No I did not make it up. I used logic to deduce certain things and backed it with facts. You on the other hand twist what I say. Then you say it is wrong with out using logic to back up your claim or any facts to support your argument and accuse the ones you argue with of doing exactly what you are doing. Typical propagandist trick.

It is obvious itsfunycsitstru you don't care about truth but just say what ever you can think of to try and convince people to believe what you want them to so you can have a desired effect on your audience. Use fact to back up your argument and use logic gives the educated a way to dispute your position but just making cleaver remarks turns an intelligent debate into nothing more than a trade off insults and accusations.

Just use your mind and read between the lines. Of coarse the corrupt and two faced will hide the evidence but if one thinks you can figure out some of what is going on like the generalities I mention. Specifics need to come from those who do more in depth research than me who care to share. But keep your mind closed to all the possibilities. You can fool some of the people all the time.

Larissan04 I agree with much of what you said but I think you missed some of my points. My point was not that there are not Muslim extremist and other killers that we need to defend ourselves from. There are. But my point is that they did not declare war on them. They never said lets declare war on the Muslim extremist groups that we need to focus on. They used the Muslim militants as an excuse to call for this war on terrorism without making any clear cut definition who the terrorist were. Basically they wanted to replace the void that winning the war on communism's left with some thing else. By saying something vague like terrorism that give them ability to claim anyone is a terrorist and then do as they like and go after who they like as if those people were war time enemies. The potetial could be to carry that to some pretty scary extremes.

My biggest objection to the using the terminology of the war on terrorism is that they were more interested in exploiting the situation for their own political agenda than declaring war on those who are attacking us.

You also mentioned Martin Lutheran King being peaceful. What you missed is there was unclassified information that stated that the FBI did consider Martin Lutheran King and others like him in the leftist equal rights movement to be subversive and took actions to mess them. Now those same type could just call them terrorist instead of subversive and go after them if we give them unchecked power.

The other point was not that they should not be able to suspend the constitution to defend the country in war time. The point is that because of modern technology has made it so a common man can do terrorist acts there will always be people who will do these types of things. The experts in Terrorism will say that this threat will not go away. We beat one terrorist group another will be there. So now they declare a war that will never end so they can conceivably use it as an excuse to suspend the constitution indefinitely. Are we really willing to throw the constitution out the window to defend against this never ending threat. Mr. Franklin said. Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both.

The could have declared war on the Al Quaida. They could have then declared war on any group who attacked us or helped our enemy. But they never did this. They were more interested in declaring this vague term terrorism so that they could go after who ever they like and then sell it to the public by putting labels on them than actually declareing the war on who exactly is threatening the American public.

Any how I am to busy to keep this up so I am going to let it go for a while. I hope others will keep their responses coming. I would like to say as far as the politicians go, you are just screwing it up, but God bless you men and woman in the military and spy community that are actually fighting to stop these people and screw the politicians who are just exploiting the bombing of the World Trade Center for their own political agenda.

Except for the fact that the guy draws the bulk of his information from the book Mein Kampf. You know, that book written by the very guy his essay is about. I guess, however, you would prefer to believe that Hitler didn't know anything about Hitler.

By the by, I have to wonder how you are such an expert on history, and what is going on in your country, and so many other things, and yet are completely clueless about the relevance of 'And now you know... the rest of the story', which is such a vital part of your nation's culture and recent history.

itsfunycsitstru you got me. I said you were intelligent but I have come to realize I may have been wrong. Actually I suspect you may be intelligent but your style of debate is not. Really I have talk to some conservatives who have some very valid points that need to be expressed. But when we talk we don’t call each other names or accuse the other of lying. We can be civil about it and learn and grow from each other as a result.

He does have me that one I have no evidence besides what I stated about New Orleans. All I can say is if you doubt then go down there and talk to people. But before anyone calls me a liar who I am not, how about coming up with evidence I am not telling the truth which he will not because I am telling the truth.

You may choose to hide your head in the sand, but unfortunately for you, that does not prevent others from seeing the obvious

There was quite a difference between Moses and David, yet they still pursued the same ideals.

But let’s see first you deny a basic historical fact about Hitler, then I bring up about some thing a historian had told me about the renaissance period and you knew details about it just off the top of your head and claim did not look it up but are not a historian. You just know about it.

First of all I never said I saw it, I never said I took pictures or that the government is after me.

it is common knowledge that when a city is rioting that the Guard shoots rioters on site.

am not saying this man is nothing more than just some dude but his technique of argument is interesting to observe. But I am done and have no doubt he will continually hound me. But if I am going to spend my time writing I would like to exercise some intellectual concepts and attempt to explore some deeper concepts than being like two second graders with petty insults

My cousin told me for one, a bar tender at Masperos ( I am probably misspelling that.) a couple ofpolice officers and a few misalliances people. You lie you wiull not expose any thing because it is true and you say you talked to people about it. I will get into it latter but to be honest between your denial of what people pointed out about Hitler and your accusations about me being a liar when I was down there twice and talk to people who lived down there and were there and a claim you have talked to locals yourself about what happen makes me think you may be a straight out propagandist liar. I know you don't speak truth but I am honest and open minded enough to state you may believe your own lies. If you didn't bring it up to locals they may of not talked to you about it.

To point it out in logic for those with minds after five days of New Orleans looting to survive of coarse the National Guard went in and shoot looters to restore order. But liars don't care about truth, they just know they have to say lies and even if God himself says the truth they know people will believe their lies. I don't know itsfunycsitstru if you believe your own lies but I know there is no truth to you and hope most will see that.

Just go down to New Orleans and tell the locals that and see what they say. It did happen after five days the drug addicts and criminals had taken over the city and were freaking out and the National Guard did come down and gun them down to restore order. What sadden me is the innocent people and people that one day would have been reformed that were gunned down in the process.

The problem was not that the guard had to do such actions, it was that they were not airdropped into the city from day one to maintain order and food and water was not air dropped from day one until we could get people out. The conspiracy part is just my theory I concluded because number one I know the president got together after the levee broke on day one and discussed their options because that is what they do. They know they can transport a large force to any where in this country quickly as a matter of national defense. I can't believe that they are that stupid not to consider this option to air drop the National Guard to maintain order and supplies to save lives.

But regardless whether planned or not the effect is that they waited five days until right before people started dropping like flies from lack of water, did what they had to restore order, and then the politicians as a local police officer put it, played the numbers game to make it sound like less died than really died. One more story I heard from a local. Short version is that they fished over a hundred of bodies out of the Mississippi that were shot point blank in the fore head. That is execution and is not legal like when the guard first came in and gunned people down. But I will admit that comes from one source about being shot in the fore head and may not be true. But let me say that I was in New Orleans a little while ago and right now it seems the best of the city are there now and they are doing a good job of rebuilding their city.

But no there were not mass graves because the National Guard dumped the bodies into the Mississippi. Just go down there and talk to locals if you don’t believe me.

realize you are an intelligent man but do we really have to lower our self to name calling. The way I see it though is though even though others have pointed out how Hitler manipulated the moral right in Germany to gain power you seem to refuse it and do not under stand why. But I can leave it at we just will not agree.

Let me also say that if someone is to gain unchecked power they will have to either have that much over whelming military power to seize it and maintain it or they will have to gain the moral majority of the population support to give them the power. Please correct me if you see any other means. Please also correct me if there is not an faction of the moral right that want to take over and turn this country into a Christian theocracy. Also correct me if this is not the faction of the population that Bush appeals to maintain his power.

It is sad when some one presents them selves as an expert by insults and grandiose statements when they are far from that. But I like to hear from all the intelligent people even from those who have no manners or honor.

You said you have no freedom taken away. Have you read all the laws they have passed or are you just thinking well because I have not seen any of these laws passed to take freedom away from Americans then that mean I have not had freedom taken away. I will leave it to you people who have done more research in the laws but the freedoms that scared me is that they can call me a terrorist and put me away without due process of law. Even if not abused today one day it will be, there are others but I need to go to class so bye now. Thanks I like that an intelligent conservative is on here even if you feel the need to name call and support false propaganda. But I assure you I DO NOT INTENTIONALLY LIE on here.

If that is all you wanted, then why did you enter the debate to begin with? I don't recall anyone saying Bush was souly responsible for what happened in New Orleans.

itsfunycsitstru yeah I get it. You either refuse to admit you were wrong and ignorant or are to stupid to understand you were wrong and that Hitler presented himself as a moral Christian man that was looking out for the moral hard working people of Germany before he was given absolute power in prewar Germany. Hitler was very loved and had a fanatical following of the law abiding citizens in Germany. But hasn't we beat this to death I mean really can we go on to some thing else.

First of all I think Bush will cause more damage and if he had maintained a Republican congress that did not check his abuse of power any number of scenarios might have happened. But the democrats in congress will watch him like a hawk so I feel the immediate threat to national security that Bush presented is abated.

But I think it is swinging back to the middle, I hope. I also don't mean this as a anti republican thing. From what I hear McCain I think is his name would make a fine President and he is republican.

Yes history will tell Bush. All your lies will come out and History will remember the little spoiled rich boy who pretended to be a good Christian man while he lied to manipulate the country into a war and left a whole city to rot for five days in America while the whole world watched in horror. Yeah I bash Bush and am proud of it.

Please point out these errors.

The argument for this point isn't that Hitler was a Christian, it is that he thought he was a Christian. Most people who think they are Christians actually aren't.

So, in this high school that taught you to write better than seasoned essay writers, you didn't learn about metaphors and symbolism?

Actually, what you've stated is that you can't wait for him to leave office, so that you can see the reactions of 'Bush Bashers'. Also, it is obvious from your posts that either you support him, or you like tilting at windmills.

The full responsibility isn't his, but he does share a role in it.

It was a mistake. Here is the link about Hitler:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.shtml

Hitler agrees with George W. Bush that religion and morality are intertwined).

By the way, AP is a starting point, not a source for which to copy articles from, especially not an important story like the one in question. A reporter might get away with copying an unimportant local interest or community event article, but for something major like this, he or she is going to have to do some digging of their own. This is true in small newspapers like the ones I did on-the-job training in, and it is even moreso in major US publications.

Some do, many don't. That isn't the point, though. To use your own words, from post 408, "I don't think any rational Christian American thinks Bush was put into power by God. You may believe that and it's scary that you do,". So, by your words, Bush is not rational, and his belief is scary to you, but you still support him as president?

Don't feel to bad if I don't take you at your word. Show me the evidence and I'll believe you until then the books, classes, and documentaries I've seen on him that he wanted his followers to worship the state meaning himself not a God of a different religion.


Here you go:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1075950,00.html#article_continue

And now you know... the rest of the story.

Look back through my posts and point out where I stated he was the second coming of Hitler. Good luck, because I didn't. What I did state is that it is not yet certain.

By the way, you can continue 'owning' me all you want. I'll just continue being right.

Then why did you say differently in post 395?

You might want to brush up on your reading, then. Hitler considered himself to be a Christian. He regularly used religion in his speeches.

Prepare to be more scared then, because Bush has publically stated, more than once, that God chose him to be the president.

As I already pointed out, you yourself said otherwise, in post 395

Bush has compared Hussein to Hitler, and yet you support and defend him.

The similarities between Bush and Hitler are obvious and clear, regardless of you blinding yourself to the truth. This doesn't mean that Bush is the second coming of the man, that is not yet clear, and only time will tell.

Once again, take a look at the "big lie" in action.



ABC News has learned that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi plans to visit Syria next week to meet with President Bashar Al-Assad. The visit will make Pelosi the most senior U.S. official ever to meet with President Assad.

White House spokesperson Dana Perino strongly criticized Pelosi's planned visit, saying, "We think it is a really bad idea."

"People should take a stop back and think about the message it sends and the message it sends to our allies,

I’m not sure what the hopes are to — what she’s hoping to accomplish there. I know that Assad probably really wants people to come and have a photo opportunity and have tea with him, and have discussions about where they’re coming from, but we do think that’s a really bad idea." Perino said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2995828&page=1



Let's all think for a second, and see if anyone else might be visiting Syria......

Hitler before he was given absolute power presented himself as a extremely moral man that was going to protect the law abiding Christian people from the immoral people of his country. There was a lot of comparisons between Bush getting the backing of the religious right and Hitler doing the same in prewar Germany. Before Hitler was given absolute power Hitler had a fanatical love of the moral right of Germany. So does Bush. A lot of the people are waking up to Bush but some still think he is this great moral Christian man that God put into power.

Also Bush has made statements about how his job would be easier if he was a dictator. Well that is all I remember about the comparisons between Bush and Hitler in prewar Germany. So believe what you like. Perhaps some of the historians out there would like make a more indepth comparisons. I am not worried it any more because it appears that Bush's attempts to get absolute power for him and his people is being blocked.

If there is a second article, by a second news organization, then it obviously isn't the same story. Even you yourself acknowledged this. Here is your opening statement from post 395;

As you get older, hopefully you'll realize that the people who have learned from history are not the idiots. Maybe Bush is the second coming of Hitler, maybe he isn't. Only the future will reveal this. However, to people who don't have blinders on, there are numerous similarities.

Both led their population to believe that many of their nation's problems can be blamed on a certain people.
Both reduced the freedoms of their population, claiming it was for their protection.
Both dramatically increased military spending and operations.
Both caused the invasion of a country, falsely claiming it was a threat.

If I understand it correctly, it was at that time they printed the retraction, and recent developments show they were wrong to do so.

Apparently he can be compared to Hitler, because it is done all the time.

Earlier the Associated Press said Mr Bush had been warned of the levees being breached in the video.

But subsequently it issued a clarification which said that the president was warned about water overrunning the levees rather than breaking them.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun

In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.

The tapes of video teleconferences were recorded over two days: the Sunday before Katrina hit and the Monday it stormed ashore along the Gulf Coast, CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports.

Mr. Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."

The footage, along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press, show in detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the disaster.

Linked by secure video, Mr. Bush's confidence on Aug. 28 starkly contrasts with the dire warnings his disaster chief and a cacophony of federal, state and local officials provided during the four days before the storm.

A top hurricane expert voiced "grave concerns" about the levees and then-Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown told the president and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that he feared there weren't enough disaster teams to help evacuees at the Superdome.

"I'm concerned about ... their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe," Brown told his bosses the afternoon before Katrina made landfall.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/01/katrina/main1361404.shtml

You may want to reread my posts. I made no such claims of mass graves or shootings. People did die, waiting for aid, and there is no excusable reason for that happening in a country with the resources that the US had. Whoever died as a direct result of the storm - that's Mother Nature. Whoever died afterwards, when help could have been there preventing such deaths ?

That's the President's fault.

Earlier the Associated Press said Mr Bush had been warned of the levees being breached in the video.

But subsequently it issued a clarification which said that the president was warned about water overrunning the levees rather than breaking them.

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun

Why was so little concern made about nuclear weapons when the Saudi's bankrolled the Pakistani nuclear program ? With billions given, do you really think they got nothing concrete out of the deal ?
Why were no question asked when the Saudi's bought long range missles from North Korea ? Created a top secret missile base ? That those missiles they bought had targeting errors (CEP) that effectively made them worthless with conventional explosive warheads ?

Blanco sent a letter to Bush stating that the situation was out of control - before the storm hit land. The President then had, but never used, his powers under the Stafford Act. That act allows even DoD assets to be used (unless they will be diverted from a critical mission) to assist in relief efforts.

There were enough military forces , helos, etc in the US military to drop and distribute supplies. In fact, those military assets were indeed used - except about a week too late.

Stop trying to pardon the unpardonable.

When people need help , the first thing , (indeed the Christian thing) is to help them. There was NO reason why that could not have been done in a more timely manner.

None.

Back on topic, I don't think anyone's really trying to say that todays situation is a carbon copy of Hitler's Germany, at least seriously.

The combination of God, and the promoted belief that America was indeed the lord of all other nations.

The unilateral actions that violated international law.

If you study prewar Nazi Germany there were some comparisons between actions of George Bush and Hitler.

But face it Bush had to know that all he had to do is make a call to his Air force Generals and say we need food and water airdropped into New Orleans, make it happen and hundreds if not thousands of people would not have died

I went down to New Orleans and talked to locals about what happened. A police officer said they are playing the numbers game. That he was at the super dome and saw the dead in the hundreds. Yet officially they claimed only a few people died. I also heard about bodies being dumped in the river and find it believable because I have heard nothing about the mass craves that would be required for the amount of dead down there. I also heard nothing about when the National Guard came down there after five days and they started gunning people down in the hundreds or more. Why were they not there from day one to keep the peace? Also why did I not hear about this in the press? It makes me wonder how much control the powers to be have over the press.

I really don’t know what they were and are up to in New Orleans.

yes like the free elections in Palastine. The Hamas don't believe in peace and freedom. and what gaurantees do we have Iraq will? will we stay there until there is a government that we like will be elected? so, much for democracy...

Regardless of whether she knows what to do about cookies on her computer, many computer operators do not, perhaps even the majority of them.

It's sad when something like 'pro-life' and 'pro-family' may seem positive in their nature, but are usually just covers for hate and discrimination.