Jump to content

How Evil is George W. Bush?


Recommended Posts

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.

Now there's a cheap propagand technique - claiming victory.

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").

I crave SUFFICIENT answers. If the truth is complex, so be it. But I don't go in search of a philosophical romp through the wilderness if the answer is right under my nose.

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).

Actually, good and evil do exist, whether you perceive them or not. The problem is that Bush has the titles mixed up. Just as you claim victory on this thread, Bush claims he's one of the good guys.

Likewise, the American sheeple are correct in speaking out vigorously against evil. Again, the problem is that many are just too stupid to distinguish good from evil. Thus, right-wingers perceive George W. Bush as a Christian (so was Adolph Hitler), while many liberals can't see the demons in their own ranks.

Frankly,it surprises me to see a Bush opponet espousing such bianary thinking.

I'm not sure what "bianary thinking" is. Sounds like more FUD to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Now there's a cheap propagand technique - claiming victory.

I didn't say "I won", only that it's been shown that your case is weak.

I crave SUFFICIENT answers. If the truth is complex, so be it. But I don't go in search of a philosophical romp through the wilderness if the answer is right under my nose.

Ahem: the questionis "How evil is George W. Bush." which implies an objective standard of evil. For instance: is he Hitler evil, or just Pol Pot evil? How about Sadam evil? Or Charles Manson evil?

But, since we can say that no such standard exists and that evil, more or less, is in the eye of the beholder, your question is meaningless.

Actually, good and evil do exist, whether you perceive them or not. The problem is that Bush has the titles mixed up. Just as you claim victory on this thread, Bush claims he's one of the good guys.

Which neatly illustrates my point as to the futility of resorting to abstract terms like good and evil.

I'm not sure what "bianary thinking" is. 

Binary: Characterized by or consisting of two parts or components; twofold.

ie. good and evil. You getting this yet?

Sounds like more FUD to me.

:huh: ??

Finally, even if we were able, somehow, to conclude that Bush is, in fact, evil: so f--king what? Does that give us some new weapon to use in policiy debates?

"Well, the biggest problem with Bush's tax cuts is not that it disproporinately benefits the rich at the expense of the middle class, but that he is evil."

"The situation in Iraq cannot be resolved by greater global cooperation or withdrawl of American forces, only by recognition of Bush's evilness."

Shall I dust off my pitchfork and light up some torches so we can go storm Castle Bush?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now there's a cheap propagand technique - claiming victory.
I didn't say "I won", only that it's been shown that your case is weak.

OK - WE won, or THEY won; same thing. I never declared anyone the winner.

I crave SUFFICIENT answers. If the truth is complex, so be it. But I don't go in search of a philosophical romp through the wilderness if the answer is right under my nose.
Ahem: the questionis "How evil is George W. Bush." which implies an objective standard of evil. For instance: is he Hitler evil, or just Pol Pot evil? How about Sadam evil? Or Charles Manson evil?

You're trying to split hairs that are far too fine. I think most people would put Pol Pot, Hussein and Manson in the same general category. The question is this: Is it fair to put George W. Bush in this same category, or to suggest that he may be "evil" enough to one day be included in this category? Or, as right-wingers suggest, is it absurd to imagine that Bush could be that evil?

But, since we can say that no such standard exists and that evil, more or less, is in the eye of the beholder, your question is meaningless.

Yes, my question is in the eye of the beholder, but there are many millions of beholders, many who bear the scars of evil. People who have lost arms, legs, homes or loved ones to people like George Bush and Pol Pot cannot are not usually interested in philosophical games. My question is not meaningless to them.

Actually, good and evil do exist, whether you perceive them or not. The problem is that Bush has the titles mixed up. Just as you claim victory on this thread, Bush claims he's one of the good guys.
Which neatly illustrates my point as to the futility of resorting to abstract terms like good and evil.

On the contrary, it demonstrates the power of propaganda and the necessity of countering it. If Bush is going to claim to be a Christian, his enemies should trumpet the Hitler comparison louder than before.

Finally, even if we were able, somehow, to conclude that Bush is, in fact, evil: so f--king what? Does that give us some new weapon to use in policiy debates?

Let's go back to square one. I asked my original question in response to the right-wingers who claim it's absurd or obscene to compare George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler. They don't make this claim because the comparison is "subjective." They unanimously abhor Adolph Hitler, but they adore George W. Bush. The Christian right believes very strongly in good and evil, and they regard Bush as good.

So if we concluded that Bush is evil, it would give us a powerful weapon to counter right-wing propaganda; i.e. truth.

Shall I dust off my pitchfork and light up some torches so we can go storm Castle Bush?

What's the point? Though I'm not philosophically opposed to violence, I have enough common sense to realize that it would be futile at this point. Why resort to violence when U.S. voters aren't even taking advantage of what's left of their democracy?

As far as that goes, I think the international communitiy should also hang its head in shame. Adolph Hitler taught us the folly of appeasement. Yet what have world leaders done but appease Bush? They should have publicly branded him a moron and compared him to Adolph Hitler. They should have threatened a variety of retaliations if he was re-elected.

Of course, there is a theory that some nations like George W. Bush because he's the best tool for accomplishing their ultimate goal - the destruction of America. Nothing evil about that, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How Evil is George W. Bush?

Not "Evil" enough...........for if he was, and followed the likes of Hilter, Mao and Stalin he would have long since invaded Canada (and many more untold countries) and put all of his detractors into prison or had them shot. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush doesn't need to invade Canada as long as he can pressure its government to generally support him - or at least nor make too much trouble.

When has Bush been sucessful in any of that? A real evil person wouldn't have wasted time on such niceties such as diplomacy......he would have ordered a couple of National Guard Divisions across the boarder :rolleyes:

Hell, taking Canada would have been easier then Iraq....just a short drive over the 49th......and think about it, we have more than just oil.

As for the rest, he may well be working on it. Who knows? Remember, Hitler didn't rise to power overnight.

Do you know? Is his government reading your mind with a laser beam being directed into the fillings in your teeth by the CIA agents in the Black (silent) helicopters outside your windows? :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush doesn't need to invade Canada as long as he can pressure its government to generally support him - or at least nor make too much trouble.
When has Bush been sucessful in any of that?

Aside from a little name calling, do you think Canada has had much influence on Bush?

A real evil person wouldn't have wasted time on such niceties such as diplomacy......he would have ordered a couple of National Guard Divisions across the boarder rolleyes.gif

Once again, you're confusing intelligence with stupidity. Using your logic, Adolph Hitler should have invaded Poland when he was 18. But Hitler wasn't stupid; he waited until he was a government official and had a military at his disposal.

Bush has a military at his disposal, but invading Canada now would still be stupid.

Hell, taking Canada would have been easier then Iraq....just a short drive over the 49th......and think about it, we have more than just oil.

You're dreaming. Canada has a large population capable of waging guerilla warfare over a vast area, much of it wilderness. Moreover, if you think there are a lot of Americans who don't support the illegal invasion of Iraq, just imagine how they'd feel if we invaded Canada. Bush could wind up with a civil war on his hands.

Even I don't credit Bush with that kind of stupidity.

Do you know? Is his government reading your mind with a laser beam being directed into the fillings in your teeth by the CIA agents in the Black (silent) helicopters outside your windows?

That's too lame to even qualify as propaganda. It's simply an insult - a very lame one at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with the arguments people I assume are conservative are using against my original post is that they're too damned liberal - as in wishy-wish or flip flop liberal. The situation reeks of irony.

If I understand it correctly, you either don't believe in evil, or you don't think it can be measured - even in rough terms. Evil is such an elusive concept, we shouldn't even mention it in serious conversations. It's just too "subjective."

So what about the concept of "bad," which most people would perceive as a lesser evil? What about "good"? I can only assume you feel the same about them.

And wouldn't "corrupt" and "stupid" fit into the same general category???

So imagine you're talking to a group of children about politics, and they ask you about comparisons between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler. Which of the following are you going to tell them?:

1) Boys and girls, neither Bush nor Hitler were evil, because evil doesn't exist. Hitler was no worse than your next door neighbor.

2) Bush couldn't possibly be as evil as Hitler. After all, Hitler killed millions of people, while Bush has only killed thousands, and we all know that evil is measured by military might, not a person's heart.

3) George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler aren't evil, a term that's subjective. Therefore, they can't even be considered bad. So the next time you read about some despot who has murdered 10,000 or 10 million people, just remember, he isn't really bad.

4) Hitler was indeed evil - far more evil than George W. Bush. After all, Bush didn't even invade Canada during his first term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from a little name calling, do you think Canada has had much influence on Bush?

I doubt it, to tell you the truth......and as soon as Canadians understand that you can't win (pardon the expression) a dick measuring contest with an elephant, the better off we will be.

Once again, you're confusing intelligence with stupidity. Using your logic, Adolph Hitler should have invaded Poland when he was 18. But Hitler wasn't stupid; he waited until he was a government official and had a military at his disposal.

:huh:

What year did Hitler take power? What year did Hitler take over the Sudetenland? Austria? Start world war two by invading Poland?

How many years seperate 1933 to 1939?

How many years seperate Bush coming to power and now?

Explain your logic about the entire young Hitler thing again.....or stop smoking rockets before you post.

Bush has a military at his disposal, but invading Canada now would still be stupid.

Why?

You're dreaming. Canada has a large population capable of waging guerilla warfare over a vast area, much of it wilderness. Moreover, if you think there are a lot of Americans who don't support the illegal invasion of Iraq, just imagine how they'd feel if we invaded Canada. Bush could wind up with a civil war on his hands.

Canada's population is only about 8 million more then Iraq. Also, unlike Iraq, the average Canadian does not have access to automatic weapons, RPGs, plastic explosives and is not supported by a world wide network of terrorists.

It doesn't mater how many Americans would or would not support the invasion of Canada :rolleyes: ........Bush is evil remeber.....evil people don't take polls.

As for any potentail civil war, since Bush is evil, he can just turn his military onto the dissidents.......I'm sure the Americans still have some chemical weapons somewhere........Bush is evil remember.

That's too lame to even qualify as propaganda. It's simply an insult - a very lame one at that.

It's not an insult.......it's a bloody serious question.....how do you know and can ALCAN tin-foil defeat EVIL American mind control waves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from a little name calling, do you think Canada has had much influence on Bush?
I doubt it, to tell you the truth......and as soon as Canadians understand that you can't win (pardon the expression) a dick measuring contest with an elephant, the better off we will be.

Are you saying Canadians should just surrender to Bush?

1. How many years seperate 1933 to 1939?

2. How many years seperate Bush coming to power and now?

1. six

2. four

3. Point?

Explain your logic about the entire young Hitler thing again.....or stop smoking rockets before you post.

I have a better idea - explain why you can't understand it.

Bush has a military at his disposal, but invading Canada now would still be stupid.
Why?

Are you suggesting that invading Canada would NOT be stupid? Do you think it would be SMART to invade Canada - at the very time we're bogged down in Iraq? Would you like to see Bush invade Canada?

Canada's population is only about 8 million more then Iraq. Also, unlike Iraq, the average Canadian does not have access to automatic weapons, RPGs, plastic explosives and is not supported by a world wide network of terrorists.

Nor are Canadians beaten down the way Iraq was before we invaded. Canada has a modern military; they sent troops to Afghanistan, remember? To Hell with what the average Canadian has access to; their government can arm them.

And how many U.S. citizens would flock across the border to help them - or help them from the U.S. side of the border? You sound like Donald Rumsfeld; I bet you would expect Canadians to greet invading U.S. troops with flowers.

It doesn't mater how many Americans would or would not support the invasion of Canada rolleyes.gif ........Bush is evil remeber.....evil people don't take polls.

Like I said, evil doesn't necessarily equate to stupidity. If a poll revealed that 50 million Americans would rise up in arms in response to an invasion of Canada, Bush would not be inclined to invade Canada - unless he's even more stupid than I imagine.

As for any potentail civil war, since Bush is evil, he can just turn his military onto the dissidents.......

I'm sure he would; but it isn't a scenario he would welcome - for obvious reasons.

I'm sure the Americans still have some chemical weapons somewhere........Bush is evil remember.
It's not an insult.......it's a bloody serious question.....how do you know and can ALCAN tin-foil defeat EVIL American mind control waves?

Huh???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying Canadians should just surrender to Bush?

No, but be more willing to work with him and to understand the part America plays on our lives.

1. six

2. four

3. Point?

So Bush could start his invasion in two more years? Is that the SOP of really evil people?

have a better idea - explain why you can't understand it.

Why did you state that Hitler should invaded Poland at 18 years old?

Are you suggesting that invading Canada would NOT be stupid? Do you think it would be SMART to invade Canada - at the very time we're bogged down in Iraq? Would you like to see Bush invade Canada?

It doesn't mater what I think, Bush is evil remeber :rolleyes:

Nor are Canadians beaten down the way Iraq was before we invaded. Canada has a modern military; they sent troops to Afghanistan, remember? To Hell with what the average Canadian has access to; their government can arm them.

A modern military....... :lol: their government can arm them :lol: Do you understand the state the Military is in? The New York City police department is larger then our army :rolleyes:

And how many U.S. citizens would flock across the border to help them - or help them from the U.S. side of the border? You sound like Donald Rumsfeld; I bet you would expect Canadians to greet invading U.S. troops with flowers.

It doesn't mater......it would just make more targets for American guns.

Like I said, evil doesn't necessarily equate to stupidity. If a poll revealed that 50 million Americans would rise up in arms in response to an invasion of Canada, Bush would not be inclined to invade Canada - unless he's even more stupid than I imagine.

How many Russians did Stalin kill?

I'm sure he would; but it isn't a scenario he would welcome - for obvious reasons

Bah, it would be a minor inconvince for a person as evil as Bush......

Huh???

Explain why you don't understand.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying Canadians should just surrender to Bush?
No, but be more willing to work with him and to understand the part America plays on our lives.

Stupid move.

1. six

2. four

3. Point?

So Bush could start his invasion in two more years? Is that the SOP of really evil people?

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.

Why did you state that Hitler should invaded Poland at 18 years old?

I was using your logic; see above.

Are you suggesting that invading Canada would NOT be stupid? Do you think it would be SMART to invade Canada - at the very time we're bogged down in Iraq? Would you like to see Bush invade Canada?

It doesn't mater what I think, Bush is evil remeber rolleyes.gif

I see - you just got out of bed and are in goofy mood. I think that's the end of this exchange for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am interested in, MapleBear, is just a bit of clarification if you don't mind. You just posted this:

has laid the groundwork for World War III.

What I'm curious to know is if these are your operating beliefs:

1) George Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attack.

2) George Bush is working toward gaining dictatorial powers. When he gains these powers he will begin a campaign of conquest to establish total global dominance. You theorise that he may well be as 'evil' as Hitler.

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.

Is that an accurate summation of your position? I'm not asking you to back up your position only seeking to understand exactly what that is. If these are not your views then I ask you to please summarise them succintly. I will stress that I'm not trying to debate these points at this time - only want to know where you are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm curious to know is if these are your operating beliefs:

1) George Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attack.

2) George Bush is working toward gaining dictatorial powers. When he gains these powers he will begin a campaign of conquest to establish total global dominance. You theorise that he may well be as 'evil' as Hitler.

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I only have one more question for you MapleBear. I may not be able to log back in for a few days (and there again I may be able to) so feel free to take your time if you like. The question is based on the assumption that George Bush wishes to expand his power - and stay in power. Which, I gather, you consider quite likely to occur (correct me if I'm wrong).

How do you foresee George Bush being able to rewrite the constitution to allow himself to stay in power beyond his second term? The implication, of course, being that if he can't alter the constitution then he is never going to be capable of becoming a dictator. As things stand now there is a definite time limit on the executive power that he possesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

Its a bit simplistic to say that they will simply be able to do it if they want to (which is a BIG if). Modifying it to allow foreign-born citizens to serve as president has nothing to do with it.

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.

Then my question has everything to do with the topic. Your premise is that Bush may 'reveal' his 'evil' nature if he gains more power. You seem to be postulating that he will make a 'grab for power' as it were. My question relates to how this would even be possible. If he can't alter the constitution to allow himself more then two terms of executive power then his 'evil grab for power' will come to a screaming halt. If he can't gain that power then your question, given its operating premise, is rendered completely irrelevant.

BTW thankyou for replying quickly. It gave me a chance to reply myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)
Its a bit simplistic to say that they will simply be able to do it if they want to (which is a BIG if). Modifying it to allow foreign-born citizens to serve as president has nothing to do with it.

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.

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.
Then my question has everything to do with the topic. Your premise is that Bush may 'reveal' his 'evil' nature if he gains more power. You seem to be postulating that he will make a 'grab for power' as it were. My question relates to how this would even be possible. If he can't alter the constitution to allow himself more then two terms of executive power then his 'evil grab for power' will come to a screaming halt.

You seem to forget that Bush just stole office again. He has AT LEAST four more years to grab power.

If he can't gain that power then your question, given its operating premise, is rendered completely irrelevant.

Baloney. All it means is that we may never know the full extent of Bush's evil, greed, corruption and stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't really answered the question MapleBear. All you have offered is assertions that it can be done. Thats not substantive.

You seem to forget that Bush just stole office again. He has AT LEAST four more years to grab power.

I'm not going to comment on whether or not he stole office. I am aware there is some evidence of vote tampering but am not drawing conclusions yet. I haven't forgotten, however, that Bush is in his second term. I can't understant what would make you believe that. In fact it makes my question even more urgent for you. He only has one term left and then there will be a new president. No amount of vote tampering will allow him a third term. You claim he has at least four years. The truth is he has at most four years. That is fact based on reality.

All it means is that we may never know the full extent of Bush's evil, greed, corruption and stupidity.

I won't be lying awake at nights wondering - not about his 'evilness' anyway. Its proving to be a somewhat meaningless line of speculation. By now others (and, hopefully, myself) have debunked this thread topic. Unless you can come up with something that will make this question real and substantive I think I'm done with this particular debate. Debates based (at least on one side) on assertions ultimately just become circular and meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't really answered the question MapleBear. All you have offered is assertions that it can be done. Thats not substantive.

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?

I'm not going to comment on whether or not he stole office. I am aware there is some evidence of vote tampering but am not drawing conclusions yet.

U.S. elections involve far more than vote tampering. I know; I've run for office myself.

I haven't forgotten, however, that Bush is in his second term. I can't understant what would make you believe that. In fact it makes my question even more urgent for you. He only has one term left and then there will be a new president. No amount of vote tampering will allow him a third term.

It will if the Republicans amend the Constitution.

You claim he has at least four years. The truth is he has at most four years. That is fact based on reality.

No, it's speculation. How do you know what the future holds in store?

By now others (and, hopefully, myself) have debunked this thread topic.

Cheap propaganda technique - claiming victory where there is none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I will make one more post.

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?

I've addressed that earlier. I said:

Then my question has everything to do with the topic. Your premise is that Bush may 'reveal' his 'evil' nature if he gains more power. You seem to be postulating that he will make a 'grab for power' as it were. My question relates to how this would even be possible. If he can't alter the constitution to allow himself more then two terms of executive power then his 'evil grab for power' will come to a screaming halt. If he can't gain that power then your question, given its operating premise, is rendered completely irrelevant

Absolutely relevant to your house of cards scenario. Your question, which centres around his potential use of power - and requires him to gain more power, is only relevant (even then marginally) if he is able to gain that power in the first place. If you can't prove that is possible and likely then all your assertions collapse under their own weight.

U.S. elections involve far more than vote tampering. I know; I've run for office myself.

You've said something to that effect before. Its an assertion. You are not backing it up with anything like real detail and evidence.

It will if the Republicans amend the Constitution.

IF. A very big IF. There is NOTHING to indicate that they will attempt such a thing. Give EVIDENCE.

Me:

You claim he has at least four years. The truth is he has at most four years. That is fact based on reality.

You:

No, it's speculation. How do you know what the future holds in store?

It is not speculation that the constitution means he can serve a maximum of two terms. To predict otherwise is speculation.

Cheap propaganda technique - claiming victory where there is none.

I am claiming that your arguments have been refuted using reasoned arguments. All you offer in return is assertions - without evidence. I am further claiming that will lead to a meaningless circular debate as you continue to assert yourself without evidence. Until and unless you bring real arguments to the table to support your extraordinary theories I am not going to continue to contribute. That, to my mind, is not victory - it is withdrawal because this has been and continues to be an unsupported non-issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your premise is that Bush may 'reveal' his 'evil' nature if he gains more power. You seem to be postulating that he will make a 'grab for power' as it were. My question relates to how this would even be possible. If he can't alter the constitution to allow himself more then two terms of executive power then his 'evil grab for power' will come to a screaming halt. If he can't gain that power then your question, given its operating premise, is rendered completely irrelevant

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?

Your question, which centres around his potential use of power - and requires him to gain more power, is only relevant (even then marginally) if he is able to gain that power in the first place.

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.

If you can't prove that is possible and likely then all your assertions collapse under their own weight.

See above.

U.S. elections involve far more than vote tampering. I know; I've run for office myself.
You've said something to that effect before. Its an assertion. You are not backing it up with anything like real detail and evidence.

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?

It will if the Republicans amend the Constitution.
IF. A very big IF. There is NOTHING to indicate that they will attempt such a thing. Give EVIDENCE.

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.

Cheap propaganda technique - claiming victory where there is none.
I am claiming that your arguments have been refuted using reasoned arguments. All you offer in return is assertions - without evidence.

All you offer is philosophical meandering and spurious arguments that don't address the original question.

I am further claiming that will lead to a meaningless circular debate as you continue to assert yourself without evidence. Until and unless you bring real arguments to the table to support your extraordinary theories I am not going to continue to contribute. That, to my mind, is not victory - it is withdrawal because this has been and continues to be an unsupported non-issue.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you know? The Right has quite a sense of humour after all. I appreciate a well aimed piece of humour. Thanks Stoker.

On a more serious note it certainly speaks to the truth. There isn't really any evidence to support the global military ambitions of the George 'Hitler" Bush.

Of course if the moon turns into a blue marshmallow and Bush invades Canada then I'll pretend that I knew all along...

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
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

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