Besides, you don't have to be an Evil Genius to figure out that people are more motivated when they're threatened. Hitler was the first guy to notice this?

Just who exactly "attacked" or "threatened" Hitler's pre-war Germany, if I may ask? Otherwise, stutefish, I agree fundamentally with your take on the role of propaganda. Concisely & clearly stated.

And maybe you don't want to laugh, but that monkey/pants exchange is hilarious and spot on.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Thankyou for writing about the topic Daiwa. Now you see why I gave you the credit that I didn't give to others.

As to your assertion that Iam "wrong", rather than in disagreement about you on a topic that neither of us can really prove, I'll follow through on what I said, though I think you make a good case. Only a few weeks out from election time a group of Australian comedians travelled to the USA to ask the people on the street what their opinions about certain issues were. When asked if they supported Bush's stance on Kyrgyzstan, they gave unqualified yesses. Statements like that they like Bush so they support invasion. Statements like whatever it takes to defend the USA's freedom is good. Statements like Bush said it, so it must be right!!! In case you are wondering, Kyrgyzstan doesn't exist. Here's the link to a scary but humorous vox pop: http://www.abc.net.au/cnnnn/

In short, many Americans were highly uninformed about the issues, in spite of the efforts of the media.

As to what Bush did, well he certainly didn't use all the same tactics that Hitler used. But I think it can be said that he used some of the tacics that Goering described. Churchill also used them. Churchill's war was justified. Bush's was arguably. Goering's wasn't. But I don't think that just because your war is justified that it is therefore justified to use dishonest tactics. Bush could have convinced me if he were more honest. Of course, that is slightly off-topic to discuss the ethics, but anyway.

"Just who exactly "attacked" or "threatened" Hitler's pre-war Germany, if I may ask?"

The Jews. I mean, not really, but Hitler created the impression in the German people that this was the case. Bush also created the impression that Hussein was a threat to the USA, and personally I don't buy it. Nonetheless, it was a good idea to remove Saddam, but I don't think it was justified under the reasons that Bush and Powell gave. Herein lies the analogy to Goering's quote. There is no analogy between Bush's actions and Hitler's though.

In short, many Americans were highly uninformed about the issues, in spite of the efforts of the media.

--I think americans have become somewhat apathetic in seeking everyday news, they are fine with being told what they are to be told,not what is happening...IMO

Only a few weeks out from election time a group of Australian comedians travelled to the USA to ask the people on the street what their opinions about certain issues were. When asked if they supported Bush's stance on Kyrgyzstan, they gave unqualified yesses. Statements like that they like Bush so they support invasion. Statements like whatever it takes to defend the USA's freedom is good. Statements like Bush said it, so it must be right!!! In case you are wondering, Kyrgyzstan doesn't exist. Here's the link to a scary but humorous vox pop: http://www.abc.net.au/cnnnn/In short, many Americans were highly uninformed about the issues, in spite of the efforts of the media.

I think it's a bit of a stretch, to put it kindly, to take a "Jay-walking" survey like that and come to any rational conclusions at all. There are people in every country who are blissfully oblivious and I suspect they make up the majority of those who don't bother to vote and a small minority of those who do. It's the folks who vote who make the decisions here, most of whom were rather well-informed during the last election cycle, actually, if more scientific polling data are to be believed, such as they are. That people voted in record numbers is evidence in support of that notion. The left here has rationalized their losses with the same claim, BTW - that we were just too uninformed, that if we'd only shared the enlightenment of the likes of the NY Times, none of this would have happened, that whole delusional schtick - but it's a bogus excuse. People paying attention were flooded with information to digest. There were times I felt so "overinformed" I thought I'd throw up. We are both blessed and cursed by the volume and variety of sources of information these days.

And I still take issue with the allegation that Bush wasn't being honest, another way of saying "Bush Lied to the American People, He Deceived the American People!" (to paraphrase Al Gore). I remain convinced that the concerns, ideals and objectives he espoused prior to the Iraq invasion were genuinely held. It's one thing to be wrong about some things, and certainly he was, but it's quite another to be dishonest. And I conclude that the majority of Americans feel the same way, based on his re-election - we all knew by then that some of the intelligence had proven to be wrong, chiefly the WMD estimates, but Bush was hardly alone in believing and relying on that intelligence. You're giving him backhanded high praise when you suggest he could have hoodwinked Congress, Tony Blair, and a whole bunch of other very smart people by so cleverly manipulating them. Remember, this is the President considered by the left to be the dumbest in history, barely able to tie his own shoes in their view. Arguing both sides of the coin at the same time just doesn't work. You have to decide - he's either a brilliant manipulator or an honest dunce - and I think you lose the argument with either choice, because he's clearly neither.

Thanks for hearing me out and Cheers,
Daiwa

"Hitler was a Strong leader that demanded all do his bidding
Bush is a strong leader that demands all do his bidding.
Hitler was elected
Bush was elected.
Bush said, soon after the election of 2000, that it would be easier if we had a Dictatorship so long as he was the Dictator!
The comparisons are a bit scarey!"

That comparison is indeed scary, but only because it shows us where the education system has failed.

When, for example, was Hitler elected?

And when you say "demand all do his bidding" and relate it to what Hitler did, what exactly do you mean Hitler and Bush do to "demand" that all do their bidding? What do you think happens if you don't do what Bush says? In fact, what has happened to those who disagreed with George Bush? (And what has happened to those who disagreed with Hitler?)

Hitler was elected in 1932 by the people of Germany. He later eliminated all freedom and became a dictator.

Bush wants everything 100% his way-- Judges, staff menbers, tax cuts, Social Security, Immigration, Iraq War, energy policy etc. His idea of compermise is to listen and then do it HIS WAY or the Highway. That has been his approach with EVERYTHING and is why the political atmosphere in this country has never been worse. We are more bitterly divided then in any time during my life.

Toblerone,

you did not answer my question. Why do you think that Goering's philosophy of leadership is correct?

You might think that you have answered the question by pointing to examples. But you fail to explain why these examples prove Goering right. It is completely possible that it wasn't easy for Bush to "drag people along" or that he didn't actually drag anybody along at all.

You seem to observe reality and then use whatever theory is the simplest to explain what you see. Fascism is simple, but that doesn't make it correct or the only possible explanation. It is entirely possible that the American public simply wanted to remove a fascist dictator from power, which would explain why Bill Clinton also pursued such a policy. In that case George Bush would not be the leader dragging anybody along, but merely the first president to have the opportunity to do what Bill Clinton already perceived people wanted.

I am not saying that my explanation is necessarily more correct than yours. I'm just saying that it is ALSO possible. And since I tend to reject fascism as a useful theory of government, I tend not to assume that the fascist explanation for reality is the correct one.

It rather frightens me that you apparently do assume such.

So I ask again, why do you think that Goering was right?

"Hitler was elected in 1932 by the people of Germany."

Define "elected". The elections in 1932 were for the parliament, in which Hitler's party did not gain a majority.

You really don't know history well, do you?

Or the present. You seem to have some weird ideas about the American government system since you apparently believe that George Bush's decisions are not subject to votes in congress.

Perhaps you should consider reading about how Hitler became "Fuhrer" of Germany instead of claiming that he was elected (hint: he was not, unless your definition of "elected" includes the imprisonment of opposition MPs). And perhaps you should read a book about the American government system. I think you will find that the president does not, in fact, have the powers you seem to believe he has.

I can however understand why you hold your beliefs about Bush. I must admit that if I didn't know that Hitler wasn't elected and thought that the president has all these powers like a dictator (and used them), I would also be afraid.

I guess this is just a case where education makes you less frightened.

Bush wants everything 100% his way-- Judges, staff menbers, tax cuts, Social Security, Immigration, Iraq War, energy policy etc. His idea of compermise is to listen and then do it HIS WAY or the Highway. That has been his approach with EVERYTHING and is why the political atmosphere in this country has never been worse. We are more bitterly divided then in any time during my life.

The TOS prevent me from saying what should be said to you here. In lieu of that, just take your one-trick pony & disappear, Gene.

Daiwa

Bush wants everything 100% his way-- Judges, staff menbers, tax cuts, Social Security, Immigration, Iraq War, energy policy etc. His idea of compermise is to listen and then do it HIS WAY or the Highway. That has been his approach with EVERYTHING and is why the political atmosphere in this country has never been worse. We are more bitterly divided then in any time during my life.

This has to be on the most ridiculous posts I have seen. What President goes into office saying I want things done 50% my way. Do you think democrats don't want things completely their way? As usual you blame the political atmosphere on Bush, while totally ignoring the rhetoric and hatred coming from the democratic party.

Judges: The Constitution explicitly grants the President the authority and the responsibility to appoint judges. Please explain why the President should use his Constitutional authority to promote the agenda of an opposition faction whose ideals he does not believe are good for the country?

Staff Members: Are you kidding me with this stuff? Do you typically gather around you co-workers, friends, and teammates whose motives you don't trust, whose ideals you don't share, and whose policies you reject? If the President needs to be exposed to an opposing viewpoint, he has two other whole Branches of Government, whose only job is to check and balance his power. It's not like he needs to pack his staff meetings with ideological enemies.

Tax Cuts: Oh, come on! He wants to promote his policies, and not the opposition policies? Could it be that over half the country voted for this guy because he'd promote his agenda, and not the other guy's agenda? Would you seriously be complaining that Kerry wanted to do everything his way, if he got into office and then tried to raise taxes. I can see it now: "Kerry should listen to the Republicans more, and do things there way--he should cut taxes!"

Social Security: OMGWTFBBQ! A conservative President pursues a conservative agenda! What the hell! If Democrats were in power, they'd never dream of pursuing a liberal agenda, oh no! They'd be the first to roll over and do things the Republican way!

Immigration: Look, he's the President. His whole job is to consider the various arguments pro and con, and then make a decision and execute it. That's why he's called the Executive. The whole point of the President is to have one guy doing things his way. Are you seriously complaining that the President is doing his job?

Iraq War: Oh, no, can't have the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces making the final decisions on military matters! That would be doing things his way, instead of doing them the way of somebody else who isn't even president so it's not like they're who the people chose to make the final decisions or anything.

Energy Policy: See above.

His idea of compermise is to listen and then do it HIS WAY or the Highway. And? Tell me, what's Howard Dean's idea of "compermise"? What is Barbara Boxer's idea of "compermise"? What is Nancy Pelosi's idea of "compermise"? Ooh! Ooh! I've got a good one! What is Kim Jong Il's idea of "compermise"?

That has been his approach with EVERYTHING and is why the political atmosphere in this country has never been worse. Actually, I'd say it's never been better. It's well past time for Americans to step up, face the music, and seriously reconsider our place in the world and the future we should strive for. By taking a stand on a big issue and sticking to it, Bush has brought life and motivation back into politics. Voter turnout in a Presidential election was up for the first time since Watergate. That is awsome!

We are more bitterly divided then in any time during my life. No, we're actually having a real debate about the big issues, for the first time in your life. Do you really want to go back to the old days, when we blindly accepted whatever baby food the mass media spooned into our passive gapig pie-holes? When nobody knew about political corruption and propaganda, and those that did know were too tired of knowing to care? When each successive generation of school children graduated even more apathetic, uninformed, and uneducated about world affairs and the important issues that face us today?

Do you know how many people have taken the time to learn some geography and history and political science, because of the kind of President Bush is?

COL Gene, have a bit of dialogue:

---

Clown
Are these, I pray you, wind-instruments?

First Musician
Ay, marry, are they, sir.

Clown
O, thereby hangs a tail.

First Musician
Whereby hangs a tale, sir?

Clown
Marry. sir, by many a wind-instrument that I know.

Toblerone, you did not answer my question. Why do you think that Goering's philosophy of leadership is correct?

Not to be pedantic, but I never said anything about philosphy of leadership, I'm just talking about rhetorical techniques

You might think that you have answered the question by pointing to examples. But you fail to explain why these examples prove Goering right. It is completely possible that it wasn't easy for Bush to "drag people along" or that he didn't actually drag anybody along at all.

Well I suppose theoretically everyone might have gone along with him based on their own reasons for thinking the war was just. I'm just saying that I believe it was the Bush Admins's intention to use fear of Iraq, terrorism etc. to get peopel to go along with it no matter how truthful the actual specific reasons were. So I will concede the the point that my statements don't prove anything one way or the other. I think however from various statements I've heard from supporters that some people at least did go along with it mainly for reasons that were later found to be baseless. I am not saying all people fell for this, I am saying that Bushco tried this technique that Goering specks of and it worked at least on some people if not a lot of people.

You seem to observe reality and then use whatever theory is the simplest to explain what you see.

Yes, and I believe that is a valid approach, it is in fact the approach scientists use, and I supect you use it too, though your opinions happen to be different to mine. Nobody really knows enough about objective reality for there theories to be any more than that, theories (I certainly hope you don't claim to be omniscient, otherwise this is completely futile). That is the basis to scientific method. You either observe, or preferably experiment and you formulate a theory that best suits your observations. Upon observing new contradictory evidence you change your theory. The problem is that our perceptions and interpretations are subjective, not even science can escape that fact entirely, they just try to reduce its effect.

My observation is that a lot of people were swayed by arguements that later turned out to false. I recently heard Alice Cooper, who is a suprisingly intelligent person, saying he thinks there is a connection between Iraq and Al Queda. I also observed a lot of vile being thrown towards people that didn't conform to the government view (like the dixie chicks). Statements from Bush along the lines of "your either for us or against us" which in my theory seem to be aimed at casting non-conformist as unpatriotic.

I am not saying that my explanation is necessarily more correct than yours. I'm just saying that it is ALSO possible.

Well in that case we can pretty much stop arguing, I'm not as arrogant as I think you perceive me. Everyone likes to be right though and I am just stating my point of view and won't concede without good evidence that I am wrong.

And since I tend to reject fascism as a useful theory of government, I tend not to assume that the fascist explanation for reality is the correct one.

I'm not saying that the Bush adminstration is fascist but that they have used similar rhetorical techniques to people who just happed to be fascists. The idea behind the article, which was not made obvious because I deliberately chose an inflammatory title, was just to say that no matter what your polical philosophy many of the same rhetorical technique are used.

I do not blame people for flaming me, it was MY FAULT for deliberately using an inflammatory headline and being too lazy and short of time (I was meant to be doing an essay) to write my true opinion along with it.

Take care now,

Toblerone J. Aardvark...the guy that normally writes surreal facetious crap but somehow fell into the world of politics

Hardly. There's crap like this all over the Internet, and it isn't accidental.

You know the reference will stick with people who'll swallow it and never question it's validity. People aren't going to think "rhetorically".

You are using the EXACT same tactics Goering describes. Look out, the Bush will get you, with a nice big "Nazi" nearby for effect...

Colon Gene, you are a walking contradiction. You shoot barbs at Prs. Bush about how tough a time he is having selling his Social Security and other programs to Congress and The American People, now you say he Demands people agree with him, just like Hitler.

Guess what, the fact Prs. Bush has to sell his programs at all proves you WRONG once again.

How can you stay so arrogant and so constantly wrong so much of the time?

My point is that Bush demands that everyone accept his solutions to everything That includes the American People, Congress and the courts. That is a Dictatorship! You tell us that to disagree with Bush is disloyal. BS - it is our RIGHT. Ther bottom line is that the majority of Americans DO NOT support most of the Bush policies. When you have polls that show 30-40% support, it is clear Bush is not on accord with what the people want. No, I have not polled 100% of Americans but the small % that support for him show clearly- Bush is out of touch with the vast majority of the American People. Polls do have a error rate but nothing like the amount that DO NOT SUPPORT HIS POLICIES!