This is not intended as an obama/hitler comparison...its just sometimes other countries have no clue whats going on with other countries.
They knew enough to hate Bush and his bloody expensive wars course Obama and his gulags and concentration camps are no laughing matter
Only because they had the journalistic substance and relevance back then to give it to the most newsworthy person regardless of sentiment. <div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:119095" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-18-2006/newsweak">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/indecision'>Indecision Political Humor</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>
Why do you bother this forum if you're simply going to act like a clown? What's the point? Most of us probably have better things to do than to indulge this sophomoric dumb and dumber routine of yours. Good luck with that.
It was a slow day in news and thought that a different article would maybe make things lighter. Why don't you send the author the link and he can offer a retraction? Thank you. This is what I hear from you when I read this. ------------------- BTW, good use of rule 13 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Some of you really hate that your ideologies and idols are being shown for what they are.
Lol. You're outing the entire progressive movement with your hard hitting in depth copying and pasting or you're just a troll. Tough call. For someone who is constantly claiming deflection you don't respond about why you keep posting stupid ****.
Be a man and take responsibility for the sub-literate crap you post here, dufus. You're either begging for attention or expressing your political alliance (as you don't seem to have any cogent or fully thought out opinions) in the pettiest and most juvenile ways possible. Either way, when you draw focus on yourself you should have enough backbone or basic conversational awareness to expect criticism.
They started in Congress together and I don't think most WWII guys were that far apart politically on non-fiscal issues, especially since these two both came from sufficiently religious backgrounds; furthermore if neither of them had gotten their big break (although Kennedy had to beat a legacy to get in the Senate and the most powerful legislator from the third largest state to win in '60) they probably would have aligned on a lot of different votes. It's probably not entirely unfair to assume that Representative Kennedy in the mid '60s, with a white immigrant constituency, could have consistently opposed Civil Rights legislation: rather than single-handedly legitimizing it (as he did). However, Nixon grew up Steinbeck poor and despised inherited wealth all the way back from his Whittier days. LBJ was liberal in his bones and not as poor: I think a lot of the "Johnson" stuff in Central Texas is actually named after his family instead of him, but there were regional and sociocultural differences between (people raised in) pre-War North and South back then that could never be bridged. I think it can be reasonably said that LBJ tolerated and grew to respect Jack and hated Bobby personally; but after H. Wallace, Stevenson and Humphrey, loved them both professionally for what their youth and energy, intelligence, idealism and aristocratic standing brought to liberalism back then.
