I'll take 4 more years of the same please! — Page 3

Holy god. So it's a radical liberal notion to reject Hitler in totality??????????

You two enjoy the rest of your thread and your "open-minded" appreciation of Der Fuhrer's more likable qualities. I feel slimed just by posting anywhere near you two.

---

No, it's not a radical liberal notion to reject Hitler. It's a radical liberal notion to say that Hitler did absolutely no good for his country. Because that, factually, is just not true. I'm not saying it makes him a good person or excuses what he did with the Holocaust, I'm just saying he did a few good things here and there, and to refuse to acknowledge that is a typical characteristic of a radical liberal -- everybody else is wrong, and saying so without even considering how the opponent might have some (even if just a little) validity in his or her argument.

Way to call the kettle black.
You don't think I have family members who have served in the armed forces and been in wars? A handful of Germans tried to kill my grandfather, some Japanese bombed my Great Uncle's ship and killed a good number of his friends. But you know what? He doesn't let his opinon of his attackers as a person cloud his global judgement.

I wasn't referring to you, actually. It was someone else. And I'll leave it at that.

And my entire family's served in the armed forces for 3 generations. Getting killed while you're a soldier in a war isn't the same as being carted into a train to die in a gas shower.

Updated On: 11/3/04 at 10:17 PM

Oh good, that means we can be friends. Hurray! This country is becoming united already, just as both candidates promised would (or at least strongly suggested should) happen. That makes me happy. Drinks all around!

Author's note: jlehrfeld doesn't drink.

Now we are all confused.
Now I can see the difference between dying in war and being murdered, but there is also a similarity.
I may not have ancestors (that I know about) who were in the Holocaust, but my uncle is black, and his ancestors sure as hell were slaves in this country. But you know what? He understands that slavery helped make this country great.

Updated On: 11/3/04 at 10:29 PM

can someone please explain to me just how in the HELL did slavery help make this country great? please enlighten me.

This just takes me directly back to the Reagan era, I'm just a bit startled that it took less than 24 hours after election day for you to join this site and start spewing this bilge. There are some of us who find it morally reprehensible to separate the "good things" accomplished from the deaths of people like slaves or those who perished in the Holocaust.

Morally reprehensible.

And now, apparently, with the election results (thank you, Diebold!) you just feel that the environment is right for you to discuss this **** on these boards. Could you please just start your inevitable Holocaust denial thread so the rest of us can simply avoid it. Thanking you in advance.

---

Updated On: 11/4/04 at 10:04 AM

Even in the 18th century, early economists (the field didn't exactly exist then) were saying that slavery wasn't even the best way to profits. The cotton gin helped make the South a big-time cotton center, making slavery more necessary, but if it hadn't been cotton it would have been something else. Capitalism is all about finding new things to commodify.

Yes, I've been reading the scary Heilbroner today.

I mean to minimize the severity of nothing

jlehrfeld: Your point is well taken and I prefer optimism to cynicism but a presidency is not made of up tiny points...it's a crazy quilt of every decision the President and his staff made to move the country in one direction or another.

Someone mentioned Hitler on this thread and using one little thing you like about Bush to make you less of a cynic about his presidency is rather like saying that you like Hitler because he was a fan of fine art. One quality...one tiny thing...does not erase trillions of dollars of debt, military finagling or any of the other things he did. Clinton's presidency taken as a whole was much more effective...and that's the way history looks at leaders...not one moment at a time...but a 'term' or several terms at a time.

To look at a world leader any other way is naive at best. Having said that, and not being a Bush fan, I will live with his next four years and hope he doesn't manage to do further irreparable damage to this country during his term. I will be a good American and continue to do what I can to support the REAL constitution (not Bush's). In the meantime, don't ask me to like him...this isn't a popularity contest...this is world politics

---