MapleBear

"If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc)." Although I think this is basically a wonderful idea, it's, unfortunately, too simplistic. Let's start with the word "official;" what does it mean? A government site? Media site? Mainstream media, only? Replacing "official" with "credible" would be an improvement, but it still covers a lot of territory. Let's face it, most of the media are corrupt, and they have a strong presence on the internet. Furthermore, I think it's a mistake to limit support to links to online references. What about logic? Common sense? Here's my suggested makeover: If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with a link(s) to an official online resource(s) - preferably associated with a credible source - and/or logic, common sense or common knowledge. However, we realize that even this seemingly simple rule is problematic. Who defines "credible," and can we really know if an online source is truly credible? How many media and websites are without hidden agendas? And who determines whether something presented as logic is really logical? What if another members recognizes your logic yet claims it's illogical as a propaganda technique? What if members scoff at the references you link to? In this spirit, we offer the above as a guideline rather than a rule. Just keep in mind that arguments that are supported by verifiable facts, links to credible resources, logic, common sense and common knowledge are generally better than posts that read like personal opinion. When criticizing an individual for not posting links, you can boost your argument by posting your own links. For example, several people criticized a recent post titled "Is George W. Bush Evil?" frequently citing a lack of supporting links. They could do much better by offering links proving Bush is NOT evil. Obviously, there are probably no references that prove, by themselves, whether George W. Bush is "evil." This is a thread where logic, common sense and common knowledge - a general knowledge of Bush's deeds and reputation - carry a lot of weight.

I love conspiracy theories, and this is among the most intriguing. However, I sometimes wonder if all the facts you've presented are true. I'm not suggesting you made them up, but I wonder about the original sources. The problem is WHY. Why would the Republicans target the Pentagon with a missile when they already had a missile in the form of an airliner. And if that airliner didn't strike the Pentagon, then what happened it? In summary, the Republicans would have to hit the Pentagon with a missile AND lose an airliner. It's just hard to swallow. Nevertheless, I'm still willing to consider the possibility. One possibility is that they wanted to control the damage done to the Pentagon, and an airliner would have been impossible to manage. So they used a missile that created just the amount and quality of destruction they wanted, then crashed the missing airliner at sea. It still sounds awfully farfetched, but Bush's performance on 9/11 is unbelievable, too. Also, remember that airliner that crashed in New York City a few days after 9/11? I thought that was kind of odd, though the media painted it as nothing more than a coincidence. It's hard to understand how it might have been connected to 9/11, but it certainly made me curious.

Why should we trust Iran when no one can trust us??? If Iran didn't originally have a good excuse for acquiring nuclear weapons, George W. Bush gave the best possible excuse - self defense. Keep in mind, also, that the United States has a long history of effectively promoting the very hard-line Iranian regimes it claims to detest, from the Shah to the present.

Having struck a blow against the United Kingdom's government, it appears that Bill Gates may have British Columbia taxpayers in his sights. Actually, Microsoft blames a corporation named EDS for its UK problems, and only EDS is mention in connection with British Columbia. But EDS presumably installed the famously bad Microsoft Internet Explorer browsers for the UK government, and one must wonder whose software it's going to use in British Columbia. Having been cheated by Bill Gates myself in several different arenas, I wonder what he has in store for Canadians. http://www.axcessnews.com/technology_112804.shtml

I'm not trying to get you to jump through hoops. I doubt the others did either. I was trying to get this to a point of rational debate - using real evidence. I was asking you to provide EVIDENCE so there would be something concrete to discourse over. Thanks for the link to the google search page! Why don't we all support our arguments that way from now on? Here is a link to a search result for 'conspiracy kooks' Conspiracy Kooks What does that prove? Nothing! OK you want me to stop 'bothering' you? Done deal. I can't see any point in continuing. In fact, Google is an excellenet source for this type of question. As you and others have noted, evil can't exactly be scientifically noted. But Google clearly demonstrates that nearly 18,000 websites make a connection between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler. (Actually, that's not really true, but many of them do make the connection.) The whole point is that I'm not the only person who believes in evil, and I'm not the only who compares George Bush to Hitler. But if you're bowing out (again), maybe we can finally get this thread on track.

Most have probably been killed by Coalition forces, though many thousands have also been killed by the "resistance." However, keep in mind that the resistance is a diverse group that includes grassroots patriots and terrorists. It's a safe bet that many Iraqis consider both George W. Bush and terrorists who kill Iraqi civilians evil. Your statement is preposterous. It defies logic. One can't cite references because there are none. It lies outside the normal person's common knowledge. In other words, it's just the latest in a series of spurious arguments that don't address the topic of this thread. Sorry to disappoint you.

It sounds like you're confusing science with biased science and the interpretation of science. A scientist can come up with a perfectly good theory, and someone else can distort that theory and use it to advance a sinister agenda. Republicans are very good at this. People like former Washington State Governor Dixie Lee Ray and Rush Libaugh are noted for taking facts and ideas out of context, promoting a sort of "junk science" while dismissing scientists' ideas as "junk science." I don't know if Darwin was a racist or not, nor does it matter, as long as his theory's sound. But I highly doubt that Darwin traveled to the Galapagos Islands with the intention of brainstorming a scam that could be used to keep Australian Aborigines down.

And I suggest you reconsider yours. Jumping back and forth between spurious issues, bowing out of the debate then rejoining it, and asking for links to official sources when you don't offer any yourself is not a debate. Go back to the beginning of this thread. The title of the thread itself is "How evil is George Bush?" I believe you're one of the individuals who said you either don't believe evil exists or you don't understand it. If that's the case, then why are you even here? If you don't believe in evil, then my question is moot - yet you remain obsessed with this thread. In fact, you really can't make any progress in this particular debate if you don't understand what evil is. I've done my best to explain the concept of "evil" and have invited people to provide their own term. Let me try another approach: What do the people in Group 1 have in common? How about Group 2? GROUP 1 Adolph Hitler Pol Pot Saddam Hussein GROUP 2 Mother Theresa Princess Di Mister Rogers THAT'S what I mean by evil. Even if you don't believe in evil, you can surely recognize the difference between Adolph Hitler and Mr. Rogers. (Hint: Hitler murdered millions of people; Mr. Rogers killed no one.) Anyone who doesn't like the word "evil" is invited to supply their own term. Frankly, I think a lot of people, rather than trying to engage me in honest debate, are simply trying to muddy the water and make me jump through a lot of hoops. No, I'm not inclined to waste my time tracking down links referring to issues that have been debated to death here and elsewhere. If someone tells me the sky is blue (or gray), I don't ask them for a reference. I edited my original post. It now includes a link to a site that supports my idea that George W. Bush is evil. It also more thoroughly explains the concept of "evil." I would hope that, from now on, anyone who enters this debate understands what I mean by "evil." If they don't think evil exists, they should at least recognize the difference between Adolph Hitler and Mr. Rogers and understand that THAT is what I mean by evil. If they can't understand something as simple as that, then they really have nothing to contribute to this debate. The thread about the Turkish official is a separate idea, even if it validates the question I raised in this one. It could also validate a thread I may later start focusing on Turkey. So where does it belong - in the George W. Bush thread or the Turkey thread? I believe someone has commented on a Canadian official who recently came under fire for attacking George W. Bush. Should that thread be consolidated with this one, too?

It might help people understand evil if we tried to quantify it, no matter how crudely. A scale of 1-10 is actually probably too complex, at least at this stage of the game. Let's try a smaller scale: 1 - Nice guy; someone you might want for a partner on a wilderness expedition. 2 - Indifferent to minor pain - If you're emotionally distraught because you just lost the love of your life, don't seek solace from this jerk, because he doesn't give a damn. 3 - Inflicts minor pain - This individual enjoys persecuting people. Many of the elementary school principals recruited by corporations fit this description. 4 - Murders for profit or convenience - This person is willing to kill people for selfish purposes. Many corporate executives fit this profile. 5 - Murders for Pleasure - Some people actually enjoy murdering others. We might further subdivide them into people who enjoy murder as a sort of power trip and those who actually enjoy hearing their victims scream. I give George W. Bush a 4 at a minimum, Adolph Hitler a 5. However, I strongly suspect Bush rates a 5, as he does show evidence of sadistic behavior. If you don't believe in evil, you still can't discount this scale (aside from accuracy, thoroughness, etc.). After all, there ARE people who enjoy inflicting pain on others, and there ARE people who kill just for fun. That's exactly what this scale measures. I call it evil. If you care to substitute another term, please do.

You're really desperate to shoot down this thread, aren't you? How many spurious arguments have you raised? How many times have you said you're finished debating it, only to return to the debate? You don't like my refusal to meet what's-his-name's demand for "proof." You don't like my similar but different thread about a Turkish official comparing Bush to Hitler. Tawasakm... I generally agree, but with some caveats. For starters, some of the issues that are now being debated on this thread are BIG, well known issues. Entire threads have undoubtedly been devoted to the question of WHY George Bush illegally invaded Iraq. I've certainly seen hundreds of such threads on other forums. It's been hotly debated in the media. Yet you want to start another debate about the rationale for the war on this thread? How could that possibly "clear away the clutter"? I assume people who visit this forum have passed Politics 101. They know the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq, and they've heard both sides of the argument. They either support the illegal invasion of Iraq (generally claiming it had moral or practical value), or they do not support the illegal invasion of Iraq. It's that simple. Speaking of "spurious topics," see many of the responses to my original post in this thread. So what constitutes an "official source"? Do you think we're going to find an admission of guilt on the White House's website? Are the media "official" sources? If so, which media? (Keep in mind, most of the major media are corrupt, as are many of the alternative media.) Can I link to an article on one of my websites? I could link to literally thousands of articles about the justification for the illegal invasion of Iraq. I could link to thousands that condemn it, and you could link to thousands that praise it. What's the point? I'd suggest that people first endeavor to back up their efforts with logic. Then, I'd suggest they attempt to link to CREDIBLE sources (or sources that may be credible) for more specific claims or less known topics. For example, if you claim Bush made a certain statement on a certain date, you might link to a source. (I could support my claim about Bush celebrating 9/11 with a series of trifecta jokes, but material relating to those jokes have disappeared from the ultimate official source - the White House's website.) But if we're talking about a broad topic - or a series of broad topics - like the justification for the illegal invasion of Iraq, then it becomes an exercise in futility. As I have. This thread asks the question "Is Bush evil?" The other thread discusses a Turkish official who compared Bush to Adolph Hitler. There's a difference, even if they're closely related, and I referenced one thread in the other. This thread is a philosophical discussion, while the other is a current event. Replace "valid" with "pertinent." A number of armchair philosophers can't seem to understand the whole point to this thread. They don't think evil exists, or it's too complex to understand or measure. The Turkish thread emphasizes the point that it DOES matter. This particular Turkish official obviously believes in evil, and the White House is obviously bothered by his statement. Which of your statements have you backed up with official evidence? Frankly, I would replace "official" with "credible." Even that term covers a lot of territory, but I think it's a little better than official. If the media are considered official sources, then some people might start quoting Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, opening the door for the Elvis conspiracy theories you so dread. Looking at it philosophically, it doesn't really matter if evil really exists so long as people BELIEVE it exists. The belief in evil leads people to characterize George W. Bush as evil (how else do you describe a traitor and war criminal?), and the White House responds to such attacks vigorously. Some public officials have been publicly censured or forced to resign for crossing George Bush, Inc. But I still maintain that evil does exist, even if it's difficult to characterize and quantify. Tentatiavely, I would describe it as an individual's (or group's) capacity or desire to inflict suffering on others. To this, we must factor in the ABILITY to inflict suffering on others. Adolph Hitler obviously had a tremendous capacity AND ability to inflict suffering on others. George W. Bush obviously has the capacity to kill many tens of thousands of people (and implement torture as U.S. military policy). But he has a lesser capacity - even though he has far greater military power. The problem is that he hasn't achieved total power - dictatorial, plutocratic, or whatever - and the United States is far bigger and more complex than Nazi Germany. Therefore, we cannot know the full extent of George Bush's capacity for evil simply because he hasn't had an opportunity to "go nuts." (Well, that's an opinion; many people would say he regularly goes nuts, but within some constraints.) But at the same time, I think the evidence suggests that Bush is capable of far greater destruction - greater evil - than we've witnessed so far. If U.S. troops had murdered 250,000 Iraqi civilians as opposed to 100,000, would Bush call off his dogs? Having already invaded three nations and lobbed numerous threats at others, who could believe that he wouldn't invade others if he thought he could survive the ensuing political turmoil? So let's say we could somehow rate evil on a scale of 1-10, with Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot rated at 10 and Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger an 8. George W. Bush would easily rate an 8, alongside Nixon and Kissinger, but I think his well demonstrated sadism strongly suggests a higher rating. I don't know that Nixon and Kissinger enjoyed murdering people. Rather, it's possible they simply murdered for political or corporate gain. Of course, that's still a horrible thing, but murder for the sake of murder is even worse. In fact, George W. Bush shows evidence of enjoying the suffering of others. Consider his well publicized derision of Karla Fay Tucker as she was sent to death row. (Type "Karla Fay Tucker" and "George W. Bush" into Google. Here's a good sample: http://www.jregrassroots.org/jre/viewtopic...ic.php?p=41302) Consider the torture that is now so widespread in the U.S. military. Bottom line: George W. Bush is not a nice guy. Is he truly as evil as Adolph Hitler? We don't know - but do we really want to find out?

Too bad. I thought Michael Jackson would make a good running mate for George W. Bush in 2008, especially since Dick Cheney may not be alive.

Stoker wrote... Can you prove it was fought for democracy or to protect America? 1) Iraq, 2) Afghanistan You question leads me to suspect you think the war was fought for something else. What do you think it was fought for? Can you prove it? No, but there's powerful evidence suggesting as much. Can you prove his hands are clean? Do the math. See Enron. What good is to boast of the world's largest economy if workers are getting screwed? Sorry, I'm not a big fan of voodoo economics and "jobless recoveries." More things you don't understand. How has he helped the voters? Remember, Adolph Hitler won an election, too - and we all know what he did for Germany's voters.

See "Haliburton." Why, nothing! What's evil abour murder? Good example; thanks. Haliburton, no bid contracts, corporate mercenaries...what more proof do you want - a signed confession from Dick Cheney??? 9/11, Enron and the California "Energy Crisis," corporate tax cuts, outsourcing, and on and on. To put it in perspective, who has George W. Bush helped, other than George W. Bush and his corporate pals?

E.g. invading sovereign nations for corporate gain, attacking labor unions, exploiting public education, Haliburton and other scandals that have ruined the lives of millions. But that doesn't make Bush and Cheney evil - it just means they're very bland. ??? By recruiting more terrorists? "Some," as in over 100,000 in Iraq. And if it doesn't succeed, we can just chalk it up as a well-meaning adventure by some very bland men. They can send a message to surviving Iraqis, "Nevermind!"

Caesae... Thanks. Yes, there are reportedly many Americans who believe as I do. I just wish they were more outspoken, and I wish they gave a damn about local elections! Most U.S. citizens like to talk about the problems without lifting a finger to solve them. They sit on their hands for four years, vote for their favorite presidential candidate, then wait four more years to get involved again. So you see conspiracy theories on this thread, do you? Interesting...

New thread? Perhaps, but that thread has been turned into "Can anyone but Hitler be evil?" thread. I thought it was time for a new perspective. Yes, the Turks could be called hypocrites when they've flirted with genocide themselves. On the other hand, a nation's crimes doesn't deprive individuals of the right to speak out. Thus, I could be called a hypocrite for criticizing repressive Russian policies when I'm a U.S. citizen - resident of a repressive nation. But I recognize the problems in both countries.

This is why it matters. Philosophers may doubt the reality of evil, but the vast majority of humankind know what it is. Nor does the Bush administration seem to think being compared to Hitler is a triviality. The Bush regime usually protests such insults vigorously, often throwing in a few threats. I think this particular individual went overboard in claiming that Bush is WORSE than Hitler. But I appreciate his comments nonetheless. http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.htm...143&sid=5366150

It doesn't take a lifetime to acquire power. George W. Bush is already probably the most powerful President in U.S. history. His supporters are also very powerful. The Republicans control Congress and the Supreme Court and appear to be purging the CIA. And we all know how powerful corporations are. Bush could muddle through his second term without starting a second war - or he could start several. If he paints himself into a corner - not an unlikely scenario considering his astounding blunders - who knows what he might do? My question does NOT require Bush to gain more power. I merely said that more power would likely give us more insights into Bush's true nature. There are some things even a very powerful U.S. president just cannot do - so long as our system of checks and balances is functioning. So your entire argument about term limits is irrelevant. See above. Isn't it common knowledge? Media corruption isn't exactly a secret. And consider all the stunts Bush's team are capable of. How many votes did Osama bin Laden gain for vote? How about Dan Rather? The best evidence is their track record. But this is all beside the point, anyway; you aren't addressing the question I raised in my original post. All you offer is philosophical meandering and spurious arguments that don't address the original question. You're the one engaged in circular reasoning. I've never wavered from my basic premise. Let me spell it out once again: 1. Many people have compared George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler. 2. Bush's supporters are outraged by such comparisons, claiming Hitler was much worse than Bush could ever be. (Note that many right-wingers believe in evil. No one has made a more public distinction between good and "the evil ones" than George W. Fuhrer himself.) 3. We can use a couple major values to describe Hitler - evil and power. He obviously had tremendous military power AND he possessed the will to use it for evil ends. 4. George W. Bush has far greater military power, but he's held in check somewhat by stronger democratic traditions, a far bigger and more complex nation, and other things. Therefore, we don't know the full extent of what Bush is capable of. However, the war crimes he's already committed - combined with his treason against his own country - prove George Bush is evil, and it's reasonable to assume that he would be even more destructive (dangerous, evil, whatever) if he, his administration, or some corporate cabal ever achieved the same power Hitler wielded. To put it in perspective, imagine if you had the ability to grant George W. Bush dictatorial powers. Would you do it? Or suppose you were FORCED to install one of two individuals as president and give them dictatorial powers. All you know about them is that Mr. Brown is a philanthropist who has crusaded for the environment and against land mines, while Mr. Green led an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that killed over 100,000 civilians. Who are you going to appoint dictator? It's common sense. And don't get hung up on the word "dictatorial" powers. All they need is power, whether its absolute, family empire, shared by a corporate cabal, etc. * * * * * * * * * * In fact, I think I've won this debate. Again, my question was inspired by the right-wingers who insist Bush couldn't possibly be similar to Adolph Hitler. The arguments on this thread have pointed to three scenarios: 1. If you accept my argument, George W. Bush could indeed be just as bad as Hitler. 2. If one accepts your assorted arguments, then evil doesn't exist, can't be measured, or whatever. Thus, if Hitler can't be considered evil, then he could have been just as "nice" as George W. Bush; i.e. they could indeed be similar, and it's perfectly appropriate for people to compare Bush and Hitler. 3. If you don't understand what "evil" is or don't believe it exists, then you presumably feel the same way about good. In that event, the world is pretty much one shade of communist gray, where Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot could break bread with Princess Di and Kurt Vonnegut. Likewise, George W. Bush could grow a Hitleresque mustache and wear a swastika on his suit, and no one should be bothered, because these symbols would no longer represent evil - which doesn't exist. Catch-22.

That WHAT can't be done - that Bush can't serve more than two terms? What are you going to get hung up on next? You keep going off on spurious tangents that don't address my original post. Why is that? U.S. elections involve far more than vote tampering. I know; I've run for office myself. It will if the Republicans amend the Constitution. No, it's speculation. How do you know what the future holds in store? Cheap propaganda technique - claiming victory where there is none.

Oh, really? So you think Congress and the American sheeple had a good record of stopping Bush during his first term, and things won't get any worse during his second? And amending the Constitution to allow Schwarzeneger to run for office has everything to do with it. It demonstrates the Republicans' ability to modify the law to suit their agenda. You seem to forget that Bush just stole office again. He has AT LEAST four more years to grab power. Baloney. All it means is that we may never know the full extent of Bush's evil, greed, corruption and stupidity.

Your question is moot. If the Republicans want to rewrite the Constitution, they'll just do it; they're already talking about modifying it to allow foreign-born citizens to serve as President. (I THINK one administration official was even talking about changing the law to let Bush serve longer, but I never verified that.) But there's a difference between moving towards a dictatorship (or a plutocracy, which we already have) and actually becoming a dictator. Moreover, George W. Bush doesn't have to be a dictator to be evil or destructive. The boob has already done enough damage to cause World War III. Just to keep this discussion on track, remember that my original post didn't ask whether George W. Bush would ever be a true dictator. I simply asked if he might reveal himself to be as evil as Hitler if given the power. Whether that power is in the form of a dictatorship or a plutocracy is irrelevant. Keep in mind, also, that the term "dictatorial" doesn't necessarily mean a true dictatorship. It can simply be a comparison. Thus, many German citizens compare George Bush to Adolph Hitler, while many Americans speak of his near "dictatorial" powers.

Evidence? You want evidence? Where do you want me to begin? I don't have time to write a chapter about Geov Parrish, the Stop the War Coalition and on and on, but give you something even better - a kind of evidence that you can use to help evaluate a wide range of individuals and organizations. It's really simple: Check out their websites. Let's start with a little logic. The Internet is perhaps the most powerful form of communication ever invented. Moreover, it isn't terribly difficult to make a website these days, and it doesn't cost much to host them. Therefore, any individual who claims to be an activist ought to have a website, right? Moreover, they ought to have a credible website. Organizations have even less excuse for not having a decent website. Now do some research on Geov Parrish, and you'll quickly discover that he's a viral left-wing activist. He's participated in protests, hung out with anarchists and interviewed important progressives. So where the Hell's his website??? Sure, he has hundreds of articles online, but why doesn't he pull his information together and make a reference section? Why doesn't he help political newbies by hammering out 10 basic rules of activism, or whatever? If you knew anything about public education - especially about Seattle's public schools - I could blow you away with what this kook has written on THAT topic. In fact, I have a Geov Parrish page online. I can't even remember the URL offhand; I'm in the process of moving and revising all my websites. But if you type "Geov Parrish" and "Blomstrom" into Google, you'll probably find it. And see if you can find a Seattle "Stop Bush Coalition," or something like that. Talk about a LAME website! Sheez, can Seattle liberals muster enough energy to cook spaghetti???

1. George Bush is too stupid to have orchestrated the terrorist attacks all by himself, but I think he was a part of the plot. The man in the infamous 9/11 video certainly wasn't surprised. 2. a. Is George Bush working towards dictatorial powers? - Whether or not he really wants to be a dictator or his handlers want him to be a dictator isn't clear, but his administration is obviously working towards greater power. b. They've already begun their campaign of conquest, which obviously focuses on oil in the Middle East and Central Asia. Thus, our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, our threats against Iran and Syria, and our interest in Uzbekistan, the Ukraine, etc. c. Yes, Bush could well be as evil as Hitler. No one has proved otherwise. Even if he isn't as evil, he could be more destructive, thanks to his extraordinary military arsenal. 3. "George Bush will cause World War III to happen in our lifetime as a result of his conduct while President of the United States." I said he's laid the groundwork for World War III - that doesn't mean it will happen. Other nations could avert war by continuing to appease the bastard. They may join forces and force Bush to back down. Or maybe the American sheeple will finally rise up and oust Bush. Who knows? It's hard to imagine that someone as stupid as Bush even would want World War III; I think the Republicans would prefer a series of smaller, more manageable wars that will keep the money rolling into Haliburton's coffers. But they may be willing to risk a world war, and some people speculate that the Republicans think a global crisis (or crises) is invevitable, and they prefer to make a desperate bid for the jackpot. Time will tell.

Stupid move. Once again, you're way off the mark - apparently intentionally. There's obviously no precise timetable for dictators to do their dirty work. They simply have to wait until they've acquired enough power. Hitler obviously didn't have the power he need to conquer Europe when he was 18, and even after he took office, it was more than four years before he was ready to roll. I've pointed out the obvious time after time - George W. Bush has only been in office four years, and he has a much bigger, more diverse and more complex country to tame. Your thesis is that Bush hasn't attacked half a dozen countries yet (i.e. he's not evil), therefore he never will. That's patently absurd; he invaded THREE nations during a single term and has laid the groundwork for World War III. I was using your logic; see above. I see - you just got out of bed and are in goofy mood. I think that's the end of this exchange for me.