Jump to content

How Evil is George W. Bush?


Recommended Posts

Many people insist that George Bush isn't as evil as Adolph Hitler, but how do they know? How do you measure evil?

In fact, we don't know what Bush is capable of. He's obviously an extremely evil individual, in relative terms. He's willing to sell his own country out to corporate greed and kill tens of thousands of foreign citizens in his mad quest for power.

Bush has even made torture a military policy.

However, Bush has only invaded three nations, whereas Hitler conquered most of Western Europe and invaded Russia, to the east. Bush hasn't implemented a policy of genocide - not against his own citizens, at least.

But Bush hasn't yet acquired Hitler's power. He's working on it, but he isn' yet a true dictator. Even if he was, it would be hard to exterminate America's Jews, African Americans or Native Americans because 1) we still have a strong democratic tradition, and 2) we are a very diverse nation. Attack America's Native Americans, and Bush will only enrage other minorities - and many whites as well.

Even if Bush isn't as evil as Hitler, he's far more dangerous. America's military arsenal is simply too vast. Let's hope we never find out how evil Bush really is.

EDIT: Here's a link to an official source that proves I'm not the only person who thinks George W. Bush is evil:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Ge...G=Google+Search

It's one of the biggest websites on the Internet, and it features nearly 18,000 references for websites that match the terms "George W. Bush" and "Adolph Hitler." You could spend many days exploring it.

Also, I put together a simple rating system to help people understand the concept of evil:

1 - Nice person who cares about others; someone you would want for a friend

2 - Individual who's indifferent to others' suffering

3 - Individual who likes to inflict suffering on others (e.g. many public school principals)

4 - Individual who commits, oversee or support murder for personal, political or corporate gain (many corporate executives and U.S. public officials)

5 - People who commit or promote murder because they enjoy it

Adolph Hitler was obviously in the last group. George W. Bush easily qualifies for #4, though I believe the sadism he has demonstrated (e.g. Karla Fay Tucker, torture as a U.S. military policy, etc.) indicate that he rates a 5.

To further put it in perspective, compare the following two groups of people:

GROUP 1

Adolph Hitler

Pol Pot

Saddam Hussein

GROUP 2

Mother Theresa

Princess Di

Mr. Rogers

I call the people in Group 1 "evil." Even if you don't believe evil exists, you should be able to see the difference between the people in the two groups. When I refer to evil, I'm referring to that difference. Feel free to substitute your own word for evil. If you can't think of an appropriate word, then you can use "evil" in this thread. You may want to write it as "evil*" to indicate that you're just using the word evil to refer to that elusive difference between Adolph Hitler and Mr. Rogers.

This should finally put an end to the argument that my original question is moot because evil doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Bush may be misguided, but you are being ridiculous comparing him to Hitler. You seem to be implying that Bush wants to exterminate American aboriginals, or American Jews, for one thing. I've never seen a shred of evidence for this, and this is just base slander of the worst kind.

I don't think he is on any "mad quest for power." Those who are - Hitler, Mao or Stalin - consolidate their domestic position and eliminate political opponents before they start on any foreign expeditions. Bush has done nothing of the sort, in fact, he almost lost the election to Kerry. The statist acts he has put in place would be equally useable by his successor, and he has not done anything to consolidate his personal power. He has expanded the power of the state, but unlike other dictators, he has not identified himself with the state, consolidated his own position or drastically expanded the power of his own office.

Your argument stumbles all over itself. How does "selling out to corporate power" coincide with "working on being a true dictator", exactly? Unless Bush has nationalised these corporate entities or created a Nazi-style economic directorate, that point doesn't even make sense. You say he's consolidating his power and diluting his power at the same time.

If you want to criticise the president, please, confine yourself to logic and reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terms like "evil" are philisophical abstractions and thus, not really helpful in the context of a political discussion. Defining someone as "evil" is problematic as it serves to limit the scope of the debate to bianry terms like "good/evil". As well, by calling George Bush ecvil and comparing him to the 20th centurie's personofication of evil, Adolph Hitler, you remove the context from his actions. It's easy to say "Bush is evil" but more difficult to acknowledge the real reasons behind his policy decisions. However, that analysis is critical both to understand why thing shappen and how to counter them.

I think the invalidity of the concept of evil as a rhetorical device is demonstrated by its overuse among neoconservatives. Leave the bogus definitions of evil for Bush and his crowd. Stick with the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Bush may be misguided, but you are being ridiculous comparing him to Hitler. You seem to be implying that Bush wants to exterminate American aboriginals, or American Jews, for one thing. I've never seen a shred of evidence for this, and this is just base slander of the worst kind.

I don't think he is on any "mad quest for power." Those who are - Hitler, Mao or Stalin - consolidate their domestic position and eliminate political opponents before they start on any foreign expeditions. Bush has done nothing of the sort, in fact, he almost lost the election to Kerry. The statist acts he has put in place would be equally useable by his successor, and he has not done anything to consolidate his personal power. He has expanded the power of the state, but unlike other dictators, he has not identified himself with the state, consolidated his own position or drastically expanded the power of his own office.

Your argument stumbles all over itself. How does "selling out to corporate power" coincide with "working on being a true dictator", exactly? Unless Bush has nationalised these corporate entities or created a Nazi-style economic directorate, that point doesn't even make sense. You say he's consolidating his power and diluting his power at the same time.

If you want to criticise the president, please, confine yourself to logic and reality.

You seem to be implying that Bush wants to exterminate American aboriginals, or American Jews, for one thing.

No, I said IF.

I don't think he is on any "mad quest for power." Those who are - Hitler, Mao or Stalin - consolidate their domestic position and eliminate political opponents before they start on any foreign expeditions.

Let's see... The Republicans control Congress. They pretty much control the Supreme Court, and it looks like they're now gunning for the CIA. The term "corporate media" speaks for itself. Tom Daschle is gone (not that I was a big fan), and we all know what happened to Paul Wellstone (or do we?). You made my point in spectacular fashion.

Bush has done nothing of the sort, in fact, he almost lost the election to Kerry.

And he would have lost if he hadn't pulled the right strings. Moreover, it's entirely possible that Kerry is actually a member of the Bush team, so to speak. He certainly ran a very curious campaign.

The statist acts he has put in place would be equally useable by his successor, and he has not done anything to consolidate his personal power. He has expanded the power of the state, but unlike other dictators, he has not identified himself with the state, consolidated his own position or drastically expanded the power of his own office.

Baloney.

Your argument stumbles all over itself. How does "selling out to corporate power" coincide with "working on being a true dictator", exactly? Unless Bush has nationalised these corporate entities or created a Nazi-style economic directorate, that point doesn't even make sense. You say he's consolidating his power and diluting his power at the same time.

Which dilutes power more - representing nearly 300 million citizens or whoring for a few hundred corporations?

If you want to criticise the president, please, confine yourself to logic and reality.

But I did. And thanks, once again, for offering such a brilliant support of my post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terms like "evil" are philisophical abstractions and thus, not really helpful in the context of a political discussion. Defining someone as "evil" is problematic as it serves to limit the scope of the debate to bianry terms like "good/evil". As well, by calling George Bush ecvil and comparing him to the 20th centurie's personofication of evil, Adolph Hitler, you remove the context from his actions. It's easy to say "Bush is evil" but more difficult to acknowledge the real reasons behind his policy decisions. However, that analysis is critical both to understand why thing shappen and how to counter them.

I think the invalidity of the concept of evil as a rhetorical device is demonstrated by its overuse among neoconservatives. Leave the bogus definitions of evil for Bush and his crowd. Stick with the real world.

Terms like "evil" are philisophical abstractions and thus, not really helpful in the context of a political discussion. . . . bianry terms like "good/evil". . . . you remove the context from his actions. . . . the invalidity of the concept of evil as a rhetorical device is demonstrated by its overuse among neoconservatives.

Sorry, you lost me in your philosophical romp through neverland. I suspect you lost yourself, too.

Adolph Hitler was more than an abstraction. He was a real person. He was undeniably evil - by any definition a sane person would apply to the word - and he was an undeniable menace.

George W. Bush is also real. He's not a nice guy. Anyone who calls Bush a compassionate conservative (now THERE'S an abstraction for you) is a fool.

And those weapons of mass destruction Bush has jurisdiction over are the most real things of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I said IF.

If you are saying that there's absolutely no grounding for this speculation whatsoever why even make it? The fact that you said it at all said that, not only has it crossed your mind, it's actually struck you as a possibility. You think it's plausible that George Bush wants to exterminate native Americans and Jews. What is your evidence? I don't seriously consider an idea without evidence. If you do, then that speaks volumes about your lack of intellecutal integrity, and about the value of your posts, doesn't it?

Let's see... The Republicans control Congress. They pretty much control the Supreme Court, and it looks like they're now gunning for the CIA. The term "corporate media" speaks for itself.

When they put a bullet in the head of Michael Moore, or Noam Chomsky, or any of the other very outspoken Bush critics, get back to me. Until then your argument doesn't hold water. Hitler's first move (before he even got into office, in fact) was to discredit, demonize and physically attack his political opponents. Bush doesn't even seem to realise that Moore exists, for all his public statements reveal, let alone be running some sort of smear campaign against him or having him roughed up by government goons.

I further want some evidence that the Republican Party is a personal tool of George W. Bush. Prove to me that the GOP is akin to the Nazi Party and is devoted to doing Bush's every whim. Most Bush critics believe it's the other way around, the GOP calls the shots, and Bush is just a puppet.

And he would have lost if he hadn't pulled the right strings. Moreover, it's entirely possible that Kerry is actually a member of the Bush team, so to speak. He certainly ran a very curious campaign.

Oh, boy. I hope you have a single shred of evidence for that. You don't, of course. What's next? George Bush is planning to take over the world with alien UFOs kept in secret at Area 51 after he finishes controlling the minds of the American people with nanobots in flu shots?

Baloney.

Prove it.

Which dilutes power more - representing nearly 300 million citizens or whoring for a few hundred corporations?

No, you can't do that. You're comparing Bush to Hitler. Hitler did not permit any kind of dilution of his power. After he got the Chancellorship he made sure he broke German business to his will. You're saying that Bush has done the exact opposite. I don't see how that makes a comparison between them very realistic, to be honest.

Here's an analogy. "Jerry Seinfeld is just like Bill Cosby. Seinfeld's white. Cosby's black. Don't you see the similarities already?"

But I did.

I think you've been reading the Inquirer too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, you lost me in your philosophical romp through neverland. I suspect you lost yourself, too.

Nope. It's pretty simple: characterizing someone whose policies you disagree with as "evil" is ridiculous. It's ridiculous when Bush does it and it's ridiculous to do it to Bush.

Why not stick to arguing real points- like why occupying Iraq was and is a bad idea, or why Bush's economic policies are failures or even why the decaying wall between church and state in America is a dangerous trend- instead of such frothy and ambiguous terms liek "evil".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I said IF.

If you are saying that there's absolutely no grounding for this speculation whatsoever why even make it? The fact that you said it at all said that, not only has it crossed your mind, it's actually struck you as a possibility. You think it's plausible that George Bush wants to exterminate native Americans and Jews. What is your evidence? I don't seriously consider an idea without evidence. If you do, then that speaks volumes about your lack of intellecutal integrity, and about the value of your posts, doesn't it?

Let's see... The Republicans control Congress. They pretty much control the Supreme Court, and it looks like they're now gunning for the CIA. The term "corporate media" speaks for itself.

When they put a bullet in the head of Michael Moore, or Noam Chomsky, or any of the other very outspoken Bush critics, get back to me. Until then your argument doesn't hold water. Hitler's first move (before he even got into office, in fact) was to discredit, demonize and physically attack his political opponents. Bush doesn't even seem to realise that Moore exists, for all his public statements reveal, let alone be running some sort of smear campaign against him or having him roughed up by government goons.

I further want some evidence that the Republican Party is a personal tool of George W. Bush. Prove to me that the GOP is akin to the Nazi Party and is devoted to doing Bush's every whim. Most Bush critics believe it's the other way around, the GOP calls the shots, and Bush is just a puppet.

And he would have lost if he hadn't pulled the right strings. Moreover, it's entirely possible that Kerry is actually a member of the Bush team, so to speak. He certainly ran a very curious campaign.

Oh, boy. I hope you have a single shred of evidence for that. You don't, of course. What's next? George Bush is planning to take over the world with alien UFOs kept in secret at Area 51 after he finishes controlling the minds of the American people with nanobots in flu shots?

Baloney.

Prove it.

Which dilutes power more - representing nearly 300 million citizens or whoring for a few hundred corporations?

No, you can't do that. You're comparing Bush to Hitler. Hitler did not permit any kind of dilution of his power. After he got the Chancellorship he made sure he broke German business to his will. You're saying that Bush has done the exact opposite. I don't see how that makes a comparison between them very realistic, to be honest.

Here's an analogy. "Jerry Seinfeld is just like Bill Cosby. Seinfeld's white. Cosby's black. Don't you see the similarities already?"

But I did.

I think you've been reading the Inquirer too much.

No, I said IF.
If you are saying that there's absolutely no grounding for this speculation whatsoever why even make it? The fact that you said it at all said that, not only has it crossed your mind, it's actually struck you as a possibility. You think it's plausible that George Bush wants to exterminate native Americans and Jews.

NO, NO, NO! Sheez, don't you people have any comprehension skills? Nowhere did I say Bush wants to exterminate Jews or Native Americans. I very clearly said that IF he wanted to exterminate them, he'd have a much tougher fight than Hitler did.

Nazi Germany was a WHITE, very homogenous nation with weak democratic principles. The U.S. is a very DIVERSE nation with very STRONG democratic principles.

What is your evidence? I don't seriously consider an idea without evidence.

Apparently, you don't read posts very carefully, either.

Let's see... The Republicans control Congress. They pretty much control the Supreme Court, and it looks like they're now gunning for the CIA. The term "corporate media" speaks for itself.
When they put a bullet in the head of Michael Moore, or Noam Chomsky, or any of the other very outspoken Bush critics, get back to me. Until then your argument doesn't hold water. Hitler's first move (before he even got into office, in fact) was to discredit, demonize and physically attack his political opponents.

Again, Bush doesn't yet have the power to do many of the things Hitler did. Nevertheless, the Republicans have been waging a very vicious war against their critics and enemies - real or imagined - since Bush first stole office.

Bush doesn't even seem to realise that Moore exists, for all his public statements reveal, let alone be running some sort of smear campaign against him or having him roughed up by government goons.

Bush can't afford to attack Michael Moore; after all, the man's a celebrity, and Bush doesn't need any more bad publicity. He would only make his movies more popular. Even Bush isn't that stupid.

I further want some evidence that the Republican Party is a personal tool of George W. Bush. Prove to me that the GOP is akin to the Nazi Party and is devoted to doing Bush's every whim. Most Bush critics believe it's the other way around, the GOP calls the shots, and Bush is just a puppet.

There are moderate Republicans who oppose some of Bush's warped agendas. But how many times have they actually taken a stand? How many times have they taken a stand and WON? Bush almost always gets his way.

And he would have lost if he hadn't pulled the right strings. Moreover, it's entirely possible that Kerry is actually a member of the Bush team, so to speak. He certainly ran a very curious campaign.
Oh, boy. I hope you have a single shred of evidence for that. You don't, of course. What's next? George Bush is planning to take over the world with alien UFOs kept in secret at Area 51 after he finishes controlling the minds of the American people with nanobots in flu shots?

Well, it's interesting that you're now resorting to such lame propaganda techniques. So what's next for YOU - computer chips in Muslims' brains?

Which dilutes power more - representing nearly 300 million citizens or whoring for a few hundred corporations?
No, you can't do that. You're comparing Bush to Hitler. Hitler did not permit any kind of dilution of his power. After he got the Chancellorship he made sure he broke German business to his will. You're saying that Bush has done the exact opposite. I don't see how that makes a comparison between them very realistic, to be honest.

Again, you're getting wrapped up in your tortured logic. It's really VERY SIMPLE. Adolph Hitler was a very powerful German ruler. He was a dictator. George Bush may not be a dictator yet - but he's undeniably consolidating power. He may never be a true dictator, but the Republicans have far too much power, and Bush probably has more power than any president in U.S. history.

Part of the problem is you're too hung up on the word "dictator." Bush doesn't have to be a true dictator to be like Hitler. He merely has to be very powerful, very evil and very dangerous. Mission accomplished.

I think you've been reading the Inquirer too much.

I think you ran out of intelligent arguments before you even started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. It's pretty simple: characterizing someone whose policies you disagree with as "evil" is ridiculous.

I disagree with lots of people, but I don't characterize all of them as evil. I characterize most Seattle liberals as "stupid," for example.

Why not stick to arguing real points- like why occupying Iraq was and is a bad idea, or why Bush's economic policies are failures or even why the decaying wall between church and state in America is a dangerous trend- instead of such frothy and ambiguous terms liek "evil".

I've argued all those points on this forum, other forums, my websites, etc. This thread tackles the question of EVIL. It may be ambigious for you, but it was hardly ambiguous for the millions who were killed by Hitler. Nor is it ambiguous for Iraqis who have been murdered or tortured by Team Exxon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nowhere did I say Bush wants to exterminate Jews or Native Americans. I very clearly said that IF he wanted to exterminate them, he'd have a much tougher fight than Hitler did.

Yes, and if he wanted to sprout wings and fly he'd have a hard time too. Why would you even bring it up unless it was relevant?

Either you are saying that Bush is like Hitler because he wants to exterminate ethnic minorities (which is ridiculous) or you are saying they are dissimilar because he doesn't (which contradicts your fundamental point).

Bush can't afford to attack Michael Moore; after all, the man's a celebrity, and Bush doesn't need any more bad publicity.

Hitler did not restrain himself from attacking and eliminating his famous and powerful opponents.

Anyway, your very statements give the lie to your whole premise. If Bush was truly as powerful as you allege, why would he have to refrain from attacking Moore?

Adolph Hitler was a very powerful German ruler. He was a dictator. George Bush may not be a dictator yet - but he's undeniably consolidating power.

And yet you provide no evidence. Cite a source or something. Do you know how?

Part of the problem is you're too hung up on the word "dictator." Bush doesn't have to be a true dictator to be like Hitler.

Oh, I think he does. The main thing about Hitler was that he was a dictator. If he had not been, he'd just have been an unhinged and anti-Semitic housepainter.

Let's compare like for like. George W Bush started two wars, which in terms of casualties are very insignificant in terms of the wars of the 20th Century. The states he warred against were tyrannical regimes that murdered thousands of their own people.

Hitler started the most destructive war in human history, with a casualty rate bigger than pretty much all other wars put together. The states he warred against were often democratic and far more liberal than his own.

American soldiers have committed some atrocities in occupied territory. These are sporadic and isolated and don't seem to be part of any overall policy, at least, not one that is efficient and systematic in any real way. There's no hard evidence that Bush or any of his immediate subordinates actually ordered any of them.

Hitler made atrocity a public policy. His crimes were very widespread and almost universal, wiping out (for instance) over 90% of Polish Jewry in a very exacting and systematic way. This was definitely official policy and the orders directing this policy bear the signatures of Hitler and of his immediate subordinates.

George Bush committed to holding an election in 2004 and respected the results. His political opponents ran quite an effective campaign against him (bearing in mind how close the results were) and this campaign was often quite vicious.

Adolf Hitler immediately suspended all democratic processes and set about murdering all his political opponents virtually as soon as he took office. He passed the Enabling Act, granting himself dicatorial powers, and the only checks and balances that existed were held by fictitious bodies.

George Bush has launched no campaign of physical violence against any Americans. If any Americans have died as a result of his regime (impossible to prove) there is no public policy that caused them.

Hitler launched a campaign of physical violence that killed 11 million of his citizens. It was definitely a matter of public policy and was carried out by the officers of the State with his approval and on his orders.

I think your comparison of Bush to Hitler is a gross insult to all the people Hitler killed. You are downplaying and excusing Hitler's crimes by lumping him together with Bush. As Blackdog says, bandying terms like "evil" and "good" around does nobody any good, especially when it seems that you don't really recognise evil when you see it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugo wrote...

Yes, and if he wanted to sprout wings and fly he'd have a hard time too. Why would you even bring it up unless it was relevant?

Because it IS relevant. Bush obviously can't sprout wings, and if he did, it wouldn't necessarily be an evil thing. (Maybe he'd do us a favor and fly into a mountain.)

But Bush has already begun persecuting certain groups of people, and his persecution will almost certainly become more severe if and when he consolidates his power still more.

Either you are saying that Bush is like Hitler because he wants to exterminate ethnic minorities (which is ridiculous) or you are saying they are dissimilar because he doesn't (which contradicts your fundamental point).

Here, let me make it real simple for you...

1. I asked a question: HOW EVIL IS GEORGE BUSH.

2. I noted that many people think he's nowhere near as evil as Adolph Hitler.

3. I asked "How do you know?" pointing out that a) Bush doesn't (yet) have the power Hitler did and B) the United States is far bigger more diverse and democratic than Nazi Germany.

4. But I also noted that Bush is indeed a hateful person. He's no friend of Muslims, Native Americans, African Americans, the middle class, Third World nations, and on and on. If Bush had dicatorial powers - or let's say EXTREME powers if he never becomes a true dictator - what destruction might he rain down on people?

Bush can't afford to attack Michael Moore; after all, the man's a celebrity, and Bush doesn't need any more bad publicity.
Hitler did not restrain himself from attacking and eliminating his famous and powerful opponents.

Right - because Hitler had the power Bush hasn't yet acquired. Moreover, I wouldn't be quick to claim that Bush hasn't eliminated any opponents. We'll probably never know the truth about Paul Wellstone, and what the Hell's going on in Venezuela?

Anyway, your very statements give the lie to your whole premise. If Bush was truly as powerful as you allege, why would he have to refrain from attacking Moore?

I "allege" that Bush is powerful enough to persecute many people, including U.S. citizens, and even make a few disappear, but he is NOT yet as powerful as Hitler was. Be serious, do you really think Bush could assassinate Michael Moore and survive the blowback? I mean, if no on could prove Bush was behind it, he might survive it, but he would still be the target of massive blame and rage.

Adolph Hitler was a very powerful German ruler. He was a dictator. George Bush may not be a dictator yet - but he's undeniably consolidating power.
And yet you provide no evidence. Cite a source or something. Do you know how?

Cite a source to prove that Bush is consolidating power??? Sheez, do you live in a cave?!

HELLO - The Republicans control Congress and the Supreme Court. There are concerns about an apparent CIA purge. Have you heard of voting machines? I could go on and on and on, but you clearly need to do your homework.

Spend a couple weeks studying current weeks, then come back and tackle this thread again.

Oh, I think he does. The main thing about Hitler was that he was a dictator. If he had not been, he'd just have been an unhinged and anti-Semitic housepainter.

Thank you for making my point! George W. Bush doesn't have dictatorial powers. Therefore, he's just an extraordinarily powerful (and evil) Christian kook. Given the damage he's already caused, how bad would it be if Bush was even more powerful? What if Bush became a genuine dictator?

It's a very simple and appropriate question. Let's make it an easy multiple choice question, just for you. If George W. Bush was a dictator...

1) He never would have invaded Iraq.

2) He probably would have also attacked Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela by now and killed hundreds of American anti-Bush activists.

3) There would be no difference.

Let's compare like for like. George W Bush started two wars, which in terms of casualties are very insignificant in terms of the wars of the 20th Century. The states he warred against were tyrannical regimes that murdered thousands of their own people.

Hitler started the most destructive war in human history, with a casualty rate bigger than pretty much all other wars put together. The states he warred against were often democratic and far more liberal than his own.

Right - and Hitler had the power to do that. Bush lives in a different world.

The numbers are somewhat irrelevant. If you murder 100,000 civilians, is it OK just because Hitler murdered millions? Morever, Bush has a military arsenal that could make Hitler look like a frat boy if Bush gets the world war he seems to be courting.

American soldiers have committed some atrocities in occupied territory. These are sporadic and isolated and don't seem to be part of any overall policy, at least, not one that is efficient and systematic in any real way.

Don't forget torture.

There's no hard evidence that Bush or any of his immediate subordinates actually ordered any of them.

Right, the ongoing torture and atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and secret detention centers are all just random occurrences. Uh huh.

Hitler made atrocity a public policy. His crimes were very widespread and almost universal, wiping out (for instance) over 90% of Polish Jewry in a very exacting and systematic way.

Yes, I know - which leads us to the question: Do you think George W. Bush is capable of similar atrocities if he acquires sufficient power?

George Bush committed to holding an election in 2004 and respected the results.

Excuse me, I ran for office myself in 2004, and there was no election. Democracy is dead.

His political opponents ran quite an effective campaign against him (bearing in mind how close the results were) and this campaign was often quite vicious.

No they did not; John Kerry was a total pussy and therefore a perfect representative of the Vichy Democrats.

Adolf Hitler immediately suspended all democratic processes and set about murdering all his political opponents virtually as soon as he took office.

Bush didn't have that power as soon as he stole office.

He passed the Enabling Act, granting himself dicatorial powers, and the only checks and balances that existed were held by fictitious bodies.

Bush passed the Patriot Act, and he's trying to expand it.

George Bush has launched no campaign of physical violence against any Americans. If any Americans have died as a result of his regime (impossible to prove) there is no public policy that caused them.

Tell that to protesters who have been roughed up by police officers and travelers who have tangled with Homeland Security.

Hitler launched a campaign of physical violence that killed 11 million of his citizens.

So how many Americans do you think Bush will kill if he ever gets Hitler's power?

I think your comparison of Bush to Hitler is a gross insult to all the people Hitler killed.

I think your lack of comprehension skills (or refusal to recognize what I actually wrote) is a gross insult to members of this forum.

You are downplaying and excusing Hitler's crimes by lumping him together with Bush.

Baloney. I think it was wrong of Hitler to murder people, and I also think Bush should be charged as a war criminal for treason and murder. I believe in accountability for all.

I'm simply wondering how many more people Bush might kill if he acquires more power. Again, let me make it simple for you:

Could George W. Bush conceivably become more powerful?:

1) Yes

2) No

Let me give you a hint: The answer is YES.

IF Bush does become more powerful, could he conceivably become more dangerous?:

1) Yes

2) No

As Blackdog says, bandying terms like "evil" and "good" around does nobody any good, especially when it seems that you don't really recognise evil when you see it anyway.

Correction: It does no good when people like you and Blackdog can't shoot my arguments down without ignoring half of what I wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, MB, folks like you give the left a bad name. it seems for those of us who try to make their case against the neoconservative hegemony based on real events and concrete policy, there's some wingnut who todddles along spouting silly conspiracies, which really only serves to undermine whatever rational arguments the "left" might have and damages the credibility of the progressive movement as a whole.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is not based on reality. It is, by your own admission, based on what you "think" Bush might, possibly do if, theoretically, he aquires the power to do so. Hardly a solid foundation upon which to base your arguments.

Now you could just as easily use some of your same points (such as the dodgy elections, Patriot Act, torture of detainees, Iraq etc etc.) to make a case as to why Bush is a bad leader and bad president. But to go off and claim the man is as bad or worse than Hitler is utterly ridiculous. It not only damages the credence of your other points, it makes you look like a sterotypical left-wing whacko, which hurts us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Black Dog about the difficulties presented by use of the term 'evil'.

So instead of evil, I would say...

George Bush is harmful in ways and to an extent that can only be explained by some combination of

(1) self-satisfied ignorance,

(2) a overweaning sense of righteousness and/or entitlement,

(3) corrupt ulterior motives.

His record so far is without question the worst of the post WWII presidents. So, as a turn of phrase, perhaps it's better to say not that Bush is Evil, but that Bush's presidency is AN EVIL, the U.S. is suffering from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How sweet!! Trying to help MB become a better Liberal :P

(Can you feel the love & sensitivity?)

Bush is evil! He's the most evil person on Earth! And we voted him for President, a second term! (Are we still looking for the evidence that he cheated?) That makes Americans even more evil! He tortured prisoners (saw him with my own eyes hoser!), he got Congress to sign off the Patriot Act (forcefully), He's rich (so this automatically means he's corrupt), and arrogant (I'm still waiting for a response from the letter I sent to him.)

You "Nuks" crack me up!! I bet some of you have some pretty interesting jobs, and still live at home!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BD6, you crack me up. You rant forth a pastiche of petulant drivel and think you've made some point. Clearly you are unable to assess how sadly short of worthwhile discussion that falls. Yawn.

You're the one talking about "how evil GW is..." So corny man! WhoTF are you? Hence the inquirery of what some of you do for a living. Just interested! Aboot time, eh hoser? Love how you idiots talk! Keep it up! Is he evil or really evil? Super evil? Or "Terrible"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta keep the pigs at bay!

Yeah, well, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

:rolleyes:

BD6, you crack me up. You rant forth a pastiche of petulant drivel and think you've made some point. Clearly you are unable to assess how sadly short of worthwhile discussion that falls. Yawn.

At least he's not trolling for the lurid details of gay sex. Yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta keep the pigs at bay!

Yeah, well, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.

:rolleyes:

BD6, you crack me up. You rant forth a pastiche of petulant drivel and think you've made some point. Clearly you are unable to assess how sadly short of worthwhile discussion that falls. Yawn.

At least he's not trolling for the lurid details of gay sex. Yet.

Just putting you "weenies" in check! I'm not going to let you get away with bullsh*t propaganda! You think a "link" is evidence. "Trolling" is your new tool now. Everybody is a troller in here! Well, since you brought up and like talking about butt sex, do you take it in the rear? It's stimulating right? You like to talk about homosexuality... Do you practice what you preach? Yeah, I am curious...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just putting you "weenies" in check! I'm not going to let you get away with bullsh*t propaganda! You think a "link" is evidence.

And you don't even have any evidence. Or an opinion. In fact, what are you bringing to the table, besides juvenile insults?

You take everything I say as an insult. Didn't mom teach you the "Sticks & stones" rhyme? Evidence for what? That Bush didn't lie? Do you have any that says he flat out lied? I've been waiting for the past year now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...