Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 3/23/06 07:31 PM, Grammer wrote

Yaya, I getcha, this guy says he's not comparing Bush to Hitler, but Lord knows he's implying it. Hell, he made a frickin' list of how Bush has done things similar to Hitler.

He has said nothing about Bush. You're the only one talking about Bush and Hitler. You're misrepresenting his argument. Straw man.

---

Bush=Republican
Hitler=Nazi

Wow.

Hitler had an ugly moustache, Bush looks like a monkey.

Or, how about this oddly prescient one:

After the burning of the Reichschag, which he perpetrated, Hitler gained emergency powers. When 9/11 occured, which Bush should have had at least some inkling about, but couldn't do THAT much about, Bush didn't.

End of story. Bush is bad, but NOT EVEN CLOSE to as bad as Hitler was.

---

We did have support when we went into Iraq. Not much, but we still had it. And besides, that's a crappy reason to compare Bush to Hitler. So what if the world doesn't support? Doesn't mean the war still isn't a good idea.

Germany had support when it went to war. Not much, but it did (Japan, Italy, Romania, etc.). And anyway, what if the world didn't support Germany? That doesn't mean that the war was not a good idea.

How, in any way, has the patriot act affected you personally? Exactly, it hasn't.

Ever heard of free speech zones? Or maybe you fancy the idea of the government invading your home without telling you? Or listening in on your private phone calls? Perhaps arresting you for no reason and not giving you a fair trial? If the German government started killing Jews, would you just shut up about it because you're not a Jew?

How has Bush does that at all?

I was referring to the speech. In it, drilling for oil in Alaska was supposed to cure our oil dependency while screwing the environment. A quick fix for our power problem doesn't give us the right to destroy the environment.

If you're reffering to France

No, I'm referring to the speech. Remember the two lists? Yeah.

Bush breathes air? z0mg Hitler breathed air too!!!11111one111 nazi lololololol

So you agree that the US under that speech and Nazi Germany are similar in the above respects? Good.

---

At 3/23/06 07:43 PM, Begoner wrote:

Germany had support when it went to war. Not much, but it did (Japan, Italy, Romania, etc.). And anyway, what if the world didn't support Germany? That doesn't mean that the war was not a good idea.

Come on, you could make a better comparison then that. You could use this to almost anything. America had support in the American Revolution. Not much but it did(France, Spain) And anyways, what if the world didn't support America. Thta doesn't mean that the war was not a good idea.

Frankly thats about it.

I don't really give two shits about the rest of the argument, just wanted to make sure you used a good comparison.

---

At 3/23/06 07:54 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: I don't really give two shits about the rest of the argument, just wanted to make sure you used a good comparison.

I think it's a fine comparison. The US had about the same if not less actual support than Nazi Germany did. If you're going to attempt to say that the US had "world support" for the Iraq War, then so did Nazi Germany, the American revolution, and practically anything else that has happened ever. Yes, it loses all meaning, but Talcon was the one who first put it into that framework.

---

At 3/23/06 03:48 PM, Lhotun wrote:

Yeah, I know. I give to charities to help those wrecked by Katrina, and what have those poor and now homeless people ever given to me? Are they going to send me anything in return? Those ungrateful punks.

When we helped out the tsunami victims, we (the US) was still treated like crap. Hell, even some of our own people (liberals) were complaining we were giving too much. While at the same time bashed bush because even tho he donated thousands himself "it should be much more because he has more money".

It's like saying the Great Wall of China is retarded because we can fly over it in planes.

The Great Wall of China is...you know...ancient.

You act as if there wasn't a French resistance post-fall, that may have actually... y'know... been the reason the US could just sweep in so effectively. Afterall, it was those "pussies" as you called them that provided intelligence on the Atlantic Wall and helped sabotage the Germans, allowing D-Day to be a success.

I didnt say they were completely useless. I just implied that even tho we pretty much rescued them twice they still dont seem to show much gratitude.

Besides, have you ever thought we get shit from them because we call them pussies, wimps, and cowards?

The reason why we call them that is because we get shit from them.

I think the people that helped us in Afghanistan matter far more than the people that helped us in Iraq. Who was in Afghanistan helping us find the people that actually attacked us? France, Canada, UK, Denmark, Japan (who was even in Iraq for awhile), and many more. In fact, some of our "List 1" countries helped a lot less than France did in going after the real terrorists.

Pretty much everyone was on our side at the beginning. But now...no.

Perfect President? No; a very, very forgetful and foolish one.

Perfect?

Of course, that oil will last us forever and we'll never ever have a problem with dependency on it again. Or perhaps we'll instead eventually run out of oil there too and then won't have our emergency Alaskan back-up to look to (because isn't that what we always say now... "if shit hits the fan, we can always count on Seward's Ice Box;?" Atleast, I seem to remember hearing that said quite a bit... just not in those words).

I never said we shouldnt look for an alternate, I want one to happen. I would love to, but they practically have us by the balls with oil so why not drill? I just find it unreal that people put animals before mankind.

---

I never said we shouldnt look for an alternate, I want one to happen. I would love to, but they practically have us by the balls with oil so why not drill? I just find it unreal that people put animals before mankind.

I'm not putting animals before mankind. We have to invest in alternate sources of energy instead of oil, like solar and wind power if we ever want to be independent from oil. That does not happen when Bush lays off alternate energy workers with the DoE. We are drilling in Alaska, anyway. The only reason we are not drilling more is because no company really wants to do it because it's not profitable -- there's too little oil. Alaska has reached peak oil (2004-05), so building more refineries and such is a waste of money. And even if we miraculously found more oil, do you know who loses out? Mankind. Global climate change is occurring because we are using so much oil and heavy pollutants. And mankind, not the animals, lose when there are huge hurricanes and cyclones. Drilling in Alaska will not solve our problems and nobody wants to do it. Best to invest in other types of energy.

---

At 3/22/06 07:58 PM, Begoner wrote: The same happened in Nazi Germany. Germany was like, "fuck you, Poland, France, and pretty much the rest of the world. We don't care if you think what we're doing is wrong, because we'll keep on doing it anyway. And if you protest any more, we'll invade you."

you fucktard, you dont get it. to directly compare USA with nazi germany is the worst cliche plus it is completly unfound. USA are not a facist that kills 2million people without batting an eye. sure USA has done really really really stupid things, but im so sick of these nazi germany comparisons. its called the SELF FULLFILING PROPHESY. that means that you can compare madagascar's governement to nazi germany and say they are exactly the same.

help yourself to a textbook every now and then idiot. god dam i hate hippies.

---

At 3/23/06 08:11 PM, AccessCode wrote: When we helped out the tsunami victims, we (the US) was still treated like crap. Hell, even some of our own people (liberals) were complaining we were giving too much. While at the same time bashed bush because even tho he donated thousands himself "it should be much more because he has more money".

I didnt say they were completely useless. I just implied that even tho we pretty much rescued them twice they still dont seem to show much gratitude.

But people don't show much gratitude to braggarts, usually. An isolationist America attacked Germany in self-defense; we didn't "save them." We mostly left them on their own to die. It would be a lot more fair to say they should be showing as gratitude for the Marshall Plan, but that was still in our own economic and political interests (if not merely to create a wall between us and the soviets).
WWII was a practice in teamwork. Quite frankly, mutual gratitude is in order, so don't be so cocky.

Besides, have you ever thought we get shit from them because we call them pussies, wimps, and cowards?

The reason why we call them that is because we get shit from them.

And perhaps the reason we get shit from them is because we call them pussies, wimps, and cowards. In the word's of Fat Bastard, "It's a vicious cycle."
Clearly, intentionally keeping the cycle going is a great way to end it.

Pretty much everyone was on our side at the beginning. But now...no.

Everyone was on our side when we went into Afghanistan. Very few were on our side when we went into Iraq. The reasons are obvious. Afghanistan was a war against an aggressor. Iraq was a war against "some guy that is pretty suspicious." If I was an independent country, I'd be on list 2. What would I have to gain from invading Iraq on dubious grounds?

Perfect?

I was a take on the subject "Perfect President Speech;" saying that the speech was far from perfect and only a forgetful and foolish president would actually say it.

---

Jesus smiles upon thee...

~It would be nice..not perfect...but by far the best speech to date *though not the fanciest by any means*

---

The speech is dumb and ignorant. It leaves out many factors.
Like if we are giving aid to countries like they would be able to send troops for war.
Also we would fuck ourselves and everybody else with it.
Learn some economics

---

At 3/23/06 11:22 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/23/06 07:58 PM, red_skunk wrote: Yes, it loses all meaning, but Talcon was the one who first put it into that framework.

No, unless I'm mistaken I do believe that it was Begoner who first brought it up.

You are mistaken. You said that the US had support from from the world for the invasion of Iraq. And if you consider a handful of countries "support worldwide," then Nazi Germany had similar support. Personally, I feel like "worldwide" means more than a handful, but semantically you're right. But you can't attack begoner for taking your logic.

You can't differentiate between Bush and the rest of the administration, or Hitler and the rest of the Nazi government? Why not? It's an important distinction that you ought to be able to make.

---

Since there seems to be all kind of response to arguments made other posters on this subject, while all the time missing the exact points in the speech, I thought I'd respond to it directly (note that anything not an issue is removed, and I cut a few things for character limits):

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.

Any country requiring foreign aid has good reason not to assist in an anti-Iraqi war campaign. And as Dr_Arbitrary said; it's not THAT big a slice of the pie.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

The author of this should learn how aid funds are distributed. For example; I've never seen "Cash just handed to dictator" on a Red Cross financial report before.

Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.

Because they've only ever called the USA for help before now. Ugh. The US isn't the only country in the world that supplies emergency aid, they're already calling France.

On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.

Threats don't seem to phase them, as they blow themselves up on a regular basis. It would only serve to antagonize more. They'd probably use that line in their propaganda videos.

That would be anything but perfect at dealing with terrorists. Perhaps the author should try something like negotiating a peace agreement. That's the usual way wars are ended.

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France, or maybe China.

The CIA funded and trained those terrorists to deal with a growing communist threat in that area. A few decades later, they bombed the country, and their families. There isn't much motivation for terrorists to attack France or China for any reason other than being associated with the USA. Despite what the author seems to wholeheartedly believe, terrorists are not savage, blindly murderous goons out to kill-kill-kill and rape all of society. They wouldn't be interested in France or China. Not that batch, anyhow.

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon chance, mes amis.

How utterly void of any intelligence. That's right, taking your ball and going home is the winning tactic here, right along side waging war because of your own personal opinions. The USA made a bad choice, and getting angry at everyone else for not being as mindless is far from perfect.

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not ticking us off for a change.

That part should be a joke, because threatening another country is only going to instigate anger. Even Canada has it's limits, and we've been receiving the shaft plenty.

Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment...

Moral highground is fickle, only lasting until the public finds out about the latest scandal. It's all well and good to say they should improve themselves, but if I were Fox, I'd respond with a big ol' "Fuck you."

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.

Starting now? They've been violating the NAFTA treaty since the beginning. Abrogating it would just make it official.

Actually, yes. This part would be better. Atleast then trading policies would be a bit more honest.

Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska...If you're an environmentalist...move there. They care.

If the USA wanted as a whole to destroy their own ecosystems and environment, let them. But as soon as other countries start feeling the effects, we're entitled to reparations.

I also hate how the author assumes that the UK and other supporting nations would instantly agree with destruction of their environment. That message would not only be terribly irresponsible, but a purging of environmentalists because of their ideals would awfully similar to Stalin's "Great purging" of the USSR, of officers and people who's opinion conflicted with his. It would massively violate freedom of speech. It would set precedent for a move to a totalitarian system.

I don't know what president would support that, but I know he would be a terrible one.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin."

How perfect. You'll be just like North Korea, and isn't that what all countries strive to be like?

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet.

Bullshit. International relations exist NOT because of the goodness of the politician's heart, but the hunger of the politicians pocket. Relations lead to trade, which leads to massive profit, if properly utilized. Saying the US is out for the goodness of their hearts is like saying imperialism in the 17 and 1800's was "The white man's burden."

It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America.

Isolating the country from the rest of the world, forcing you to pay off the massive financial debts of the country won't make you heaps of cash. International trade will make the country heaps of cash, and by association, international relations.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

Naive nationalists who are too pig headed to see their country for what it really is sicken me. As if "good old uncle Sam" is saving the rest of the world from global conquer from those poverty stricken beasts of nations in the middle east. They should pull their heads out of their asses and see their country for what it really is. Not invincible. Not infinitely financed. Not so godly that they will never fall.

Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against Americans, but reality is a cruel mistress, and the USA not being an unstoppable, infinite superpower is a reality.