Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Writer@Large · 07-28-2004, 08:30 AM

Are they running based on their pre-WWII political doctrines, or their war/post-war actions? Do I, as a voter, KNOW about their war/postwar actions? What country are they running in? Is it America? If so, can I assume there's still a legislature/judiciary/Constitution to keep them in check? What political parties are they with? Who are the Dem and Repub candidates that year? Etc., etc., etc. ...

As you can see, such hypothetical polls are stupid, pointless, and full of flaws. There's no point in even taking the bait by voting at all.

--W@L

07-28-2004, 08:43 AM

Totally ridiculous poll with that nasty odor of Repugnican "Bush supporting" irrationality wafting through the air. So where's the option: "voting for the lesser of two evils DOES work"? Or would that dilute the nonsensical point this thread is attempting to make?

Such a ridiculous poll doesn't get any vote from me!

Feather · 07-28-2004, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeniseMJ

To say that Bush is as bad as Hitler and Stalin is just stupid. Come on people, that's idiotic. But, I'd leave the country if I had to choose from Hitler and Stalin.

Why is it stupid to compare the two? I don't mean in an off-the-cuff, "hurr hurr Bush = Hitler" Godwin's Law way, but a legitimate comparison of their politics and practices.

TollHouse · 07-28-2004, 08:58 AM

Wow, both Hitler and Stalin invoked in the same OP? Chilling!

RRoman · 07-28-2004, 09:35 AM

Adolf Hitler. The Nazis had spiffier uniforms. And, of course, I could actually understand his speeches.

Mediancat · 07-28-2004, 09:38 AM

Spelling error in poll corrected.

And, as this doesn't strike me as having developed into any kind of serious discussion . . .

"Don't you have an ~Elsewhere~ to be?"

Rob aka Mediancat

DeniseMJ · 07-28-2004, 09:47 AM

Why is it stupid to compare the two? I don't mean in an off-the-cuff, "hurr hurr Bush = Hitler" Godwin's Law way, but a legitimate comparison of their politics and practices.

Yes, it's stupid to compare the two. Are you saying Bush would kill millions of people of another race because he believes his race is superior? Or that Bush would kill millions of others because they speak against him if he had the power? I'll just never, ever believe that.

Monkeybot · 07-28-2004, 11:21 AM

I don't know, but I sure would love to see the attack ads.

DeniseMJ · 07-28-2004, 12:11 PM

I don't know, but I sure would love to see the attack ads.

Now, that's hilarious. Great laugh!

whiteguyonabike · 07-28-2004, 12:45 PM

You can compare anything you want. I could compare Charlie Brown to Hitler, if I want. As long as I'm honest in my analysis (Charlie is the same as Hitler is dishonest).

Now, George W. Bush unilaterally invaded Iraq, killing hundreds of civilians, on the false premise of "weapons of mass distruction" and the probably false premise of liberation (not an indication on whether he believed he was liberating Iraq, it's just that it won't work). He also invaded Afghanistan on the premise of capturing Al Quaeda agents (not a whole lot of success there) and on dismantling the Taliban, who were at least taken out of power. Again, hundreds of civilian deaths.

So, Bush seems a bit quick to invade and conquer, and many civilians will die as a result. Does this make him like Hitler, at least in the foreign policy sense? I don't think so, because Hitler was invading THE WORLD, not just a few shitty despotic states. He also was a LOT nastier to the POWs, not that the US was nice to our POWs.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-28-2004, 08:30 AM	#11
Writer@Large Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 7,198	Are they running based on their pre-WWII political doctrines, or their war/post-war actions? Do I, as a voter, KNOW about their war/postwar actions? What country are they running in? Is it America? If so, can I assume there's still a legislature/judiciary/Constitution to keep them in check? What political parties are they with? Who are the Dem and Repub candidates that year? Etc., etc., etc. ... As you can see, such hypothetical polls are stupid, pointless, and full of flaws. There's no point in even taking the bait by voting at all. --W@L

07-28-2004, 08:43 AM	#12
DefendsReason Guest Posts: n/a	Totally ridiculous poll with that nasty odor of Repugnican "Bush supporting" irrationality wafting through the air. So where's the option: "voting for the lesser of two evils DOES work"? Or would that dilute the nonsensical point this thread is attempting to make? Such a ridiculous poll doesn't get any vote from me!

07-28-2004, 08:58 AM	#14
TollHouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 8,745	Wow, both Hitler and Stalin invoked in the same OP? Chilling!

07-28-2004, 09:35 AM	#15
RRoman Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Durham, UK / Frankfurt, Germany Posts: 345	Adolf Hitler. The Nazis had spiffier uniforms. And, of course, I could actually understand his speeches.

07-28-2004, 09:38 AM	#16
Mediancat Contributor Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Baltimore County, MD Posts: 19,644	Spelling error in poll corrected. And, as this doesn't strike me as having developed into any kind of serious discussion . . . "Don't you have an ~Elsewhere~ to be?" Rob aka Mediancat

07-28-2004, 09:47 AM	#17
DeniseMJ Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 289	*Why is it stupid to compare the two? I don't mean in an off-the-cuff, "hurr hurr Bush = Hitler" Godwin's Law way, but a legitimate comparison of their politics and practices.* Yes, it's stupid to compare the two. Are you saying Bush would kill millions of people of another race because he believes his race is superior? Or that Bush would kill millions of others because they speak against him if he had the power? I'll just never, ever believe that.

07-28-2004, 11:21 AM	#18
Monkeybot Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: North Carolina Posts: 8,102	I don't know, but I sure would love to see the attack ads.

07-28-2004, 12:11 PM	#19
DeniseMJ Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 289	*I don't know, but I sure would love to see the attack ads.* Now, that's hilarious. Great laugh!

07-28-2004, 12:45 PM	#20
whiteguyonabike Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The Minne Apple, Minnesota, USA Posts: 102	You can compare anything you want. I could compare Charlie Brown to Hitler, if I want. As long as I'm honest in my analysis (Charlie is the same as Hitler is dishonest). Now, George W. Bush unilaterally invaded Iraq, killing hundreds of civilians, on the false premise of "weapons of mass distruction" and the probably false premise of liberation (not an indication on whether he believed he was liberating Iraq, it's just that it won't work). He also invaded Afghanistan on the premise of capturing Al Quaeda agents (not a whole lot of success there) and on dismantling the Taliban, who were at least taken out of power. Again, hundreds of civilian deaths. So, Bush seems a bit quick to invade and conquer, and many civilians will die as a result. Does this make him like Hitler, at least in the foreign policy sense? I don't think so, because Hitler was invading THE WORLD, not just a few shitty despotic states. He also was a LOT nastier to the POWs, not that the US was nice to our POWs.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.