Patriot act and the Enabling act

has anyone noticed that the USA Patriot act is similar to the German Enabling Act of 1933. like the powers it gives to the leader of the country. Don't get me wrong, i am not comparing Bush to Hitler. i just saying there are some similarities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

 

It was made to give more power,and take out more libertys and privacy from comon folks.In case u did not know,all internet trafic r monitor by CIA,and otther inteligent services (i work curently in internet provider,so one of condition to import internet from foreign country is to put monitoring equipments on ur externel link,and that was not necessasry only for satelit net coz CIA allrdy monitor that),and it was done long time b4 US proclamed that act,only thing is that they do that now legaly.

 

unlike Hitler Bush isnt blaming one single ethnic group (i don't know why because its obviously Muslims Terrorist) Also Hitler built it on false means, the terrorists actually attacked the United States of America.

 

...and that would be the point entirely. Whilst 9/11 was perpetrated by Islamic terrorists firstly Moslems are not an ethnic group and secondly it is not an issue of the US vs Islam.

In any case, the Reichstag fire was not blamed on a single ethnic group, but on the work of a Communist (A metally retarded Dutchman IIRC, although it has been years since I studied A-level Nazism so stand ready to be corrected), so that comparison doesn't really stand at all.

 

Personally I think you just wanted an excuse to post that ridiculous cartoon.
Those are obviously not Bush's words so why are they being attributed to him?

 

Thanks Simonr, had my history wrong

 

IT's an interesting cartoon,i give him that.
But i guess it would upset some americans on this forum.
Anyway,just a note,those words are obviously not Hitler's as well.

 

haha A level history....i had mine in 2005....had a B,C,E and B3. but i am blessed to have scraped thru to university.
Anyway Simon,just for your info,(though i dun think it's interesting), A level results are going to be released in Singapore in early March!Reminds me when i was a student.

 

from:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm

 

"offends Amricans"

I wonder why, your calling our leader Hitler, the most evil man to ever walk the planet, and then compare him to Bush, .......I wonder how people would feel if i just started saying that there leader is a stupid ignorant dumbass........

Im sorry if I take pride in my country.

I had a teacher tell me that Bush couldn't even read, I called that flag-burning-liberal-crap, she then scolded me out side the class for 10 minutes on me being disrespectful to her.........?????

 

No problemo. I don't have a problem with that. :smok: Go right ahead.

BTW i wouldn't call Hitler most evil man etc. For being pure evil you need to be smart (Hitler was not that smart). So i would say Josip Vissarionovich Dzugashvilli (cross between Machiavelli and Torquemada) was most evil man etc.

 

Dont' act so shocked... f I had a dollar for every president / political figure who I'd seen in a cartoon with Hitler, I'd be rich


If you think about it, the joke is on the cartoonist...

He can safely slander Bush all he likes, whereas in Hitler's Germany publishing a cartoon like this would earn him a special visit from a certain secret police...

 

The cartoon is a dumb comparison, as it rather heavily implies that Bush organised the 9/11 attacks in order to gain a firmer political hold on his country, much like the Nazis are thought to have done with the Reichstag fire. :roll:

The actual question though, is a good one. What stage is the Patriot Act at now. Wasn't it supposed to be lifted at some point?

 

a large part of the US publis believes that the gov't knew about the impending attacks and either sat on its hands during 9/11 or didn't do enough to stop it. they even arrested one terrorist on immigration charges

 

A large part of the US public believe that the moon landing was faked.

A large part of the US public believe that all British people have horrendously bad teeth.

A large part of the US public believe that France = bad, and that France has never won a military victory ever.


I have never yet seen anything like convincing evidence (or even a good reason why, as bourne out by later facts) for the US government discovering the 9/11 plot, and then allowing it to happen.

 

i found the cartoon when i was research the reichstag fire for a project

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/

i also found a site that had anti-war pics, i can give you the site if someone wants to see

 

Hitler used the Reichstag fire as an excuse to open a frontal attack on Communism in Germany and eventually grasp absolute power over the country. Bush has done no such thing; he hasn't outlawed Islam and he hasn't moved to ban the Democratic party.

I think the Patriot Act is still quite wrong, though; Bush is a Liberal, and therefore should never even consider restricting civil liberties for any purpose.

 

Roel:
Bush would be considered a "conservative" Republican, not a liberal.
Nancy Pelosi would be considered a liberal Democrat. (Speaker of the House.)
Didn't we have this discussion once before?

Tim

 

Yes, and you are wrong.

By "Liberal" I mean that Bush's ideas about policy align with those of the political current called Liberalism. This is what the word means. Anything related to the Democratic party should be referred to as "Progressive Liberal", indicating a move away from classical Liberalism and into the realm of rudimentary Social Democracy.

Any dictionary or political history textbook will tell you that the definition of Liberal is something along these lines:
"Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. Favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression." (from www.dictionary.com )

 

While your comments are technically correct in that Classical Liberalism is not much like what passes for political liberalism in the US today your interpretation in light of current US political discourse is wrong. Nobody in the US describes President Bush as politically liberal. Nobody. Not his supporters nor detractors/opponents would use that term in that way.
It happens that I do but that is because as a Libertarian/Randian Objectivist I consider myself to be a Classical or Jeffersonian Liberal. However the use of politically liberal in that context has fallen out of the vernacular of political discourse in the US. When I say that I'm a Classical or Jeffersonian Liberal I have to explain it to anyone who isn't well versed in History or Political Science.
In the US a liberal is a Leftist, usually a Demo(n)crat. Ted Kennedy is a Liberal, John Kerry is a Liberal. President Bush is considered (by conventional wisdom) to be a Conservative or Right Wing Conservative.