How Evil is George W. Bush?

[The Terrible Sweal]

It's stimulating ... Yeah, I am curious...

[Black Dog]

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...

Aboot time, eh hoser? Love how you idiots talk!

Just putting you "weenies" in check

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

You have no cogent argument, no facts, no evidence, nothing. In fact, you've given me and everyone else here any reason to think you're anything but a 13 year old, sitting in his mom's basement with nothing better to do than troll message boards with your drivel. I think you should take up a new pasttime (I hear Halo 2 is pretty awesome), or maybe try reading a book or a newspaper.

Anyway, you're wasting my time, and I won't bother with you anymore.

[BigDookie6]

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...

Aboot time, eh hoser? Love how you idiots talk!

Just putting you "weenies" in check

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

You have no cogent argument, no facts, no evidence, nothing. In fact, you've given me and everyone else here any reason to think yopu're anything but a 13 year old, sitting in his mom's basement with nothing better to do than troll message boards with your drivel. I think you should take up a new pasttime (I hear Halo 2 is pretty awesome), or maybe try reading a book or a newspaper.

Anyway, you're wasting my time, and I won't bother with you anymore.

Would you prefer we just debate by exchanging and posting only links? You obviously cannot think on your own. You have to use someone else's words or articles. Look back on some of your previous threads BD.... Nothing but links! And some of your sites are "stumble upon" with no credibility. I think I saw you post a link from "Women.org" at one time. I just pull the "punk card" when guys like you keep repeating the same garbage i.e. "Bush lied" So tell me... Is the draft coming BD?

[BigDookie6]

It's OK BD & Sweal... Don't take anything personally in here. You choose to live your lives one way (black & white only) And like Paul Harvey says, "Life, liberty of your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30 second prayer before a hockey game."

Get over it!

[The Terrible Sweal]

... butt sex, ...  Yeah, I am curious...

[BigDookie6]

... butt sex, ...  Yeah, I am curious...

Nice to see that "you're lovin' it" like McDonald's, eh?

[Greg]

Cya, BigDookie6

You are now banned from these forums.

Greg

Admin

[Tawasakm]

How evil is George Bush?

Well to be able to answer this 'evil' must first be clearly defined. Then I would need an accurate method to measure quantitatively. Then I would need to take many measurements so that I may compare the results and observe over all trends. Then I would know where Bush sits in relation to the general population.

Or to put it another way; I'm afraid I am unable to answer this question.

[MapleBear]

How evil is George Bush?

Well to be able to answer this 'evil' must first be clearly defined. Then I would need an accurate method to measure quantitatively. Then I would need to take many measurements so that I may compare the results and observe over all trends. Then I would know where Bush sits in relation to the general population.

Or to put it another way; I'm afraid I am unable to answer this question.

Actually, I'm searching for a RELATIVE value. Obviously, we can't measure ANYONE'S evil quotient. But we all know what Adolph Hitler was more evil than Ferdinand Marcos, who was more evil than Hugo Chavez, who may have even been more evil than Mother Theresa.

Any sane person would recognize George W. Bush as evil, in relative terms. People who say I can't prove Bush is as evil as Hitler make my original point - that we can't prove he's NOT as evil as Hitler, either.

Bush doesn't have the power to truly do whatever he wants - yet.

[caesar]

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.

Perhaps it is YOU that doesn't recognize evil. What about all the innocent people that Bush is responsible for killing. thousands of innocent Iraqis; and he is not finished yet.

[August1991]

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

BD, where did you get that line?

[i can't believe you created it.]

[Hugo]

Actually, I'm searching for a RELATIVE value.

You can only establish relativity when there is an objective standard. We can say George Bush is taller than Hitler (or relatively tall compared to Hitler), because we have an objective standard to measure him by. Height can be impartially and objectively measured.

Since there is no way to objectively measure evil (there are no units of evil), we can't say that Bush is as evil as Hitler: there's no objective way to compare "evil".

Let me give you an example. I'm sure everyone on this forum thinks Hitler is evil, however, Hitler thought that he was good, and that Jews were evil, and he was doing the world a favour by getting rid of them all. Millions of Germans, and even foreigners, agreed with him. So, by siding against Hitler and with the Jews, we would be judged "evil" by millions of Germans, and also some Italians, British, Americans and yes, even Canadians, in the 1930s.

The other great irony is that you are exactly the same, in principle, as both Bush and Hitler. Hitler thought Jews were evil and that violence was an acceptable way to rid the world of this evil. Bush thinks that Islamic fundamentalism is evil and that violence is an acceptable way to rid the world of this evil. You think that Bush and his supporters are evil and that violence is an acceptable way to rid the world of this evil (you said it would be great if he "flew into a mountain", which I took to mean that you wished him dead).

You, Bush and Hitler are all the same. You just differ in the degree and the application, not the general principle. You all think that a subjective standard like "evil" can be used to judge people in a just fashion, and you all think that violence is acceptable.

Perhaps it is YOU that doesn't recognize evil.

No, it is you that doesn't understand "subjective." "Evil" is not measurable, not quantifiable and not comparable.

Now, as Blackdog said, it is perfectly possible to make objective criticisms of Bush. But to say that Bush is as evil as Hitler is about as valid as saying that he is as handsome as Hitler or as interesting as Hitler.

Maplebear's further problem is that he makes a self-contradiction. He alleges that Bush is as evil as Hitler, but then claims that Bush's circumstances and power are different from Hitler's, which would make such a comparison invalid. Thus, Maplebear has made a judgement by means of a test he himself describes as invalid. The result of an invalid test is invalid.

[Black Dog]

Any sane person would recognize George W. Bush as evil, in relative terms. People who say I can't prove Bush is as evil as Hitler make my original point - that we can't prove he's NOT as evil as Hitler, either.

Which is precisely why the discussion of "evil" is so academic.

Bush doesn't have the power to truly do whatever he wants - yet.

So we're defining "evil" as simply "having the ability/desire to perform evil acts" now? This is just silly.

I'd really like to get a straight answer as to what purpose all this talk of evil serves.

Perhaps it is YOU that doesn't recognize evil. What about all the innocent people that Bush is responsible for killing. thousands of innocent Iraqis; and he is not finished yet.

As anyone who frequents this board for any length of time knows, I am the last person who would defend Bush. Yet i find this talk of "evil" to be, at best, pointless and, at worst, damaging to the broader credibility of the anti-Bush/neocon side.

Yes, Bush is responisible for thousands of deaths, but so are many other rulers around the world today and throughout history. Surely evil is a term that should be reserved for the moast hideous creatures to walk the earth, That's why "evil" (for what it's worth) suits someone like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot: people guilty of such unimaginable crimes against humanity as to beggar the imagination. Bush is corrupt, he has caused great ill and could caus emuch more. But compared to Hitler, or even someone like Saddam Hussein, Bush is a piker.

[MapleBear]

You can only establish relativity when there is an objective standard. We can say George Bush is taller than Hitler (or relatively tall compared to Hitler), because we have an objective standard to measure him by. Height can be impartially and objectively measured.

Jesus, can you armchair philosophers even find your pencils??? Using your logic we would have to argue that there's no difference between Captain Kangaroo and Adolph Hitler. At the very least, we can't PROVE Captain Kangaroo wasn't as evil as Hitler because we lack an "objective standard."

Have you ever considered common sense?

Let me give you an example. I'm sure everyone on this forum thinks Hitler is evil, however, Hitler thought that he was good, and that Jews were evil, and he was doing the world a favour by getting rid of them all. Millions of Germans, and even foreigners, agreed with him. So, by siding against Hitler and with the Jews, we would be judged "evil" by millions of Germans, and also some Italians, British, Americans and yes, even Canadians, in the 1930s.

Ditto for Pol Pot. So do we give the Nazis and Khmer Rouge the benefit of the doubt, or do we use a little backbone and say these people were bastards?

The other great irony is that you are exactly the same, in principle, as both Bush and Hitler. Hitler thought Jews were evil and that violence was an acceptable way to rid the world of this evil. Bush thinks that Islamic fundamentalism is evil and that violence is an acceptable way to rid the world of this evil. You think that Bush and his supporters are evil and that violence is an acceptable way to rid the world of this evil (you said it would be great if he "flew into a mountain", which I took to mean that you wished him dead).

I believe in accountability. Europe's Jews may have included some crooks, but the entire population didn't deserve to be annihilated. Some Muslims undoubtedly deserve to be punished, but that doesn't include 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

The Bush gang, on the other hand, rank among the world's greatest criminals and America's greatest traitors.

You, Bush and Hitler are all the same. You just differ in the degree and the application, not the general principle. You all think that a subjective standard like "evil" can be used to judge people in a just fashion, and you all think that violence is acceptable.

If you think violence is unacceptable, then we must assume that you oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if you understand the nature of these wars, then we can only assume you regard George W. Bush as evil.

No, it is you that doesn't understand "subjective." "Evil" is not measurable, not quantifiable and not comparable.

Who was more evil - Adolph Hitler or Doris Day?

Only a fool would answer "I don't know," or "It's impossible to tell."

Now, as Blackdog said, it is perfectly possible to make objective criticisms of Bush. But to say that Bush is as evil as Hitler is about as valid as saying that he is as handsome as Hitler or as interesting as Hitler.

An intelligent adult would say that Bush and Hitler were indeed somewhat handsome, according to majority opinion. They certainly's weren't what the average person would consider ugly, though their faces came to be associated with evil and ugliness.

Maplebear's further problem is that he makes a self-contradiction. He alleges that Bush is as evil as Hitler, but then claims that Bush's circumstances and power are different from Hitler's, which would make such a comparison invalid. Thus, Maplebear has made a judgement by means of a test he himself describes as invalid. The result of an invalid test is invalid.

1. George W. Bush has used his awesome power to do evil.

2. Adolph Hitler used his more absolute power to do greater evil.

3. If Bush acquired more power, would we discover that he's even more evil than people imagined? Could he emulate Hitler in murdering six million people in crematoriums?

If Bush DID murder six million people, we'd have to say he's no different than the girl next door, using your bizarre logic. Because how can we possibly compare a lunatic dictator to a girl next door???

[MapleBear]

Any sane person would recognize George W. Bush as evil, in relative terms. People who say I can't prove Bush is as evil as Hitler make my original point - that we can't prove he's NOT as evil as Hitler, either.

Which is precisely why the discussion of "evil" is so academic.

It isn't academic to Bush's victims.

Bush doesn't have the power to truly do whatever he wants - yet.

So we're defining "evil" as simply "having the ability/desire to perform evil acts" now? This is just silly.

Not at all. Bush has proved his willingness to carry out his desires.

I'd really like to get a straight answer as to what purpose all this talk of evil serves.

There has been a lot of publicity about people - including some world leaders - who compare Bush to Hitler. Obviously, Bush's supporters claim the comparisons are ridiculous and insulting, noting that Hitler killed millions. I'm simply pointing out that the comparison is unfair because Hitler was in office for many years and was a true dictator. Bush is just getting warmed up.

It's really common sense.

As anyone who frequents this board for any length of time knows, I am the last person who would defend Bush. Yet i find this talk of "evil" to be, at best, pointless and, at worst, damaging to the broader credibility of the anti-Bush/neocon side.

The anti-Bush/neocon side has no credibility to begin with.

Yes, Bush is responisible for thousands of deaths, but so are many other rulers around the world today and throughout history.

BINGO! Now you're getting it! Adolph Hitler doesn't have a monopoly on evil. Idi Amin was evil, and he might have been as destructive as Bush if he had more power. There are probably two dozen public officials here in Seattle who are capable of mudering millions if they had the power.

Surely evil is a term that should be reserved for the moast hideous creatures to walk the earth, That's why "evil" (for what it's worth) suits someone like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot: people guilty of such unimaginable crimes against humanity as to beggar the imagination. Bush is corrupt, he has caused great ill and could caus emuch more. But compared to Hitler, or even someone like Saddam Hussein, Bush is a piker.

First, you suggest we shouldn't call anyone evil, since the term is "subjective," it's relative, it lacks "standards," or whatever. Now you're telling us there ARE evil people. But a person can't be labeled evil until they've killed - what - over one million people?

So a man with no political power who kidnaps and tortures three individuals is not evil by your standards. Some standards!

[Hugo]

Have you ever considered common sense?... do we give the Nazis and Khmer Rouge the benefit of the doubt, or do we use a little backbone and say these people were bastards?

What are your criteria, though? I don't believe there's an objective standard for measuring the degree to which one is a bastard in the colloquial sense, so please tell me what yardstick you are using for comparison.

I believe in accountability. Europe's Jews may have included some crooks, but the entire population didn't deserve to be annihilated. Some Muslims undoubtedly deserve to be punished, but that doesn't include 100,000 Iraqi civilians.

This is absolutely irrelevant. I only quoted it so that others could see how unfocused your argument is.

And if you understand the nature of these wars, then we can only assume you regard George W. Bush as evil.

Maybe, but if we're comparing wars with wars, then this completely refutes your original point. Bush started two wars that have killed tens of thousands (actual figures are quite speculative at this time), and in which some apparently isolated atrocities were committed (Abu Ghraib, shooting wounded prisoners etc).

Hitler started the biggest war in history, which killed 20 million on the battlefield. His atrocities were widespread, systematic and ordered from above without a shadow of a doubt.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that 150,000 people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. If war damage is your criteria for evil, this would make Hitler approximately 133 times as evil as Bush, and not "as evil", which I would take to mean approximately 1:1.

Who was more evil - Adolph Hitler or Doris Day? Only a fool would answer "I don't know," or "It's impossible to tell."

Only a fool would believe that his subjective opinion could be an objective fact.

An intelligent adult would say that Bush and Hitler were indeed somewhat handsome, according to majority opinion.

Again, totally and utterly irrelevant. You've taken an example used as an analogy to illustrate a different point, and attempted to turn it into an argument. Either this is an attempt to obfuscate the original debate, or you have a very short attention span.

And anyway, you refuted yourself. "Majority opinion" does not make something fact, otherwise the earth would be flat and the sun would orbit it, deities would control the seasons, tides and other natural cycles, lead can be magically transmuted into gold and so on and so forth.

If Bush acquired more power, would we discover that he's even more evil than people imagined?

So, just so we're straight: You think that Bush is as evil as Hitler, because if Bush had different circumstances he might possibly (which means possibly not, by inference) be as evil as Hitler.

You seriously call this an argument?

But a person can't be labeled evil until they've killed - what - over one million people?

Actually, that's your point. Blackdog has identified your implied claim that, as you opine that Bush is as evil as Hitler, there is some measurable standard of evil, which would mean that lesser murderers would be less evil, and more bloodthirsty ones - Stalin or Mao spring to mind - would be more evil. If this is true, either we must all technically be "evil" (we've all done something), or there is actually some line before which one is "good" and after which one is "evil."

Could he emulate Hitler in murdering six million people in crematoriums?

Eleven million, actually, and nobody was killed in a crematorium. They were used afterwards to dispose of corpses. It's laughable that you would compare Hitler's crimes to Bush's when you don't even know the extent of either.

[Guest eureka]

My own opinion is that Bush is plug-ugly but then, I am not a Texas Librarian.

I use the word evil, sometimes, to describe certain authority figures ( I have used it for Mike Harris in Ontario ). I use it only because so many seem to see everything in terms of bad and good. I do not , though, subscribe to any concept of evil. Evil can only be considered with reference to some set of values and that is a very uncertain field.

Hitler and Bush both offend values but both have support - or had support from people we might have regarded as well meaning. Were say, Dahlmer and Bundy evil or just sick. Were the relevant offenses of all the candidates for evil not just the offenses of position and nothing at all to do with any measure of anything?

[MapleBear]

What are your criteria, though? I don't believe there's an objective standard for measuring the degree to which one is a bastard in the colloquial sense, so please tell me what yardstick you are using for comparison.

I don't believe there are objective criteria for love, but we all know it exists, and it burns brighter in some hearts than in others.

Maybe, but if we're comparing wars with wars, then this completely refutes your original point. Bush started two wars that have killed tens of thousands (actual figures are quite speculative at this time), and in which some apparently isolated atrocities were committed (Abu Ghraib, shooting wounded prisoners etc).

ISOLATED atrocities? Who's engaging in speculation now?

Hitler started the biggest war in history, which killed 20 million on the battlefield. His atrocities were widespread, systematic and ordered from above without a shadow of a doubt.

There was no one to hold Hitler in check; he answered to no one. Bush has no choice but use some caution. Even so, he has still managed to implement torture as a military policy.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that 150,000 people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. If war damage is your criteria for evil, this would make Hitler approximately 133 times as evil as Bush, and not "as evil", which I would take to mean approximately 1:1.

But let's talk about the CAPABILITLY of executing millions. If Bush was on the verge of entering a war that threatened to kill an estimated ten million people, would his conscience urge him to seek a diplomatic situation, or would he just break out the nukes?

Who was more evil - Adolph Hitler or Doris Day? Only a fool would answer "I don't know," or "It's impossible to tell."

Only a fool would believe that his subjective opinion could be an objective fact.

Only someone who can't answer my question would dodge it.

An intelligent adult would say that Bush and Hitler were indeed somewhat handsome, according to majority opinion.

Again, totally and utterly irrelevant. You've taken an example used as an analogy to illustrate a different point, and attempted to turn it into an argument. Either this is an attempt to obfuscate the original debate, or you have a very short attention span.

You're a prisoner of your own philosophy. You can't call anyone evil (except possibly Adolph Hitler), because you don't understand what evil is, it's subjective, etc., and you can't call anyone handsome, beautiful or ugly. Apparently, you live in a world where everything is the same shade of gray. Sounds boring.

And anyway, you refuted yourself. "Majority opinion" does not make something fact, otherwise the earth would be flat and the sun would orbit it, deities would control the seasons, tides and other natural cycles, lead can be magically transmuted into gold and so on and so forth.

Ah, you're referring to the creationist crowd - the same slow-thinking dullards who are George W. Bush's biggest supporters.

So, just so we're straight: You think that Bush is as evil as Hitler, because if Bush had different circumstances he might possibly (which means possibly not, by inference) be as evil as Hitler.

I think Adolph Hitler was evil, and I think George W. Bush is evil. Many people object to comparisons between the two, often noting that Hitler killed millions of people.

I'm simply saying this argument is illogical, because it may measure the physical ABILITLY to kill millions, not the DESIRE.

IF Bush had dictatorial powers, we might find out just how evil he really is. I suspect his supporters would discover that he's just as big a bastards as Hitler. Even if Bush merely stayed the course, he would be a SOB.

But a person can't be labeled evil until they've killed - what - over one million people?

Actually, that's your point. Blackdog has identified your implied claim that, as you opine that Bush is as evil as Hitler, there is some measurable standard of evil, which would mean that lesser murderers would be less evil...

Not necesssarily. Again, you need to consider both ABILITY and DESIRE. I would not give a man who murders one individual in the heat of passion a gold star, but I wouldn't be quick to brand him as evil, either. Most serial killers, on the other hand, are evil in my book.

Like several others on this thread, you're just blabbering philosophical nonsense. Most sane adults could understand my original question, debate some finer points (e.g. How do you define and quantify evil), and understand that 1) We can't know that George W. Bush is as evil as Adolph Hitler, but 2) We can't be certain that he is NOT as evil as Hitler, either, and 3) we probably shouldn't give him even greater powers until we find out.

BONUS: The evidence strongly suggests that George W. Bush is not only willing but eager to attack still more nations and engage in various behaviors that do indeed endanger millions of people.

Right-wingers revere George W. Bush, sane people abhor him, and intellectual cowards just can't seem to make up their minds.

[Tawasakm]

I don't believe there are objective criteria for love, but we all know it exists, and it burns brighter in some hearts than in others.

Love is a natural human emotion. As we experience it throughout our lives in different ways we gain an ability to quantify it. This is because we can compare how we felt in different circumstances. Because we understand love in ourselves we can observe it in others - and also talk to others about it. This further refines our ability to quantify it.

'Evil' is not an emotion and therefore not analagous to love. It is not something we 'feel' throught our lives. It is an abstract, and highly subjective, concept.

ISOLATED atrocities? Who's engaging in speculation now?

Please feel free to prove otherwise.

There was no one to hold Hitler in check; he answered to no one. Bush has no choice but use some caution.

You are implying a conclusion here - that the only reason that Bush is not behaving like Hitler is that he's forced to caution. Thats pure speculation without real evidence.

But let's talk about the CAPABILITLY of executing millions. If Bush was on the verge of entering a war that threatened to kill an estimated ten million people, would his conscience urge him to seek a diplomatic situation, or would he just break out the nukes?

Speculative worst case scenario based on your existing bias toward Bush. Lets talk about his CAPABILITY to hump a fire hydrant. If theres nobody there to watch will he do it?

Apparently, you live in a world where everything is the same shade of gray. Sounds boring.

Or they may live in a world where they don't arbitrarily change the colours to suit pre-conceived notions. Perhaps it would be more analogous to say they aren't looking at their world through tinted lenses.

I'm simply saying this argument is illogical, because it may measure the physical ABILITLY to kill millions, not the DESIRE.

I think Bush has done alot of things wrong and needs to answer for them. I can't say, however, that he has demonstrated anything that could be construed as a DESIRE to behave like Hitler.

Most sane adults could understand my original question, debate some finer points (e.g. How do you define and quantify evil)

You are implying that sane adults would agree with you - bar a few piffling little details which would be worked out reasonably and easily. Thats speculative fantasy. Its also insulting to the people you are debating with.

I agree with BD. There are many fine arguments from the left on this forum against Bush and his policies. You are weakening those arguments because you are borrowing some of the evidence those arguments use and turning them into speculative fantasy.

[MapleBear]

Love is a natural human emotion.

And what is the result of love? Friendships, marriage, etc.

Hates and greed are emotions, too, and they also have results. If you don't believe in evil, then you can hardly believe in good, yet they are probably among the foundations of all major belief systems.

Because we understand love in ourselves we can observe it in others - and also talk to others about it. This further refines our ability to quantify it.

So a quality doesn't exist unless we possess it ourselves?

ISOLATED atrocities? Who's engaging in speculation now?

Please feel free to prove otherwise.

Catch up on your current events. Iraq, Afghanistan, hidden detention cells, even here in the U.S. (remember Captain James Yee?).

There was no one to hold Hitler in check; he answered to no one. Bush has no choice but use some caution.

You are implying a conclusion here - that the only reason that Bush is not behaving like Hitler is that he's forced to caution. Thats pure speculation without real evidence.

You kind of get it, and you kind of don't. First, I'm not reaching a conclusion at all. I very clearly said that the LIMITS of Bush's evil cannot be known at present, but he MIGHT turn out to be another Hitler if given the power.

But let's talk about the CAPABILITLY of executing millions. If Bush was on the verge of entering a war that threatened to kill an estimated ten million people, would his conscience urge him to seek a diplomatic situation, or would he just break out the nukes?

Speculative worst case scenario based on your existing bias toward Bush.

Speculation based on common sense. The man's started a new global arms race, broken a nuclear treaty, militarized space, tried to produce "tactical nukes" and on and on.

Or they may live in a world where they don't arbitrarily change the colours to suit pre-conceived notions. Perhaps it would be more analogous to say they aren't looking at their world through tinted lenses.

As I said earlier, they're philosophical prisoners. When philosophical clashes with common sense, maybe it's time to reexamine your philosophy.

I think Bush has done alot of things wrong and needs to answer for them. I can't say, however, that he has demonstrated anything that could be construed as a DESIRE to behave like Hitler.

Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps this exercise will help you better understand evil... What characteristics are attributed to Hitler?

1. He was power hungry.

2. He was sadistic.

3. He was bent on world conquest.

Now let's compare Bush.

1. Whether Bush is power hungry or not, he's certainly very powerful. The Repugs control Congress and the Supreme Court, and they appear to be purging the CIA. Moreover, Bush does indeed appear to seek greater power, based on his comments and actions.

2. I don't know if stories about Bush torturing animals as child are true; I certainly haven't had the time to investigate them. However, remember Bush's infamous remarks shortly before Karla Fay Tucker (I think that was her name) was executed. Think about his trifecta jokes in the wake of 9/11. Or think about the torture that is now an instrument of military policy. George W. Bush is not a compassionate conservative.

3. Is George W. Bush bent on world conquest? At this point, that's speculation. But we have invaded three nations, two of which strongly support the theory that George Bush, Inc. want to dominate oil fields in the Middle East and Central Asia. In fact, Bush's administration has put lots of pressure on nations around the world. They are also developing weapons that would make world dominance easier.

Most sane adults could understand my original question, debate some finer points (e.g. How do you define and quantify evil)

You are implying that sane adults would agree with you - bar a few piffling little details which would be worked out reasonably and easily. Thats speculative fantasy. Its also insulting to the people you are debating with.

No, I'm suggesting that most sane adults understand what evil is. They know there really was a difference between Adolph Hitler and Mother Theresa, whereas you armchair philosophers scratch your heads and ask, "How are they any different?" That's obviously absurd.

There are many fine arguments from the left on this forum against Bush and his policies. You are weakening those arguments because you are borrowing some of the evidence those arguments use and turning them into speculative fantasy.

Frankly, you sound like a propagandist who's bent on persuading me not to insult George W. Bush - at least, not to compare him to Adolph Hitler.

[Black Dog]

You're a prisoner of your own philosophy. You can't call anyone evil (except possibly Adolph Hitler), because you don't understand what evil is, it's subjective, etc., and you can't call anyone handsome, beautiful or ugly. Apparently, you live in a world where everything is the same shade of gray. Sounds boring.

This really says it all. Who needs nuance and rationality when we can have hysterical hyperbole! That's exciting!

[MapleBear]

You're a prisoner of your own philosophy. You can't call anyone evil (except possibly Adolph Hitler), because you don't understand what evil is, it's subjective, etc., and you can't call anyone handsome, beautiful or ugly. Apparently, you live in a world where everything is the same shade of gray. Sounds boring.

This really says it all. Who needs nuance and rationality when we can have hysterical hyperbole! That's exciting!

Who needs a solid debate when people can just hide behind words like "nuance" and "subjective"?

Gee, do you think terrorists really destroyed the World Trade Center, or did they just rearrange its atoms into something much better???

[The Terrible Sweal]

Would this same argument have arisen if the question were: "How wicked is GWB?" or "How destructive is GWB? or "How bad is GWB?" or "Is George Bush a stupid prick?"

[Black Dog]

Who needs a solid debate when people can just hide behind words like "nuance" and "subjective"?

I think at this point, others have done such a thourough job of derailing your arguments that I don't need to address that aspect.

But the above comment is telling in that it reveals a craving for simple answers (which was revealed earlie rby your disdain for "shades of grey"). It's precisely that kind of thinking "good/evil, us/them" that George Bush and his kind are such expwert practicioners of is also responsible for the degredation of American political discourse (I aplogize if these terms are overly complex). Frankly,it surprises me to see a Bush opponet espousing such bianary thinking.

[MapleBear]

Would this same argument have arisen if the question were: "How wicked is GWB?" or "How destructive is GWB? or "How bad is GWB?" or "Is George Bush a stupid prick?"

Would this same argument have arisen if the question were:  "How wicked is GWB?"  or "How destructive is GWB? or "How bad is GWB?" or "Is George Bush a stupid prick?"

1. I think "wicked" has pretty much the same meaing as "evil."

2. Bush's destructiveness is very obvious. Just look at how he's trashed Afghanistan and Iraq - or the United States.

3. Bad is a tough one. I would consider it a combination of evil and destructiveness - or capability of destructiveness. A bad or evil person in command of nuclear weapons is a lot "badder" than a bad person in command of a box of rotten tomatoes.

4. Is George W. Bush a stupid prick? Ha! The answer's obviously yes, though the philosophers on this forum would ask, "What does stupid mean? What's a prick? Do I exist? And where's my pencili?!"