How Evil is George W. Bush?

[Argus]

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.

I think using a term like "evil" with reference to fairly bland, generally well-meaning, if sometimes corrupt politicians tends to dilute the meaning of the term - and frankly, makes people who do so look idiotic.

Mike Harris was not evil, nor even a bad man in sum. He had a political vision he believed would help make his country a better place to live. Clearly many shared that vision as he was re-elected by popular vote.

Bush is not a man of vision, nor a man of evil. He is a bland, plodding man, somewhat arrant, somewhat intellectually lazy, probably bigoted. Evil? Nope. I don't buy it. Dick Cheney can at least be called bad, perhaps crooked, but I don't think he qualifies as evil either. Evil is a term reserved for men who do awful things for awful, usually selfish reasons, knowing the cost of what they do and not caring.

Killing a lot of people is not neccesarily evil if it is meant to prevent the death of a lot more people. It might be an evil act, or might not. But the man who does so with good intentions, ie, to save others, is not evil in sum. If Bush's meddling around in the middle east is designed to reform the region, give its people an example of democracy, divert them from their growing fascination for extremist religion, and challenge the brutal dictators who have held sway there so long then it is not an evil act, though some innocents might die in the doing of it. If it succeeds, it will be well worth those deaths - taking the greater view, anyway. Because far, far more lives will be saved in the long run.

[MapleBear]

Evil is a term reserved for men who do awful things for awful, usually selfish reasons, knowing the cost of what they do and not caring.

E.g. invading sovereign nations for corporate gain, attacking labor unions, exploiting public education, Haliburton and other scandals that have ruined the lives of millions. But that doesn't make Bush and Cheney evil - it just means they're very bland.

Killing a lot of people is not neccesarily evil if it is meant to prevent the death of a lot more people. It might be an evil act, or might not. But the man who does so with good intentions, ie, to save others, is not evil in sum. If Bush's meddling around in the middle east is designed to reform the region, give its people an example of democracy...

???

divert them from their growing fascination for extremist religion...

By recruiting more terrorists?

and challenge the brutal dictators who have held sway there so long then it is not an evil act, though some innocents might die in the doing of it.

"Some," as in over 100,000 in Iraq.

If it succeeds, it will be well worth those deaths - taking the greater view, anyway.

And if it doesn't succeed, we can just chalk it up as a well-meaning adventure by some very bland men. They can send a message to surviving Iraqis, "Nevermind!"

[Stoker]

invading sovereign nations for corporate gain,

Can you prove that claim?

attacking labor unions

What is evil about that?

exploiting public education,

{see child left behind}

Haliburton

You already mentioned corporate gain as the reason for war.......prove it!

other scandals that have ruined the lives of millions.

Like what?

[MapleBear]

invading sovereign nations for corporate gain,

Can you prove that claim?

See "Haliburton."

attacking labor unions

What is evil about that?

Why, nothing! What's evil abour murder?

exploiting public education,

{see child left behind}

Good example; thanks.

You already mentioned corporate gain as the reason for war.......prove it!

Haliburton, no bid contracts, corporate mercenaries...what more proof do you want - a signed confession from Dick Cheney???

other scandals that have ruined the lives of millions.

Like what?

9/11, Enron and the California "Energy Crisis," corporate tax cuts, outsourcing, and on and on.

To put it in perspective, who has George W. Bush helped, other than George W. Bush and his corporate pals?

[Stoker]

See "Haliburton."

Can you prove that the war was fought for Haliburton?

Why, nothing! What's evil abour murder?

Can you provide an example, one that shows Bush having ties to a murder.......

Haliburton, no bid contracts, corporate mercenaries...what more proof do you want - a signed confession from Dick Cheney???

I haven't denied the fact that some corporations have gained from the war........but whats wrong with that?

However you claim:

invading sovereign nations for corporate gain

Which leads me to beleive that you think the war was fought for corporate gains as the sole (or major) reason........prove it.

9/11, Enron and the California "Energy Crisis," corporate tax cuts, outsourcing, and on and on.

To put it in perspective, who has George W. Bush helped, other than George W. Bush and his corporate pals?

Can you prove Bush had involment in 9/11?

In Enron?

In the "Energy crisis"?

Whats wrong with corporate tax cuts and outsourcing? Has either led the United States to no longer hold the postion as the worlds largest economy?

And whats "on and on"?

To put it in perspective, who has George W. Bush helped, other than George W. Bush and his corporate pals?

I'd imagine the majority of Americans that voted for him and his party in the recent election.........

[MapleBear]

Stoker wrote...

See "Haliburton."

Can you prove that the war was fought for Haliburton?

Can you prove it was fought for democracy or to protect America?

Why, nothing! What's evil abour murder?

Can you provide an example, one that shows Bush having ties to a murder.......

1) Iraq, 2) Afghanistan

I haven't denied the fact that some corporations have gained from the war........but whats wrong with that?

Which leads me to beleive that you think the war was fought for corporate gains as the sole (or major) reason........prove it.

You question leads me to suspect you think the war was fought for something else. What do you think it was fought for? Can you prove it?

9/11, Enron and the California "Energy Crisis," corporate tax cuts, outsourcing, and on and on.

To put it in perspective, who has George W. Bush helped, other than George W. Bush and his corporate pals?

Can you prove Bush had involment in 9/11?

No, but there's powerful evidence suggesting as much. Can you prove his hands are clean?

In Enron?

Do the math.

In the "Energy crisis"?

See Enron.

Whats wrong with corporate tax cuts and outsourcing? Has either led the United States to no longer hold the postion as the worlds largest economy?

What good is to boast of the world's largest economy if workers are getting screwed? Sorry, I'm not a big fan of voodoo economics and "jobless recoveries."

And whats "on and on"?

More things you don't understand.

To put it in perspective, who has George W. Bush helped, other than George W. Bush and his corporate pals?

I'd imagine the majority of Americans that voted for him and his party in the recent election.........

How has he helped the voters? Remember, Adolph Hitler won an election, too - and we all know what he did for Germany's voters.

[Argus]

Evil is a term reserved for men who do awful things for awful, usually selfish reasons, knowing the cost of what they do and not caring.

E.g. invading sovereign nations for corporate gain,

Yes, that would be an evil act - if that were the real reason why the US invaded Iraq. I don't believe that to be the case, however.

attacking labor unions, exploiting public education, Haliburton and other scandals that have ruined the lives of millions. But that doesn't make Bush and Cheney evil - it just means they're very bland.

Exploiting various situations and dealing corruptly with corporations is fairly routine for politicians all over the globe, including here in Canada.

And if it doesn't succeed, we can just chalk it up as a well-meaning adventure by some very bland men. They can send a message to surviving Iraqis, "Nevermind!"

Criminal stupidity does not neccesarily make one evil. If it doesn't work a lot of people will have lost their lives for - essentially - nothing. But intent is important in establishing the use of terms like "evil".

[caesar]

Criminal stupidity does not neccesarily make one evil. If it doesn't work a lot of people will have lost their lives for - essentially - nothing. But intent is important in establishing the use of terms like "evil".

I don't think Iraqi people who lost their loved ones or who are suffering and maimed would consider Bush to not be evil. The evidence was there that whatever evidence Bush and Co had was fraudulent, out of date, forgeries or just plain irrelevant PRIOR to that unjustified invasion of Iraq. As a leader of the sole super power; He should have used some common sense and listened to the advice of other world leaders.

I don't think the mothers, wives and children of soldiers who lose their lives, limbs, mobility or their minds will find solace in the realization that it was completely meaninless and without justification.

[caesar]

Evil is a term reserved for men who do awful things for awful, usually selfish reasons, knowing the cost of what they do and not caring.

A great discription of GW Bush and puppetmaster Cheney.

[Tawasakm]

Can you prove it was fought for democracy or to protect America?

Unless I am misreading things he didn't make any specific claims regarding cause but asked you to back up your claim. As you made the claim/assertion, MapleBear, surely the onus is on you to provide evidence to back it up when challenged. If anyone disagrees with your evidence they can challenge it. If someone makes an assertion you disagree with then you can challenge them to provide supporting evidence. If everyone operates by these rules this debate will not become circular (as I fear is inevitable) and become alot more meaningful. Hopefully more people would join in then. I'd jump back onto my soapbox aswell. Just remember that if you make the assertion then its up to you to provide supporting evidence (not more assertions and generalisations) when asked. This forum is great because that is the way it has been operating.

[caesar]

MapleBear, surely the onus is on you to provide evidence to back it up when challenged

WHY????? It is a waste of time and space finding proof or evidence with stoker. He just ignores it.

If I make a statement it is up to the respondent to show why he does not agree and show cause.

[MapleBear]

WHY????? It is a waste of time and space finding proof or evidence with stoker. He just ignores it.

If I make a statement it is up to the respondent to show why he does not agree and show cause.[/.quote]

Exactly. I've learned that when right-wingers ask for "proof," what they want is a signed confession or a court conviction. I link to articles or references, and they say that's not good enough. No amount or kind of evidence is ever good enough. Logic isn't good enough. So screw it.

I'm talking about BIG and VERY POPULAR issues that have been debated to death in countless forums. The cards are on the table. Well, not all of them, but enough of them.

There are two sides to this argument:

1. Iraq was invaded for noble purposes (generally including one or more of the following: To protect Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, to establish a democracy in Iraq, to protect America from Iraq)

2. Iraq was invaded for evil purposes (generally including one or more of the following: secure oil supplies, dominate the Middle East, enrich U.S. corporations, divert attention from George W. Bush's domestic problems, help get the bastard re-Selected, avenge George Bush's father)

Even the war's supporters are hard pressed to call the war legal. They're increasingly taking to simply glossing over that matter, saying "Who cares? It was the right thing to do. End of argument."

In the meantime, the evidence for an immoral war with sinister purposes piles up all around us. Only a blind man could not see it - or a Republican.

[Tawasakm]

If I make a statement it is up to the respondent to show why he does not agree and show cause.

Well I can understand that point of view caesar. The issue, to my mind, is one of quality control. If there is an onus on a poster to provide real evidence to support assertions in the first instance it clears away the clutter. Otherwise people may very well start "Elvis is Alive" threads or similar nonsenses. So I think the initial responsibility for providing evidence needs to belong to the original poster.

I think what you say is true if you have already provided substantive evidence supporting your assertion. If you have not yet done that then I don't think it is reasonable for a debate to continue until and unless you have. This prevents spurious topics and reasoning from gaining a foothold on the forum.

As it says in the rules:

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

Which I interpret to mean you must be prepared to justify your position with evidence.

Also I think this topic has possibly been duplicated. Please refer to this:

Cross posting is defined as posting the same information in more then one forum on the Internet. It is also considered cross posting if you post the same information in different areas of these forums. If you want to propose a new topic, find the appropriate category and only post once. All cross-posts will be deleted without warning.

In this instance it is the point about people internationally calling Bush evil and therefore making your question valid. I explained in the Turkish thread why I thought it was duplicated.

Basically we all have an onus to back up our statements with official evidence.

I've learned that when right-wingers ask for "proof," what they want is a signed confession or a court conviction. I link to articles or references, and they say that's not good enough.

Linking to official sources is good enough. If your interpretation of that information is questioned (or the validity of the source) then that is also fair enough.

[MapleBear]

You're really desperate to shoot down this thread, aren't you? How many spurious arguments have you raised? How many times have you said you're finished debating it, only to return to the debate? You don't like my refusal to meet what's-his-name's demand for "proof." You don't like my similar but different thread about a Turkish official comparing Bush to Hitler.

Tawasakm...

Well I can understand that point of view caesar. The issue, to my mind, is one of quality control. If there is an onus on a poster to provide real evidence to support assertions in the first instance it clears away the clutter.

I generally agree, but with some caveats. For starters, some of the issues that are now being debated on this thread are BIG, well known issues. Entire threads have undoubtedly been devoted to the question of WHY George Bush illegally invaded Iraq. I've certainly seen hundreds of such threads on other forums. It's been hotly debated in the media.

Yet you want to start another debate about the rationale for the war on this thread? How could that possibly "clear away the clutter"?

I assume people who visit this forum have passed Politics 101. They know the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq, and they've heard both sides of the argument. They either support the illegal invasion of Iraq (generally claiming it had moral or practical value), or they do not support the illegal invasion of Iraq. It's that simple.

I think what you say is true if you have already provided substantive evidence supporting your assertion. If you have not yet done that then I don't think it is reasonable for a debate to continue until and unless you have. This prevents spurious topics and reasoning from gaining a foothold on the forum.

Speaking of "spurious topics," see many of the responses to my original post in this thread.

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

So what constitutes an "official source"? Do you think we're going to find an admission of guilt on the White House's website? Are the media "official" sources? If so, which media? (Keep in mind, most of the major media are corrupt, as are many of the alternative media.)

Can I link to an article on one of my websites?

I could link to literally thousands of articles about the justification for the illegal invasion of Iraq. I could link to thousands that condemn it, and you could link to thousands that praise it. What's the point?

I'd suggest that people first endeavor to back up their efforts with logic. Then, I'd suggest they attempt to link to CREDIBLE sources (or sources that may be credible) for more specific claims or less known topics. For example, if you claim Bush made a certain statement on a certain date, you might link to a source. (I could support my claim about Bush celebrating 9/11 with a series of trifecta jokes, but material relating to those jokes have disappeared from the ultimate official source - the White House's website.)

But if we're talking about a broad topic - or a series of broad topics - like the justification for the illegal invasion of Iraq, then it becomes an exercise in futility.

Which I interpret to mean you must be prepared to justify your position with evidence.

As I have.

Also I think this topic has possibly been duplicated. Please refer to this:

Cross posting is defined as posting the same information in more then one forum on the Internet. It is also considered cross posting if you post the same information in different areas of these forums. If you want to propose a new topic, find the appropriate category and only post once. All cross-posts will be deleted without warning.

This thread asks the question "Is Bush evil?" The other thread discusses a Turkish official who compared Bush to Adolph Hitler. There's a difference, even if they're closely related, and I referenced one thread in the other. This thread is a philosophical discussion, while the other is a current event.

In this instance it is the point about people internationally calling Bush evil and therefore making your question valid. I explained in the Turkish thread why I thought it was duplicated.

Replace "valid" with "pertinent." A number of armchair philosophers can't seem to understand the whole point to this thread. They don't think evil exists, or it's too complex to understand or measure.

The Turkish thread emphasizes the point that it DOES matter. This particular Turkish official obviously believes in evil, and the White House is obviously bothered by his statement.

Basically we all have an onus to back up our statements with official evidence.

Which of your statements have you backed up with official evidence? Frankly, I would replace "official" with "credible." Even that term covers a lot of territory, but I think it's a little better than official. If the media are considered official sources, then some people might start quoting Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, opening the door for the Elvis conspiracy theories you so dread.

Looking at it philosophically, it doesn't really matter if evil really exists so long as people BELIEVE it exists. The belief in evil leads people to characterize George W. Bush as evil (how else do you describe a traitor and war criminal?), and the White House responds to such attacks vigorously. Some public officials have been publicly censured or forced to resign for crossing George Bush, Inc.

But I still maintain that evil does exist, even if it's difficult to characterize and quantify. Tentatiavely, I would describe it as an individual's (or group's) capacity or desire to inflict suffering on others. To this, we must factor in the ABILITY to inflict suffering on others.

Adolph Hitler obviously had a tremendous capacity AND ability to inflict suffering on others. George W. Bush obviously has the capacity to kill many tens of thousands of people (and implement torture as U.S. military policy). But he has a lesser capacity - even though he has far greater military power. The problem is that he hasn't achieved total power - dictatorial, plutocratic, or whatever - and the United States is far bigger and more complex than Nazi Germany.

Therefore, we cannot know the full extent of George Bush's capacity for evil simply because he hasn't had an opportunity to "go nuts." (Well, that's an opinion; many people would say he regularly goes nuts, but within some constraints.)

But at the same time, I think the evidence suggests that Bush is capable of far greater destruction - greater evil - than we've witnessed so far. If U.S. troops had murdered 250,000 Iraqi civilians as opposed to 100,000, would Bush call off his dogs? Having already invaded three nations and lobbed numerous threats at others, who could believe that he wouldn't invade others if he thought he could survive the ensuing political turmoil?

So let's say we could somehow rate evil on a scale of 1-10, with Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot rated at 10 and Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger an 8.

George W. Bush would easily rate an 8, alongside Nixon and Kissinger, but I think his well demonstrated sadism strongly suggests a higher rating.

I don't know that Nixon and Kissinger enjoyed murdering people. Rather, it's possible they simply murdered for political or corporate gain. Of course, that's still a horrible thing, but murder for the sake of murder is even worse.

In fact, George W. Bush shows evidence of enjoying the suffering of others. Consider his well publicized derision of Karla Fay Tucker as she was sent to death row. (Type "Karla Fay Tucker" and "George W. Bush" into Google. Here's a good sample: http://www.jregrassroots.org/jre/viewtopic...ic.php?p=41302) Consider the torture that is now so widespread in the U.S. military.

Bottom line: George W. Bush is not a nice guy. Is he truly as evil as Adolph Hitler? We don't know - but do we really want to find out?

[MapleBear]

It might help people understand evil if we tried to quantify it, no matter how crudely. A scale of 1-10 is actually probably too complex, at least at this stage of the game. Let's try a smaller scale:

1 - Nice guy; someone you might want for a partner on a wilderness expedition.

2 - Indifferent to minor pain - If you're emotionally distraught because you just lost the love of your life, don't seek solace from this jerk, because he doesn't give a damn.

3 - Inflicts minor pain - This individual enjoys persecuting people. Many of the elementary school principals recruited by corporations fit this description.

4 - Murders for profit or convenience - This person is willing to kill people for selfish purposes. Many corporate executives fit this profile.

5 - Murders for Pleasure - Some people actually enjoy murdering others. We might further subdivide them into people who enjoy murder as a sort of power trip and those who actually enjoy hearing their victims scream.

I give George W. Bush a 4 at a minimum, Adolph Hitler a 5. However, I strongly suspect Bush rates a 5, as he does show evidence of sadistic behavior.

If you don't believe in evil, you still can't discount this scale (aside from accuracy, thoroughness, etc.). After all, there ARE people who enjoy inflicting pain on others, and there ARE people who kill just for fun. That's exactly what this scale measures. I call it evil. If you care to substitute another term, please do.

[Tawasakm]

You're really desperate to shoot down this thread, aren't you? How many spurious arguments have you raised? How many times have you said you're finished debating it, only to return to the debate? You don't like my refusal to meet what's-his-name's demand for "proof." You don't like my similar but different thread about a Turkish official comparing Bush to Hitler.

Actually I'm not debating your question at this point - rather I am concerned with your approach to it. I certainly don't see my concerns as spurious.

For starters, some of the issues that are now being debated on this thread are BIG, well known issues. Entire threads have undoubtedly been devoted to the question of WHY George Bush illegally invaded Iraq. I've certainly seen hundreds of such threads on other forums. It's been hotly debated in the media.

The question of whether the war was illegal or not has not been resolved in this forum. Feel free to look it up - its very interesting. This isn't about that though. Its about determinging the level of 'evil' he possesses. Anything that proves he's evil you should include. The problem, to my mind, is that while you provide evidence (or at the least the arguments supporting) Bush's misuse of power as regards response to 9/11, his mistakes in foreign and domestic policy etc you don't then provide the LINK between that and your next conclusion (be it that he is evil or involved in 9/11 etc). Without you providing that link I personally find it difficult to have a reasonable debate with you.

I assume people who visit this forum have passed Politics 101. They know the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq, and they've heard both sides of the argument.

People who pass pol sci 101 don't necessarily believe it was illegal - although I think most should realise it was at least a questionable legality and a perhaps dangerous precedent to set. Don't automatically invalidate people who see it differently - wait to see their arguments. Although you may have argued it out with many others you haven't argued it with the people here. I invite you again to revive that particular thread.

Yet you want to start another debate about the rationale for the war on this thread? How could that possibly "clear away the clutter"?

I wanted you to answer a question. You said it was evil to invade a sovereign nation. Actually I think the exact point was that the war was for corporate gain (Haliburton) which was evil. Since you made that contention as part of your argument you should be prepared to back it up if someone questions its validity. He asked you to prove that was why it happened. Since the validity of that statement concerns your argument on how Bush could be considered evil it is not a new debate - it is part of the current debate.

Speaking of "spurious topics," see many of the responses to my original post in this thread.

There have been plently of questions as to the validity of your questions and certain of your claims. If you believe those to be spurious then prove it by backing up your claims with detailed information from (as you want it) credible sources.

So what constitutes an "official source"? Do you think we're going to find an admission of guilt on the White House's website? Are the media "official" sources? If so, which media? (Keep in mind, most of the major media are corrupt, as are many of the alternative media.)

Thats what the rules say - "official". I agree thats a little grey. I looked up the definition of official here.

Of or relating to an office or a post of authority

I'm sure thats good enough to go on.

I'd suggest that people first endeavor to back up their efforts with logic. Then, I'd suggest they attempt to link to CREDIBLE sources (or sources that may be credible) for more specific claims or less known topics.

This is a moderated site. According to its rules you are required to back up your statements with links or reference to official sources.

This thread asks the question "Is Bush evil?" The other thread discusses a Turkish official who compared Bush to Adolph Hitler. There's a difference, even if they're closely related, and I referenced one thread in the other. This thread is a philosophical discussion, while the other is a current event.

The Turkish thread exists to support the validity of this thread. It is part of your argument toward it.

A number of armchair philosophers can't seem to understand the whole point to this thread. They don't think evil exists, or it's too complex to understand or measure.

I, personally, would appreciate it if you stopped dismissively referring to people as 'armchair philosophers'. Especially when you haven't really answered their objections.

The rest of your post relates to your argument regarding evil. As you correctly pointed out I have bowed out of that argument so won't respond to that specifically.

I would point out, however, that the link you provided was to a discussion board. It might have been better to provide a link to the actual article under discussion.

I urge you to reconsider your approach to debating.

[MapleBear]

I urge you to reconsider your approach to debating.

And I suggest you reconsider yours. Jumping back and forth between spurious issues, bowing out of the debate then rejoining it, and asking for links to official sources when you don't offer any yourself is not a debate.

Go back to the beginning of this thread. The title of the thread itself is "How evil is George Bush?" I believe you're one of the individuals who said you either don't believe evil exists or you don't understand it.

If that's the case, then why are you even here? If you don't believe in evil, then my question is moot - yet you remain obsessed with this thread.

In fact, you really can't make any progress in this particular debate if you don't understand what evil is. I've done my best to explain the concept of "evil" and have invited people to provide their own term. Let me try another approach:

What do the people in Group 1 have in common? How about Group 2?

GROUP 1

Adolph Hitler

Pol Pot

Saddam Hussein

GROUP 2

Mother Theresa

Princess Di

Mister Rogers

THAT'S what I mean by evil. Even if you don't believe in evil, you can surely recognize the difference between Adolph Hitler and Mr. Rogers. (Hint: Hitler murdered millions of people; Mr. Rogers killed no one.)

Anyone who doesn't like the word "evil" is invited to supply their own term.

Frankly, I think a lot of people, rather than trying to engage me in honest debate, are simply trying to muddy the water and make me jump through a lot of hoops. No, I'm not inclined to waste my time tracking down links referring to issues that have been debated to death here and elsewhere. If someone tells me the sky is blue (or gray), I don't ask them for a reference.

This is a moderated site. According to its rules you are required to back up your statements with links or reference to official sources.

I edited my original post. It now includes a link to a site that supports my idea that George W. Bush is evil. It also more thoroughly explains the concept of "evil." I would hope that, from now on, anyone who enters this debate understands what I mean by "evil." If they don't think evil exists, they should at least recognize the difference between Adolph Hitler and Mr. Rogers and understand that THAT is what I mean by evil. If they can't understand something as simple as that, then they really have nothing to contribute to this debate.

The thread about the Turkish official is a separate idea, even if it validates the question I raised in this one. It could also validate a thread I may later start focusing on Turkey. So where does it belong - in the George W. Bush thread or the Turkey thread?

I believe someone has commented on a Canadian official who recently came under fire for attacking George W. Bush. Should that thread be consolidated with this one, too?

[Argus]

Criminal stupidity does not neccesarily make one evil. If it doesn't work a lot of people will have lost their lives for - essentially - nothing. But intent is important in establishing the use of terms like "evil".

I don't think Iraqi people who lost their loved ones or who are suffering and maimed would consider Bush to not be evil.

Did Bush kill their loved ones are did they die because of all these criminal gangs and violent, blood-thirsty terrorists blowing things up? If they consider Bush to be evil shouldn't they consider the "resistance" to be evil, as well?

The evidence was there that whatever evidence Bush and Co had was fraudulent, out of date, forgeries or just plain irrelevant PRIOR to that unjustified invasion of Iraq.

Perhaps, but since I don't think WMDs were the real reason why they invaded I don't think that really relates to the issue.

[Argus]

MapleBear, surely the onus is on you to provide evidence to back it up when challenged

WHY????? It is a waste of time and space finding proof or evidence with stoker. He just ignores it.

If I make a statement it is up to the respondent to show why he does not agree and show cause.

I think that almost all of those who despise Bush rape babies and are into bestiality and satanic worship.

Now the onus is on you to prove me wrong.

[MapleBear]

Did Bush kill their loved ones are did they die because of all these criminal gangs and violent, blood-thirsty terrorists blowing things up? If they consider Bush to be evil shouldn't they consider the "resistance" to be evil, as well?

Most have probably been killed by Coalition forces, though many thousands have also been killed by the "resistance." However, keep in mind that the resistance is a diverse group that includes grassroots patriots and terrorists. It's a safe bet that many Iraqis consider both George W. Bush and terrorists who kill Iraqi civilians evil.

I think that almost all of those who despise Bush rape babies and are into bestiality and satanic worship.

Now the onus is on you to prove me wrong.

Your statement is preposterous. It defies logic. One can't cite references because there are none. It lies outside the normal person's common knowledge.

In other words, it's just the latest in a series of spurious arguments that don't address the topic of this thread. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Tawasakm]

Frankly, I think a lot of people, rather than trying to engage me in honest debate, are simply trying to muddy the water and make me jump through a lot of hoops. No, I'm not inclined to waste my time tracking down links referring to issues that have been debated to death here and elsewhere. If someone tells me the sky is blue (or gray), I don't ask them for a reference.

I'm not trying to get you to jump through hoops. I doubt the others did either. I was trying to get this to a point of rational debate - using real evidence.

And I suggest you reconsider yours. Jumping back and forth between spurious issues, bowing out of the debate then rejoining it, and asking for links to official sources when you don't offer any yourself is not a debate.

I was asking you to provide EVIDENCE so there would be something concrete to discourse over.

I edited my original post. It now includes a link to a site that supports my idea that George W. Bush is evil.

Thanks for the link to the google search page! Why don't we all support our arguments that way from now on?

Here is a link to a search result for 'conspiracy kooks'

Conspiracy Kooks

What does that prove? Nothing!

OK you want me to stop 'bothering' you? Done deal. I can't see any point in continuing.

[MapleBear]

Frankly, I think a lot of people, rather than trying to engage me in honest debate, are simply trying to muddy the water and make me jump through a lot of hoops. No, I'm not inclined to waste my time tracking down links referring to issues that have been debated to death here and elsewhere. If someone tells me the sky is blue (or gray), I don't ask them for a reference.

I'm not trying to get you to jump through hoops. I doubt the others did either. I was trying to get this to a point of rational debate - using real evidence.

And I suggest you reconsider yours. Jumping back and forth between spurious issues, bowing out of the debate then rejoining it, and asking for links to official sources when you don't offer any yourself is not a debate.

I was asking you to provide EVIDENCE so there would be something concrete to discourse over.

I edited my original post. It now includes a link to a site that supports my idea that George W. Bush is evil.

Thanks for the link to the google search page! Why don't we all support our arguments that way from now on?

Here is a link to a search result for 'conspiracy kooks'

Conspiracy Kooks

What does that prove? Nothing!

OK you want me to stop 'bothering' you? Done deal. I can't see any point in continuing.

In fact, Google is an excellenet source for this type of question. As you and others have noted, evil can't exactly be scientifically noted. But Google clearly demonstrates that nearly 18,000 websites make a connection between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler. (Actually, that's not really true, but many of them do make the connection.)

The whole point is that I'm not the only person who believes in evil, and I'm not the only who compares George Bush to Hitler.

But if you're bowing out (again), maybe we can finally get this thread on track.

[caesar]

I'm not trying to get you to jump through hoops. I doubt the others did either. I was trying to get this to a point of rational debate - using real evidence.

Oh yes you do Tawasaken. You seldom provide any evidence of your own, in fact you seldom take a stand. you just want others to spend their time finding sources for you. Do your own research; maybe you will learn something. We go to the trouble of finding sources for you; i believe that you may actually read them but Stoker and August do not. It is a waste of time. Sometimes we are expressing personal opinions from our consensus from many sources. If you wish to discuss it; set out your own ideas. We are here to discuss not teach or preach.

[caesar]

I think that almost all of those who despise Bush rape babies and are into bestiality and satanic worship.

You are getting ridiculous and libelous. That kind of ignorant remark got maple syrup a week off to think things over. Anything we state can be found yourself by using google; I won't waste my time posting sites that you just ignore and never discuss. Been there; done that; closed minds like yours are not worth the effort or time. I for one use many sources to confirm what I state.

[Tawasakm]

I'm trying to stop posting in this thread, caesar, but since you addressed your comment to me specifically I owe you the courtesy of an answer.

You seldom provide any evidence of your own, in fact you seldom take a stand. you just want others to spend their time finding sources for you.

When I a make a statement of fact then I am ready to back it up. When I ask for someone to back up their argument it is because it seems to me to lack credibility, evidence or logic. I am seeking to understand where the person is coming from. Yes I can research it myself but that still won't tell me what led this person to that conclusion. I am also somewhat unwilling to really get into the specifics of disagreeing with someone without really being aware of both their argument and the rationale (with sources) behind it. Thats not laziness - thats me wanting to debate their actual argument and reasoning rather then my perceived version of those.

We go to the trouble of finding sources for you; i believe that you may actually read them but Stoker and August do not.

I need to push really hard for them - or so it seems to me. And, yes, I do read all of your links. Incidentally I'm not sure you read my posts. In another thread I tried to refute something you had said several times without you actually ever addressing my points of refutation - you simply reasserted your points without reference to that. As to your point regarding Stoker and August - even if they don't I will still urge you to do it for those that do.

Sometimes we are expressing personal opinions from our consensus from many sources.

Surely you could provide a link to at least some of them. Also you don't really need to provide sources for opinions so long as they are clearly opinion. (ie Well my personal view is etc)

If you wish to discuss it; set out your own ideas. We are here to discuss not teach or preach.

I can, do and have set out my ideas on various topics. Even if my only contribution to a particular topic is questions, so what? If I have picked up on a particular weakness (or perceived weakness) in an argument why can't I draw attention to it? Thats a valid contribution toward the direction of a debate.

I'm not interested in having you teach me or preach to me. If you think that is what I am attempting then you are misinterpreting me.