Reply #52: Now, that is definitely a valid concern [View All]

[DivinBreuvage]

Although I would argue that the history of the downfall of the Third Reich suggests that Hitler's order to unleash nuclear devastation on the planet -- while he almost certainly would have issued it -- would likely not have been obeyed.

But in any event, it seems silly to me to attempt to drum up opposition to Bush on the reasoning that some day, theoretically, perhaps, he might possibly prove to be as bad or worse than Adolf Hitler.

Bush is acting in the here and now. Either what he's doing is wrong, undemocratic, and unjustifiable, or it isn't.

If it is, that in itself is the only necessary and sufficient reason to oppose him. Lurid conjectures about nuclear holocaust are melodramatic and irrelevant, and, worse, are so over the top that the citizen in the street is going to dismiss them.

If it isn't, then there's no real reason to oppose him.

Make your argument based on what Bush is doing here and now -- in other words, show people the documented reality. If that isn't enough to piss people off, then either you're not arguing effectively or what he's doing isn't that bad.

I do believe Bush is bad for America and bad for the world. I do believe he should be opposed. But Adolf Hitler has nothing to do with it.