "Nazi" isn't a perfect description of that sort of treatment, I don't know what is.

Well, seeing how "Nazi" refers either to a specific political party, or one of its members, it certainly is not applicable as a description of treatment of prisoners.


The whole principle here is fairly well documented in articles on Godwin's law: I suggest you go read up on that. But the main point is that people make comparisons with Nazis specifically for the emotional response it invokes -- in other words, because they want to argue with emotion, and not reason. This is why it is often said that the first one in an internet debate to invoke the word "Nazi" loses the debate: it's usually a crystal clear indication that the person has given up on rational arguments.

Comparisons with Nazis usually (implicitly) take the fallacious form:

Person A did B.
Nazis did B.
Therefore, person A is as bad as a Nazi.

 

[TRCSF]

Well, seeing how "Nazi" refers either to a specific political party, or one of its members, it certainly is not applicable as a description of treatment of prisoners.


The whole principle here is fairly well documented in articles on Godwin's law: I suggest you go read up on that. But the main point is that people make comparisons with Nazis specifically for the emotional response it invokes -- in other words, because they want to argue with emotion, and not reason. This is why it is often said that the first one in an internet debate to invoke the word "Nazi" loses the debate: it's usually a crystal clear indication that the person has given up on rational arguments.

Comparisons with Nazis usually (implicitly) take the fallacious form:

Person A did B.
Nazis did B.
Therefore, person A is as bad as a Nazi.

The term "Nazi" in the modern world can refer to either somebody who's literally a member of the party, or more commonly it's used figuratively as somebody who mirrors nazi behavior.

Godwin's Law is usually spot on the money. It works when people are using "Nazi" to describe somebody they just think is an *******. For example: "Boy, that traffic cop sure is a Nazi, I only parked illegally for a few minutes."

That's a perfect example of Godwin's Law.

Godwin's Law does not apply when people actually are acting like Nazis, i.e. committing crimes against humanity.

 

[pattylou]

But the main point is that people make comparisons with Nazis specifically for the emotional response it invokes -- in other words, because they want to argue with emotion, and not reason.

Hmmmm. I disagree. I expect the terms "Nazi" and "Hitler" are useful descriptive words because they are readily accessible to so many individuals. If I say Bush is another Attila, well, people may get the reference, but won't have as clear and image as if I say "Hitler." Likewise for Napolean, or Ghengis Khan, or others - These are part of our history and we "know" them but not in the detail of knowing Hitler.

"He's a Hun."

It sounds bad, but what is that, exactly? Aren't Huns (somewhat) forgiven for the simple reason that they are pretty distant in our memory?

To the extent that "Nazi" carries an emotional charge, yes, I think that is part of the reason why people use the word. But I think people such words for other reasons as well.

You could theoretically get away from the terms altogether - and maybe this is what you're saying - and say simply that Bush is a liar, a thief, a torturer and a murderer. A slimebag. A chimp. A disgrace to the human species and an abomination to America. An embarassment and a moron. An ugly man with a misplaced savior complex who claims to talk to God. A man who can't ride a bicycle properly.

But each of these points has been debated Rovian style to negate them (as other notorious leaders were no doubt defended in similar style to get them off any individual charge.) But the gestalt of Bush is bad, and so is more succinctly summed up in a name, than in a list of offenses.

And no, I have not ever compared Bush to Hitler myself. This post is the closest I have ever done so and it was merely for the sake of debating your claim quoted above.

 

[edward]

Hmmm So how do we catagorize the infamous "Soup Nazi"?

 

[TRCSF]

Hmmm So how do we catagorize the infamous "Soup Nazi"?

Perfect example.

When I think of Godwin's Law I think of a scene from the Simpsons. Patty's manager at the DMV finds her lit cigarette, Homer covers for Patty and says it's his. As Homer takes a drag, the manager slaps it out of his mouth and says, "you, sir, are worse than Hitler."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As for Bush and Hitler, they do have one thing in common: Neither was particularly successful at anything until they discovered politics.

Actually Hitler had a somewhat successful military career before he was in politics.

The photos clearly show troops raping, torturing, and murdering human beings.

If "Nazi" isn't a perfect description of that sort of treatment, I don't know what is.

So then you're calling those troops Nazis? I thought we were talking about Bush? You do realize don't you that these people were Court Marshalled and punished for their crimes by our government whom you declare nazis.

Historically the last time people were treated in this manner by a government approved program it was in Nazi Germany. Thinking people got to looking at the situation and realized that there were other aspects of the Administration's tactics that had similar Hitlerian overtones

Historically Hitler built concentartion camps specifically for the purpose of torture and execution in mass numbers. How does this parallel? Secondly the last time something akin to what Hitler's Concentration Camps did was done was Abu Ghraib before the US invasion. Also so you know there have been other wars since WWII where people were captured and tortured and killed, and I'd like to add treated far worse than anyone held in Abu Ghraib under US control ever was.

Some of you people really need to read up on history and get some perspective. Comparing Bush to Hitler is simply childish and immature.

 

[hypatia]

Thank you Ape, your correct. We should compare him to a kudzu vine, invasive and nonproductive, and hard to get rid of. Apologies to all kudzu vines I have offended.

 

[edward]

http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_1148hiltercall

President Bush stunned political observers Thursday, announcing that he'd "prefer if the hardcore leftists out there would stop referring to me as Hitler" and maybe "tone things down a bit by calling me Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun."

Although not being a hardcore leftist, I shall henceforth from this very day honor the presidents own wishes. I shall now and forever refer to him as Attila the Hun