The next time you have a problem with anything I write because you don't understand something, which you obviously didn't in this case, feel free to ask me about it. Or else at least have the gall to email me. I had to do a google search for a_stupid_box to find this.So, I guess I will address these points specifically here, now.
Yeah, I guess I was wrong. I guess Bush is putting your friends and relatives in camps and doing horrific experiments on them based on something as trivial as their religion.Interestingly enough, I don't recall saying that, but the sarcastic tone is a nice touch. He than does address a specific portion of my post:
Seeing something as "like" killing your brother, and actually having your brother DIE IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP are a little different, no?Which is interesting, as I am being chastised for making a comparison...I guess I will confess my ignorance of blogging etiquette. I thought subjective comparisons are allowed on your own blog. In fact, I thought I had complete editorial independence (barring plagiarism, libel and the like). But than he states "Bush could easily become the next famous monster of the world. But seriously, he's not even CLOSE to the moster that Hitler was.... well, not yet." This seems to imply I have to wait until he takes absolute power and starts concentration camps before I can compare Bush to Hitler. However, again, ignorant of etiquette, I thought as a rational human being, I could look at someone's past actions, rhetoric, current policies, and decide that what I see looks an awful lot what Hitler used in his rise to power. And yet, it also seems like he agrees w/ me.
Don't get me wrong -- I think Bush is one of, if not THE, worst president ever and if the current administration stays in place Bush could easily become the next famous monster of the world. But seriously, he's not even CLOSE to the moster that Hitler was.... well, not yet.
If you don't understand the differences, perhaps you shouldn't be writing for an audience of millions.Again, I'm accused of being a mental midget, but I one with an audience of millions. I assume (I know I shouldn't) this makes me the equivalent of Rush Limp-bowel and Sean Inaity. Now I just need the advertising revenues. In the same comment, he continues:
Assuming Bush were to match a few of Hitler's numbers before the election, he'd have to be responsible for over 50 million deaths (factoring in resultant WWII casualties), he'd have to get over 3 million people employed, and he'd have to raise his SAT score by roughly 400 pts. In less than a year.Again, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to anticipate evil intent. I gather that one is supposed to wait until one is in the concentration camp, before criticism is allowed. Anticipation is to be frowned upon?
I stand by my statement that the ability to play devil's advocate is the mark of a wise and fair critic. Bush has done, in my opinion, VERY few positive things -- compared to the MANY negative which by far outweigh them -- but those positive things do exist. They do not warrant his re-election nor his escape from criminal trial.Now, I don't disagree with the proposition that "ability to play devil's advocate is the mark of a wise and fair critic(.)" is a fair statement. Rather let me add to that, "A wise and fair critic does not waste his time arguing the benefits of nuclear energy when the reactor is melting. He shuts it down, and tries to prevent a disaster."
The next time you have a problem with anything I write because you don't understand something, which you obviously didn't in this case, feel free to ask me about it. Or else at least have the gall to email me. I had to do a google search for a_stupid_box to find this.I wish to say, "a_stupid_box, I don't know you well enough to have a problem with anything you say. I don't know anything about your personality or intelligence for me to be all that concerned. As to notifying you when I cite you in my writings, forget about it. I don't email TomDispatch, Krugman, DeLong, Orcinus, Fafblog, etc, when I cite them. I make damn sure I attribute the remarks properly, but I know of no requirement, legally or socially, for me to notify them that I have quoted there material in one of my posts. Seems like too much work.
Rick - Bush is not Hitler. Simple as that. If he were you'd probably be in a camp right now based solely on your last name. People who compare Bush to Hitler are completely ignorant of the atrocities which happened in WWII.He makes some interesting assumptions here. It's obvious he addressed this w/o looking at my bio, but it was really more amusing than that. My grandfather on my father's side was taken by the Russians for being a Wehrmacht artillery officer. I have an Uncle who first came to the US as a POW after his tank was shot out from under him. He was in the 6th SS Panzer Division. And, I don't know how many other relatives I lost at the hands of the Russians and Americans, and I don't know if any of them were in fact camp guards. But, my last name would not be the reason I'd be in a camp. The only way I would have wound up in a concentration camp in Hitler's Germany, would have been as a dissident, which may be how I eventually wind up in one here.