(new title) are these statements justifiable? are they slanderous?

[JacobJ]

Bush meets no criteria. Bush has never done anything Christian.

Bush is the American equivalent of a fanatical terrorist Muslim.

Bush and Hitler have similarities:
-both are fanatics
-both are obsessed with Poland
-both hate France
-both are secretive
-both will do anything to destroy their enemies
-both start wars with others in the name of their country
-both are authoritarians
-both are fascists
-both have carefully orchestrated political gatherings
-both don't care about civil liberties

Of course they are different too: Hitler was better with German than Bush is with English. Also Bush doesn't have the mustache. Finally, Hitler as a young man served in his country's armed forces in wartime, Bush didn't.


You forgot the Christian Coalition and 700 Club, equally repugnant groups. (in reference to groups such as the world nazi party, fascists of america, gay bashers of america - Jacob)

But the newspaper, whose cartoons regularly portray President George W. Bush as a semi-literate ape, was unrepentant.

Sounds pretty accurate to me. Who needs a cartoon?[/quote]The only proper place to address Infohawk's comments is in the thread in which he made them. This thread is over the line and inappropriate. This is your one warning.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[gutharius]

Man that is low. People are entitled to their opinions. Taking stuff out of context is not right.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: gutharius
Man that is low. People are entitled to their opinions. Taking stuff out of context is not right.

please point to specific quotations that you think are out of context enough to distort the message. (the search function might be useful)

 

[smashp]

Prepare for a vacation.

 

[freegeeks]

in before the lock!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gutharius]

Taking stuff out like that and presenting it like that is rude. If your going to quote someone at least include what the quote was in reference to.

 

[Steeplerot]

And? Midly amusing, sometimes witty, pretty tame overall.
You should see what is spraypainted on walls here if you think what IH says is shocking in your small world.
I suggest getting out more.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: gutharius
Taking stuff out like that and presenting it like that is rude. If your going to quote someone at least include what the quote was in reference to.

ummm...so the media isn't allowed to quote politicians without explaining the exact context of the situation in which they were speaking? Some statements stand on there own. I chose such statements.

If you think anything I quoted is distorted because it is out of context, please let me know and I'll fix it.

 

[Steeplerot]

Bush iz teh Hitl3r!!!! F1rst pr0st!!! G0dw1n's L@W 1n fv11 eff3cT!



September 13, 2004
George W. Bush is no Adolph Hitler

A favorite pasttime among the Bush-bashing crowd is to compare our current ethically-challenged President with the madman of all madmen -- Nazi leader Adolph Hitler.

Granted, valid comparisons exist: Bush, like Hitler, believes war is the most politically-expedient means to an end. Like Hitler, Bush has built a vast police state to spy on his countrymen (and women). Hitler called it the Gestapo. Bush calls his Homeland Security.

Both men exploited political division, polarization and fear. Both appealed to the extreme right wing. Like Hitler, Bush shows signs of cracking under the strain. A report by a prominent DC psychiastrist calls the American president a "paranoid, delusional meglomaniac." They called Hitler the same thing.

But Bush falls short in key comparisons to the German leader. Although Hitler's IQ was never officially measured, doctors estimated it at around 145. Bush's IQ is a state secret. If it was ever measured, the result probably disappeared along with his military records but any close study of his actions suggests it can't be much above that of the average three-minute egg.

Hitler was a hypnotic speaker with a masterful command of the language. He could motivate huge crowds with his powerful speeches.

Bush has trouble stringing enough words together to complete a simple, declarative sentence and would have trouble talking a whore into bed even if he paid in advance.

So it's both unfair and insulting to compare George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler.

But unfair to whom?

 

[Whitecloak]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
in before the lock!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sandorski]

Threads about fellow members is a no-no.

That said, Info has posted things that have made me cringe, but many people sometimes post things that in retrospect are rather over-the-top. Sometimes the heat of the moment clouds judgement.

At anyrate, this thread is doomed and the OP should consider itself lucky to still have a Login once it's locked.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Threads about fellow members is a no-no.

That said, Info has posted things that have made me cringe, but many people sometimes post things that in retrospect are rather over-the-top. Sometimes the heat of the moment clouds judgement.

At anyrate, this thread is doomed and the OP should consider itself lucky to still have a Login once it's locked.

In my opinion, more threads like this would force people to think a little bit more and troll a lot less. And if thats true, then I think it would be a good thing. People should be held ACCOUNTABLE for what they say. Or should they not?

edit: PS: In no way is this thread meant attack Infohawk personally. It acts as a criticism to his words, not his worth.

 

[Steeplerot]

Bush has done something Christian in his life see
Anyhow this is going to get locked soon becasue you called someone out.
Who cares if he's accountable for dissing Bush he's an idiot and has brought it on himself. (and on the rest of us)
The CC are slime too and I am ashamed to live in the same country as them if they can't get along and not be dicks to anyone who do not believe their sadistic religion..
Welcome to America.

 

[chess9]

How is this not a direct personal assault on a member?

Why don't you delete your post yourself in an act of manliness?

-Robert

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: chess9
How is this not a direct personal assault on a member?

Why don't you delete your post yourself in an act of manliness?

-Robert

Robert...Will you explain to me how it is a personal assault? Is it a personal assault when the news quotes politicians in order to demonstrate their views?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: sandorski
Threads about fellow members is a no-no.

That said, Info has posted things that have made me cringe, but many people sometimes post things that in retrospect are rather over-the-top. Sometimes the heat of the moment clouds judgement.

At anyrate, this thread is doomed and the OP should consider itself lucky to still have a Login once it's locked.

In my opinion, more threads like this would force people to think a little bit more and troll a lot less. And if thats true, then I think it would be a good thing. People should be held ACCOUNTABLE for what they say. Or should they not?

edit: PS: In no way is this thread meant attack Infohawk personally. It acts as a criticism to his words, not his worth.

You are free to counter his arguements in the threads he puts his arguements forth. It doesn't matter if you think this is acceptable or not, because it isn't.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: chess9
How is this not a direct personal assault on a member?

Why don't you delete your post yourself in an act of manliness?

-Robert

Robert...Will you explain to me how it is a personal assault? Is it a personal assault when the news quotes politicians in order to demonstrate their views?

WTF are you voting for him or something?
This is neither P nor N

 

[chess9]

You've taken just a few of his alleged quotes out of thousands and made them into a hammer to beat him over the head. Not nice.

Why are you doing this?

If you have issues with Infohawk address them seriatum in the appropriate thread.

NEVER MAKE A THREAD ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER UNLESS IT IS SOMETHING NICE, or is somehow otherwise justifiable. This isn't justifiable, IMHO.


-Robert

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: sandorski
Threads about fellow members is a no-no.

That said, Info has posted things that have made me cringe, but many people sometimes post things that in retrospect are rather over-the-top. Sometimes the heat of the moment clouds judgement.

At anyrate, this thread is doomed and the OP should consider itself lucky to still have a Login once it's locked.

In my opinion, more threads like this would force people to think a little bit more and troll a lot less. And if thats true, then I think it would be a good thing. People should be held ACCOUNTABLE for what they say. Or should they not?

edit: PS: In no way is this thread meant attack Infohawk personally. It acts as a criticism to his words, not his worth.

You are free to counter his arguements in the threads he puts his arguements forth. It doesn't matter if you think this is acceptable or not, because it isn't.

I guess the argument for it not being acceptable could be similar to that of the libel law we have in the US...if someone publically slanders a person who is famous, there is no standing for a lawsuit because the person is a public figure who has the ability to counter the slander through the media. If the person slandered was not famous, then there is standing for a lawsuit because the person slandered has no otherwise means of recourse.

In this case, Infohawk has the means to defend his words if he so chooses. In fact, it could be said that he slandered Bush and this post is in response to such slander.

The further function of this post is to draw attention to not only the individual statements by by Infohawk, but the pattern of statements that present a larger message. Responding to them individually would not be an effective way of demonstrating that pattern. Furthermore, I believe the culture of this board suffers because people are not held accountable for what they say. This thread presents an oppurtunity for Infohawk to explain his pattern of statements, and further clarify his point of view if he so chooses. Personally, I have been wondering about how Infohawk is able to back up his statements, or if they really are just slander.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: sandorski
Threads about fellow members is a no-no.

That said, Info has posted things that have made me cringe, but many people sometimes post things that in retrospect are rather over-the-top. Sometimes the heat of the moment clouds judgement.

At anyrate, this thread is doomed and the OP should consider itself lucky to still have a Login once it's locked.

In my opinion, more threads like this would force people to think a little bit more and troll a lot less. And if thats true, then I think it would be a good thing. People should be held ACCOUNTABLE for what they say. Or should they not?

edit: PS: In no way is this thread meant attack Infohawk personally. It acts as a criticism to his words, not his worth.

You are free to counter his arguements in the threads he puts his arguements forth. It doesn't matter if you think this is acceptable or not, because it isn't.

I guess the argument for it not being acceptable could be similar to that of the libel law we have in the US...if someone publically slanders a person who is famous, there is no standing for a lawsuit because the person is a public figure who has the ability to counter the slander through the media. If the person slandered was not famous, then there is standing for a lawsuit because the person slandered has no otherwise means of recourse.

In this case, Infohawk has the means to defend his words if he so chooses. In fact, it could be said that he slandered Bush and this post is in response to such slander.

The further function of this post is to draw attention to not only the individual statements by by Infohawk, but the pattern of statements that present a larger message. Responding to them individually would not be an effective way of demonstrating that pattern. Furthermore, I believe the culture of this board suffers because people are not held accountable for what they say. This thread presents an oppurtunity for Infohawk to explain his pattern of statements, and further clarify his point of view if he so chooses. Personally, I have been wondering about how Infohawk is able to back up his statements, or if they really are just slander.

No, just drop it, there is no justification.

P&N is for discussing Politics and News, not what so-and-so posted.

 

[rbV5]

Talk about a classless thread. How can this be anything but a personal attack? I'm stunned that someone would stoop so low as to call out a forum member by creating a thread to attack his posting? Thats low even by PN standards IMHO. Infohawk is entitled to his opinion, you're entitled to respond in THOSE threads.

<shakes head>

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: chess9
You've taken just a few of his alleged quotes out of thousands and made them into a hammer to beat him over the head. Not nice.

Why are you doing this?

If you have issues with Infohawk address them seriatum in the appropriate thread.

NEVER MAKE A THREAD ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER UNLESS IT IS SOMETHING NICE, or is somehow otherwise justifiable. This isn't justifiable, IMHO.


-Robert

These quotes are from him(use the search function if you doubt me). Furthermore, I believe the only reason this thread could be percieved as not nice is because the content of Infohawk's posts are often not justifiable. But maybe they are. So many posts on this forum are not justifiable. If we had more threads like this then people would be more careful about saying things that they can back up, and not just trolling and spinning and outright lying.

 

[chess9]

Would you like a larger shovel?

-Robert

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: chess9
You've taken just a few of his alleged quotes out of thousands and made them into a hammer to beat him over the head. Not nice.

Why are you doing this?

If you have issues with Infohawk address them seriatum in the appropriate thread.

NEVER MAKE A THREAD ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER UNLESS IT IS SOMETHING NICE, or is somehow otherwise justifiable. This isn't justifiable, IMHO.


-Robert

These quotes are from him(use the search function if you doubt me). Furthermore, I believe the only reason this thread could be percieved as not nice is because the content of Infohawk's posts are often not justifiable. But maybe they are. So many posts on this forum are not justifiable. If we had more threads like this then people would be more careful about saying things that they can back up, and not just trolling and spinning and outright lying.

Well, you couldn't be more wrong. If you were smart you would edit your posts and ask for a lock yourself.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: chess9
You've taken just a few of his alleged quotes out of thousands and made them into a hammer to beat him over the head. Not nice.

Why are you doing this?

If you have issues with Infohawk address them seriatum in the appropriate thread.

NEVER MAKE A THREAD ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER UNLESS IT IS SOMETHING NICE, or is somehow otherwise justifiable. This isn't justifiable, IMHO.


-Robert

These quotes are from him(use the search function if you doubt me). Furthermore, I believe the only reason this thread could be percieved as not nice is because the content of Infohawk's posts are often not justifiable. But maybe they are. So many posts on this forum are not justifiable. If we had more threads like this then people would be more careful about saying things that they can back up, and not just trolling and spinning and outright lying.

Well, you couldn't be more wrong. If you were smart you would edit your posts and ask for a lock yourself.

People keep saying I'm wrong, without explaining their logical reasoning as to why I am wrong. If the mods choose to ban me, I hope that they will at least explain their reasoning.