Evils of the World by theheroofcanton

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don't respect opinions that seek to broadly paint people as racists or fascist without adequate support for such claims. That’s not a respectable opinion. That’s defamation, possibly libel, maybe Anti-Americanism. I would ask that you not tie yourself too closely to this article before you understand the facts.

Since things are hospitable I'll just say this. Before you say that I don't know the facts etc. you should know where I am coming from.

My wife is German. They learn *a lot* about what went on during the world wars to quell any such ideas from coming up again. I think it is safe to say that it has been effective. Also, she has told me that that article has a ring of truth to it.

When Hitler was rising to power in Germany there were people that spoke out against him and tried to get the people of Germany to see what was really going on. But, when the people finally did it was too late.

Now before we start screaming and yelling here, I am not saying that Bush is Hitler. What I am saying is that people in the US and around the world are screaming that something is horribly wrong with the US and what they are doing around the world. This can *not* be taken lightly. It speaks volumes that this is happening with such numbers. This is a warning. What will happen if people in the US don't listen and do something about it is for the fates to know now and us to find out later.

Basically, my point is something *is* wrong and it is up to the citizens of the US to question and find the root cause and kill it.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 4:24 PM

TEELABROWN

Sorry, don't have time to read them all. Making quick little point.

Sometimes I can hardly remember the meaning of politics. (Now it's drilled in since I've looked it up so many gorram times!) This is why I don't do much politics. Sure, historical politics and economics. Just go back 50-150 years or so, and that's what I do. My voting style: Voting against someone. If that's impossible, I'll flip a coin. When I do vote, I'll figure out somethin'.

End of random history-type learning. Now back to your regularly posted thread.

_____________
"Freedom is the Freedom to say that 2 plus 2 make 4. If that is granted, all else follws"-Winston, 1984
Teela Brown, keeper of bad typing.
"No one reads these things any way."- Bart on Blackboard

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 5:28 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
My wife is German. They learn *a lot* about what went on during the world wars to quell any such ideas from coming up again. I think it is safe to say that it has been effective. Also, she has told me that that article has a ring of truth to it.

Wonderful, but I have yet to see any of this truth. What I see are people making broad characterizations. I can find similarities in anything if I make my characterizations broad enough.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
When Hitler was rising to power in Germany there were people that spoke out against him and tried to get the people of Germany to see what was really going on. But, when the people finally did it was too late.

And every time there has ever been an election in this country there are people for and against the elected president. Just because people disagree with the president’s policies doesn’t make the US a fascist nation. Europeans didn’t have any love for Clinton either. But it is time that some of this petty politics is put aside.

There is something wrong, though. Rogue nations and terrorist networks are attempting to dictate world politics through bribery and terrorism. They are in control of countries and oppressing innocent people, and apparently there are a lot of people in the world whose response to this is to ridicule the nations trying to stop terrorism. I think that is foolish, and it is fanatical. The US is not a fascist nation because it suits the politics of certain people who think that the failed policy of appeasement should take precedence over the rule of civilization. Iraq flaunted the UN for a dozen years, and finally someone had the balls to do something about it. Bin Laden organized and instigated a half dozen terrorist attacks but it wasn’t until the attack that killed 3000 people before anyone took him seriously. There is an analogue to Hitler and Nazi Germany here, but it is not the US, and I think it is time that some people come to terms with the realities of the world.

I do agree with you on one thing. It took a lot of people a long time to realize the danger that Rogue states like Nazi Germany posed, and by the time they got around to it, it was, in many cases, too late. And it seems that that is a lesson of history that has been ignored by a lot of people. It's unfortunate that it took 9/ll to light a fire under the ass of the Bush Administration, but thankfully, they have chosen not to rely on appeasement and the policy that made Nazi Germany so powerful.

And that's my opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 6:24 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Yes, I read the article. I don’t know about “the article that it linked to”. The article was basically trying to draw comparisons between Nazi Germany and the Bush Administration, which is not only hackneyed but also ridiculous. We are not Nazi Germany, ipso facto. I don’t appreciate these drive-by attempts to paint the Bush Administration as Nazis or Bush as Hitler.ble, which I responded to.

I agree. I hate when the Bush-haters call him a NAZI. I wish someone would just round them all up and exterminate the lot of them. But nobody is going to do that, because we're not NAZIS.

Now those bad guys we're at war with, they like to round disagreeable types up and kill em. Hitler would have loved Saddam and Bin Ladden.

Good thing Bush is President.

As for the whole war issue, it goes like this:

Option 1: Fight (The Bush approach)
Option 2: Don't fight (The anti-war crowd)
Option 3: Pretend to fight (The Clinton era solution)

We know the option our enemies have chosen.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 6:29 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

This is such tired old propaganda. George Bush, whether you agree with him or not, legitimately won the election.

Sorry, but I choose to dispute the legitimacy of his victory; a single example as to why: The ChoicePoint company gave Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris a list of 57,000 felons prior to the election of 2000; as a consequence, she ordered the removal of those individuals from the voting rolls. Unfortunately, 95% of those listed weren't felons! By the time the error was corrected, those 54,000-plus people had found themselves disenfranchised.

Noteworthily, the vast majority of those people were guilty of something -- most of them were either People of Color, Democrats, or both. Big Gorram Crimes, in a Bush-controlled state, apparently.

54,000 votes, in the closest contest in American Presidential Election History. Stolen. And what was ChoicePoint's punishment for this? Surprise surprise, ChoicePoint is one of the big prize winners sucking at the Federal teat in the War on Terrorism. Crime pays, provided the man in the oval office is your accomplice.

Yes, perhaps Bush could have won legitimately. But he chose not to. And that, friends, is why I refer to him as "Our Duly Appointed President."

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 7:00 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

As for the whole war issue, it goes like this:

Option 1: Fight (The Bush approach)
Option 2: Don't fight (The anti-war crowd)
Option 3: Pretend to fight (The Clinton era solution)

Or Option 4: Attack the Actual Enemy.

The war on Afghanistan is defensible; they aided Bin Laden, and gave Al Queda a training and staging area. I supported Bush in this.

But Iraq, no matter how evil a bastard Saddam is, no matter what atrocities he had commited, Iraq didn't attack us, and apparently wasn't preparing to!

For the record, most of the 9/11 suicide terrorists were Saudi. You know, Saudi Arabia, the country George Bush and Dick Cheney are in bed with.

So why aren't we at war with them? Well, they hadn't embarrassed Our Duly Appointed President's sweet old daddy. So we decided to blow the go se out of Iraq instead. After all, they look just like the people that hurt us. What the hell, it's close enough for Joe Sixpack.

Maybe Saddam deserved to be deposed. But it wasn't our gorram job to decide that! If we think we can be the cops of the world just because we've got the biggest stick, I fear for my country. For the Gods do not take kindly to bullies.

"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
When Hitler was rising to power in Germany there were people that spoke out against him and tried to get the people of Germany to see what was really going on. But, when the people finally did it was too late.

And every time there has ever been an election in this country there are people for and against the elected president. Just because people disagree with the president’s policies doesn’t make the US a fascist nation.

You miss my point. I know that there will always be people against the current admin. This happens in all countries. But when it happens in the numbers that we see today...

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Iraq flaunted the UN for a dozen years, and finally someone had the balls to do something about it.

And without due cause. Many people have made many points such as:
Where is the WMD?
etc.

Basically, the US had failed to show that Iraq was a clear and present danger. And the world at large said no, which kind of says a lot.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Bin Laden organized and instigated a half dozen terrorist attacks but it wasn’t until the attack that killed 3000 people before anyone took him seriously.

But, he was trained by the CIA. Yes, he was ignored by the world at large for along time, but, you are wrong that no-one took him seriously until 9/11. Wasn't it the Russians that attempted to get the Taliban out a little while ago? And wasn't Bin Laden among them? Aren't they still there and retaking territory?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There is an analogue to Hitler and Nazi Germany here, but it is not the US, and I think it is time that some people come to terms with the realities of the world.

And which country is that? And what realities are those?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It's unfortunate that it took 9/ll to light a fire under the ass of the Bush Administration, but thankfully, they have chosen not to rely on appeasement and the policy that made Nazi Germany so powerful.

It seems as though you are trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq. I know this can't be because even the FBI and CIA have stated that Iraq had no involvement there.

The fact of the matter is that terrorism is here to stay. There will always be crazies that will try to use these tactics to meet there own whacked out ends. But, what we in the civilized world can *not* do is to cave into that fear. If we do then they have already won.

We can't create xenophobic policies because "the terrorists might get us" nor will they work. We must go on with our daily lives as if it wasn't there. And no I'm not saying we should put on blinders and ignore it altogether. We should do something about it but not to the point where it degrades the amount of freedom for the individual.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
- Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Bejamin Franklin

I really do think that on a very fundamental level we agree, but, entirely disagree about how to go about it. ie You seem to support the invasion of Iraq where as I condemned it from the start as I viewed that other methods should have been applied first.

Anyway, I seem to be nodding off, so...

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 7:53 PM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:

Wow, really great invective, you guys! Keep up the hate!

Reminded me of some more of my most detested things about being in this world, in no particular order:

1. Ideological slaves from the far left who demonize everyone else for the evils of the world.

2. Ideological slaves from the far right who demonize everyone else for the evils of the world.

3. Fence-sitters in the middle who demonize everybody, right and left, for the evils of the world.

Umm, while I believe in political discourse, whether or not it's sane and educated, don't they have someplace else you can go and do it? You're all tying up precious bandwidth with regurgitated dogma, when this website is supposed to be about Firefly.

Go to MSN or Yahoo and vent spleen 'til you're red or blue in the face, depending upon affiliation; then pick up a party-sponsored placard and march; then face off against the counter-protestors and shout epithets at each other; then start throwing things -- bottles, rocks, etc. Meanwhile, the returning heros of our armed forces -- the ones who defend your freedom of speech from all enemies of Democracy with their lives -- are thinking, "What the f**k!?!".

Since it was Finn and I that got this off to a rousing start, and I was at work when you posted this, I would like to respond- I dont know about Finn, but to me we were having a rational argument about politics, which started over a FF question- Yeah, there was a little sarcasm thrown in by both sides, but I hold nothin' against him- If he can go shot for shot with me, I respect him- There's no hate here, just a discussion- If I suddenly called Finn a jackoff and where to stick GW, that's hate and too far, but I didnt and wouldnt- Respectfully, it's you that brought real insults into it, by suggesting our discussion to be unsane and uneducated and telling us to leave a forum and go march- Dont like the posts? Dont read 'em, dont post to 'em- If Haken's worried about bandwidth, he'll let us know-

Finn, I still love ya baby-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 9:04 PM

Hey, y'all.

Umm, yeah...

I just throw what I have been thinking about this whole debate, and then answer the question the thread addresses.
Personally, I have to say that I do think Bush was as duly elected as can be expected. Florida was not the only place where voting irregularities occurred, and this is not the only election that it has happened in. That we have not worked harder to address this problem after an election that both candidates worked hard to steal says more about us than it does about W.

Bush is not Hitler, and Saddam very nearly was. This, however, does not mean that we as a people cannot question the reasons our administration gave for going to war. The WMD's have not been found, and very possibly won't be found. This means that: a) Saddam's scientists were ninjas and we will never find weapons that did exist; b) the weapons may have existed some time ago, but not during the war or the build-up for war; or c) we were told a bald-faced lie. I tend to lean to B personally, but cannot discount the other two out of hand. This, plus the fact that alot of the world either hates us, fears us, or distrust us because of the war (well, some people already hated/feared us, but the numbers certianly have increased), means that we as a people have to decide if the president who dragged us into this should stay in office.

On that note, the men and women of out armed forces are out there risking their lives in Iraq because of administration policy. That doesn't make me a bad person for saying that they should not have been sent there in the first place. If people decide that they need to vote out an incumbent official, or that his policies are bad and should be discussed or protested, they should do that. The freedom to criticize officials or remove them form office via legal means are requirements for a constitutional republic to function. As I said above, Bush ain't Hitler. That does not mean that we should just blindly accept what he (or any other president or offical for that matter) says at face value. We need to judge our political circumstances for ourselves, skeptically, but not cynically. That, IMHO, is what really does stop us from being like NAZI Germany. If we abandon that...

Jon

P.S.

Zoid seems to miss interpreted y'all's discussion above. Go a little easy on him. From my perspective, it did look a little shrill, even if y'all understood it to be reasonable. Just sayin, is all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 9, 2004 9:11 PM

Crap, forgot to say who was evil. Yup, theheroofcanton, FOX and Saddam are pretty bad.

You know else is evil? Anyone not loving my Houston Astros.

Go America; go 'Stros.

Jon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 8:15 AM

Since this misunderstanding has happened (at least to me) above I'll say this. Please read this with the voice in your head *not* angry. I have no intention of being aggressive here. Just thought I'd throw that out there

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
Bush is not Hitler, and Saddam very nearly was.

I have no idea where you are coming from here. The only things that I know that Saddam did are to his own people (and the last incident was in 1988 I believe) and when he tried to annex Kuwait. Other than that I'd like to hear some justification that Saddam was nearly Hitler. After all, Hitler tried to take over Europe and the world, where as Saddam seemed quite content running his little world.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
b) the weapons may have existed some time ago, but not during the war or the build-up for war; or c) we were told a bald-faced lie. I tend to lean to B personally,...

I concur, partially. I agree with B. After all the US (and other countries too I believe) sold him the stuff to make or just the chemical weapons outright. But, I must say that I think C has been proven. After all, the biggest point that the Bush admin made for war was WMD and they said that they had proof. Proof means that they can show us the WMD and they didn't... still haven't.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
This, plus the fact that alot of the world either hates us, fears us, or distrust us because of the war (well, some people already hated/feared us, but the numbers certianly have increased),

Correction, alot of the world didn't like the US prior to anything to do with the war, and that number has increased and made that dislike far more intense. (Note: I'm using US in the country sense, not necessarily any one person in it.)

The one thing that this has really done for me is to bring to light what you guys down there are feed through your so called news stations. I really feel sorry for you guys (no I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm serious).

I lived in the Bay Area during the build up to and the war and was horrified at such blatant pro-US propaganda that the Americans were feed (and I still am today). I was forced to get my news on-line or through the parental units on the phone to get anything reasonable. For those who care I found the BBC the most balanced and informative.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
On that note, the men and women of out armed forces are out there risking their lives in Iraq because of administration policy.

Excellent point.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
That does not mean that we should just blindly accept what he (or any other president or offical for that matter) says at face value.

Again, excellent point. Thinking is up to the individual and if people stop doing it we are all in a heap of trouble. I'd like to point out that people stopping thinking *is* happening. And although I know that the US is at least leading Canada in this area we as a world body are going in this direction. I say this because of certain high school policies that have been brought to my attention.

Basically, if we don't expect our kids to learn they won't and without learning they cannot think logically and without that we end up is said big heap of trouble.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
We need to judge our political circumstances for ourselves, skeptically, but not cynically.

I disagree. I do think that we should judge cynically. After all, politicians are typically slimy bastards that cannot be trusted. Cynicism could save us.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 9:20 AM

APEMAN61

No offense but how about we let americans worry about american politics...oh and dont feel sorry for me. Oh and this thing is just going to keep going, everyone has there own opinions. people are just going to say stuff back and forth and nothing will come of it except people getting offended, even if it's not the intended goal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 11:39 AM

Cynicism could destroy us, too. Not all politicians are evil scum bags, just enough of them to make the voting public not trust any politicians. (BTW, I ain't saying that politicians as a group are saints, just not evil scum bags.) Cynisism could cause people to desire an abandonment of politics altogether, opening the door for populist leaders who will attempt to become the center of political power.

The American media worries too much about two things: one, getting stories that sell, and two, not pissing off the public. Americans fear criticising, even constructivly criticizing, the policies of a sitting president in time of percived crisis. People sat through 50 years of Cold War, thinking that the nation had to put up a united front against communism, and that dissenters were contributing to the New World Communist Order, or some such. This fear of not being unified on national defense issues has lead to a fear of dissent, (a fear that manifests itself in the media) and the reluctance of Congress to be proactive in reigning in the executive.

Your right, Saddam was not Hitler. I only used Hitler because he was mentioned in relation to Bush by others. No, Saddam was much more like Stalin. He is reported to have been an admirer of Stalin's, and like Ole' Joe, he did not try to conquer the whole region, just some (well in Stalin's case, most) of his neighbors. He reigned terror down upon the populace and his military and civil service. He conducted purges, he killed liberal activists, ethnic activists, and a whole bunch of people who never did him any harm. He was still a very, very, bad man, and one of the few good things to come out of this war was his removal from power, which we might have had to do at some point anyway.

Jon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by APEMAN61:
No offense but how about we let americans worry about american politics...

The problem with that is that American politics are starting to affect the world body. Perhaps the US should start listening to, if not to the world, to its' own populace.

Quote:
Originally posted by APEMAN61:
...nothing will come of it except people getting offended, even if it's not the intended goal.

The only people that will become offended are those that cannot even attempt to see the others point of view. Those that can won't become offended until an insult is sent there way. Which won't happen if we all remain civil

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
Cynicism could destroy us, too.

True, but what I meant was that a balance would be most beneficial.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
opening the door for populist leaders who will attempt to become the center of political power.

Isn't GW trying to do that now. It just seems to me that he is and has *really* thrown his weight around. Fortunately, the rest of the world isn't buying it.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
The American media worries too much about two things: one, getting stories that sell,

True

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
and two, not pissing off the public.

Too much so, all I see on CNN and what not is pro-American propaganda. So much so, that once someone looks into things, they find out that so much of the info has been left out of the story, that it basically becomes a lie. But, technically not. Kind of a very dangerous half-truth.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
Americans fear criticising, even constructivly criticizing, the policies of a sitting president in time of percived crisis.

And GW and his cronies have promoted this.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
People sat through 50 years of Cold War, thinking that the nation had to put up a united front against communism, and that dissenters were contributing to the New World Communist Order,...

Now this is something that should be fought. Freedom of speech is something that the US has put out the world that they stand for and criticism is part of that. Someone put forth a mention of anti-Americanism. *This* is anti-Americanism.

Quote:
Originally posted by LeMat:
He conducted purges, he killed liberal activists, ethnic activists, and a whole bunch of people who never did him any harm. He was still a very, very, bad man, and one of the few good things to come out of this war was his removal from power, which we might have had to do at some point anyway.

Well, we agree that he did these bad things. And I definitely agree that he should have been removed from power, but, *not this way*. Yes, he is gone, but, since no-one has been put in power and the US is using an iron fist to try to keep the peace, everything is going to hell in a hand-basket.

This next little while will be interesting to watch, eh?

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:52 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Thats about the mindless and idiotic thing I think I've ever seen on this thread. Congrats.

Unless you think FDR was more evil than Hitler...oh, of course not. FDR was a Democrat...riiiiiight.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. Worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 4:51 PM

Huh?

Who are you responding to, AUraptor? I typed FDR into 'find' on my browser, and your post was the only one that mentions him.

Jon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 5:19 PM

Damn, I knew I should've gone on yesterday. Then I wouldn't be so late to this board.

Quote:
I'm surprised that anyone who likes Firefly would dislike George Bush so much as those responding to the 'who is the most evil' question.

I hated Bush since around April 2000, based on intuition. Now I actually have a reason. Mainly, I'm against deficits, because people my age are going to be the one's paying for them. (I'm 14.) I'm also against the gay marriage ban. Even though I think homosexuality is a small sin, it doesn't hurt anyone, and should be legal. And then there's the 600-some Americans who came home from Iraq in flag-draped coffins. I don't think the Iraq war was a good idea, and Bush certainly isn't handling it well.

On the other hand, I'm in favor of the invasion of Afganistan and the Moon base, and I dislike Kerry.

Anyways, Bush probably isn't too evil, just wrong about lot's of things.
Bin Ladin: very evil
Hussein: incredibly evil
Al quada: all evil/brainwashed
Iraqi insurgents: I'd probably do the same in their position.
Edited to correct font

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 5:39 PM

Quote:
You may not agree with his ideas, but at least he has them and sticks to them.

I never understood the problem people have with so-called waffling. The way I see it, it takes a mature person to change their minds about something upon further contemplation, or new info. Bush could've said "I was wrong about the WMDs," but he never did. That said, Kerry isn't really changing his position on gay marriage, he's simply not expressing a firm one, for political reasons. (That's bad.)

Quote:
It drives me insane when people compare bush to saddam. Did Bush have a damn torture center inside our Olympic headquarters? Does Bush use virtually all the country's money to build palaces for himself? does bush murder his own people?

That was Saddam's sadist son Uday, not him or his non-sadist son/ no, but those are some mighty big deficits/ if he did, we wouldn't know. But yeah, Saddam's evil is infinitely greater than Bush's.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:42 PM

Quote:
The article was basically trying to draw comparisons between Nazi Germany and the Bush Administration, which is not only hackneyed but also ridiculous.

I gotta disagree with you there. While it would be ridiculous to say that Bush is similar to the Nazis, it's perfectly ok to "draw comparisions." I could draw comparisions between Jesus and Hitler: They both had strong feelings about Jews, they both were historically important, etc. It's like when someone on another board said that evolution was bad because Hitler believed in it, and someone said he also probably liked chocolate. Just because you can compare Bush and Hitler, it doesn't mean the German guy should freak out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:47 PM

Quote:
Iraq flaunted the UN for a dozen years, and finally someone had the balls to do something about it.

Yeah, that certainly was the main reason for attacking Iraq. Because he flaunted the UN.

Quote:
Bin Laden organized and instigated a half dozen terrorist attacks but it wasn’t until the attack that killed 3000 people before anyone took him seriously.

When Clinton fired cruise missiles at Al quada after the embassy bombings, he was accused by Republicans of diverting attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Of course, he should've just flaunted public opinion and sent in troops, but politicians all want to be liked.

Edit: sorry for the quad-post. It's my style.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 10, 2004 7:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Just because you can compare Bush and Hitler, it doesn't mean the German guy should freak out.

Maybe it's because I'm tired but which German guy? Just want to understand before I respond.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2004 1:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

LEMAT,I was responding to SPIKEANDJEZEBEL's post :

"Not to make this thread a political debate, but I'd actually put George W. pretty close to the top of my list, over Saddam even...."

How it got attribituted to your post, I have no idea. The response is self explanitory. This is why I get so annoyed when folks bring politics onto these types of messageboards. While we may not agree on some things,can't we at least agree on Firefly? There is an entire net out there for us to be at odds with each other. Can't this be one place where we can agree on something?

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. Worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:20 PM

SOUNDHACK

Hmm Im not going to add my own opinions about who is more evil, Bush, Saddam, or Hitler, but I have another point of view.

I dislike immensely the need to label something "evil." Its like just by calling something evil you can close discussion about something or can justify anything without any rationality. "Why did you attack him?" "oh, well he was evil. end of story". I think labeling something evil is a cop out, much like McCarthyism labeled anything not within a narrow viewpoint Communist.

Evil should be left to things like religion, fiction/movies, etc. It's much too simplistic to call something in real life evil. Remember, to Islamic fundamentalists we (the US) are considered evil. You might laugh and think its obvious we arent and that they are, but I'm sure they are just as sure of the other point of view.

Anyway, to bring this discussion back to Firefly (where i think it IS safe to say something is evil-come on its just fictional entertainment) While I think its understood that the Alliance is "evil", apparently for a good number of people (even Inara) it was better than alternatives. Sometimes I think of that and go hmmm... Though provoking to say the least....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2004 6:02 AM

Apeman61 wrote
I think what he's doing in Iraq and Afganistan is the right thing. He taking evil men out of power.

As soon as he invades China I will believe that removing evil has anything to do with his motivation. Plus several of his cabinet members/advisors share responsibility for putting Saddam and Osama into power.

Have to agree with you on Kerry though, I actually considered voting Democrat this year, but after the primary I am going to have to go third party again.

It would be nice to see a candidate state that he will not support a brutal dictator in any way and for any reason. That he will not permit our nation to sell WMD technology or WMDs themselves to any nation. That we will support democratically elected leaders even when they are opposed to our current economic agenda.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2004 6:10 AM

SevenPercent wrote
....we used to try to assassinate folks too (it's only recently we gave that up, and GW wanted to repeal that Exec. Order that stops us-)

I may be wrong but I believe it was Jimmy Carter that stopped political assassination and Bill Clinton who put it back on the table. Pretty sure that Clinton authorized the assassination of Osama, though I can't guarantee that he repealed the executive order.

My belief in the Golden Rule makes me side with Jimmy Carter. I hold nations to a body of individuals and what applies to individuals, applies to nations in terms of morality.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2004 6:18 AM

RocketJock wrote: The war on Afghanistan is defensible; they aided Bin Laden, and gave Al Queda a training and staging area. I supported Bush in this.

I think it would have been more defensible if we made a formal declaration of war before invading a sovereign nation. I think a declaration would have been justified for the reasons you gave.

I also think we need to take responsibility for supporting the Islamic extremists in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Russians (one of those groups was the Taliban). If you see the footage of [our] military advisors training them, using, exploiting and feeding their extremist ideology.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 12, 2004 6:25 AM

How could China ever get a UN resolution against it, it has veto power? The U.S. is always blocking resolutions against Israel, that is the reason there are no U.N. resolutions against that nation. I wouldn't be surprised if China blocks resolutions against N. Korea.

Iraq simply lacked a buddy on the security council (or actually lost their buddy, that being us). This is not to say that Iraq didn't deserve those resolutions and more.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:22 AM

THEHEROOFCANTON

Well I agree with all of you and you have good opinions, but are we all in agreeance that FOX is at least evil?

"You see the man hanging out of the spacehip with the really big gun, well its his will y'all should be thinking about now."

"I'm not immortal, I'm Infinitly prolonged."-Douglass Adams Spin off

My Best Friend can beat up your best friend.

My dad can outsmart your dad.

So they want to kill my men? Well, two can play at that game.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:23 AM

THEHEROOFCANTON

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:45 AM

Hmmm, FOX canceling excellent shows in favor of reality crap. Sure, I'm on board

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:52 AM

DORAN

I like George Bush. I feel much safer with him and his cabinet in office than the alternative.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:35 PM

BADGERSHAT

Quote:
Originally posted by DoctorTam:
3. Wal-Mart
2. The Toronto Maple Leafs
1. FOX!!!!!!!!!!!

Fortunately, #2 will be out very soon

Why doesn't it ever go smooth?

Yes, indeedy, the Leafs are up there... along with the Philadelphis Flyers... but I digress...

I think Fox, 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight, and any and all Fox affiliates.

--The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:36 PM

BADGERSHAT

Quote:
Originally posted by spikeandjezebel:
Not to make this thread a political debate, but I'd actually put George W. pretty close to the top of my list, over Saddam even....

"I like smackin' 'em!" - Jayne Cobb

You stole my signature!!!

I challenge you to a doo-ell!!!!

--The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:33 AM

Quote:
Maybe it's because I'm tired but which German guy? Just want to understand before I respond.

I honestly have no idea what I was writing. I guess I was tired too. Actually, now that I think about it, I meant the German guy quoted in the Bush = Nazi article.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:57 AM