<<So bush=hitler, you say? >>
NOPE. Wrong. As you probably realize yourself. Bush, as I have pointed out numerous times, is nowhere near the equal of Hitler in intellect, writing, oratorical skills, courage in battle, organizational skills or even artistic skill. Bush is a vastly inferior being to Hitler even as an evil-doer, which they both obviously are.
Furthermore, the "equal" sign is a deliberate misrepresentation of my statement, another way you have ingeniously devised of avoiding any unpalatable truth - - just misrepresent it to the point where it's virtually unrecognizable and then ridicule it as if your comments were in any way remotely applicable to what I had said. Bush did not advocate for racial laws distinguishing amongst people by racial origin, he did not establish concentration camps and torture chambers, at least not for his own citizens and has so far not provoked a world war.
No, what I said - - and please don't pretend this is too subtle a distinction for you to grasp, is that there are many SIMILARITIES between Bush and Hitler - - in his militarism, fascism, tolerance of torture, demonization of his "enemies," who are probably better described as scapegoats, monstrous lies, war-mongering and assumptions of national entitlement contrary to all settled notions of international law and a general contempt for the rule of law. Those are plenty of similarities, which you choose to ignore by the facile dismissal of the idea that "Bush = Hitler," and sirs of course, with his little echoes ("BINGO!" "SNICKER" and similar essays of more or less similar intellectual depth.
<<And that is because thousands of liberals agree with you?>>
No, it's because the similarities are inescapable to anyone who has the faintest idea of who Hitler was, how he gained power and what he did with the power he gained. The thousands of liberals is also a misrepresentation of what I said. Hundreds of millions of liberals around the world would probably agree with me, but what I actually said was that thousands of liberal COMMENTATORS agreed with me, which I felt obliged to point out since you were attempting to marginalize my views as meaningless ravings, as if I were a party of one.
<<Millions agreed with hitler. did that make his statements correct?>>
You should check this out with Ami first. According to Ami, none of them agreed with Hitler, they were all just terrorized by him. Even the cheering crowds, the weeping, hysterical women, the shouting men and boys were all trucked in by Nazi goons and ORDERED to appear enthusiastic in front of the newsreel cameras. They really hated the whole thing. They all had Jews hidden in their basements. Hitler really was a party of one also, but somehow managed to have everyone scared shitless.
OK, OK, I'll answer your question. The agreement of millions certifies to the power of the idea, not its correctness, obviously. The number of supporters is irrelevant to the truth of the idea, but that's why it's not a good idea to try to marginalize somebody's idea by depicting it as a form of insanity, as "losing its sting" as if it had no logical value but was only created for shock value, etc. If you review the history of this thread, or even the arguments we have in this group, it is always the crypto-fascist elements who raise the numbers game, only in a subtle way by trying to depict liberal ideas as "loony" or ridiculous, something that only a tiny minority of the population could possibly hold, whereas in reality most people would probably agree with the liberal position and reject almost any crypto-fascist ideas once the sugar-coating has worn off. Witness Al Gore/Nader vote totals in 2000, versus the fascist vote, or witness the public rejection (roughly two-thirds according to polls) of the Bush-McCain war.
