• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Yes, Bush and Hitler share many similiarities in their actions..

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Has anyone ever heard a conservative say this about Clinton? (The world would have been better if he had never been born?)
Buahahaha! How is that relevant to the question regarding Bush or Hitler? For a start, the question regarding any of them is hypothetical. Then, they're independent cases, and any hypothetical answer regarding one would not necessarily apply to either of the others.

Once you get around to evaluating Hitler, Bush and Clinton independently, you'd have to work overtime, probably beyond your lifespan, to make a case that anything Clinton did during his term of office was as destructive to this nation as starting the war in Iraq based on entirely on lies or to find as much total incompetence as was evidenced by the Bush administration's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The incompetence could be written off to arrogance, ineptitude and stupidity. The costs in lives, money and the credibility and reputation of our nation for going into Iraq can only be ascribed to pure evil. :| :| :|
Maybe this shows that conservatives value life more than liberals?
Tell that to the families and friends of the nearly 3,000 American troops who died and the tens of thousands of wounded in Iraq. Then, tell it to the hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded civilian Iraqis. Some of them may have a bone to pick with your keen analysis. :(
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Harvey, how does it feel to be irrelevant?
The costs in lives, money and the credibility and reputation of our nation for going into Iraq can only be ascribed to pure evil.
Even with the huge group of anti-Bush and anti-war people we have on this web site I doubt you could find a dozen people who would agree with you that our actions there are in any way shape or form ?evil.?

I have no doubt you can find a lot of people who believe that Bush lied or conned us into a war. But I highly doubt many of them would say that Bush did it for ?evil? reasons.
More likely they will say Bush lead us into war because he was mistaken in his beliefs, or because he was incompetent. I do not however recall even the most anti-Bush person on here, outside of you, using the word ?evil? to describe him.

Of course I could be wrong, all you have to do to prove that is get 12 people to post that they agree with you that what we are doing in Iraq is ?pure evil.? Good luck.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey, how does it feel to be irrelevant?
Ask yourself, and you'll know. :laugh:
Even with the huge group of anti-Bush and anti-war people we have on this web site I doubt you could find a dozen people who would agree with you that our actions there are in any way shape or form ?evil.?

I have no doubt you can find a lot of people who believe that Bush lied or conned us into a war. But I highly doubt many of them would say that Bush did it for ?evil? reasons.

More likely they will say Bush lead us into war because he was mistaken in his beliefs, or because he was incompetent. I do not however recall even the most anti-Bush person on here, outside of you, using the word ?evil? to describe him.
Your post suggests that even you have joined the majority of those among the most dogmatic neocon supporters have finally figured out that the Bushwhackos (all of them, not just Bush, himself) lied about their ever-changing lame excuses for dragging the nation into Iraq. If you examine all of those lies and the possible motives behind them, it's no stretch at all to see them as rooted in evil.

It doesn't even matter if Bush, himself, believed he was doing anything that would be considered as "evil." All that means is, he doesn't know right from wrong.
Of course I could be wrong,...
Of course, you ARE wrong. :laugh:
... all you have to do to prove that is get 12 people to post that they agree with you that what we are doing in Iraq is ?pure evil.? Good luck.
I personally know more than several dozens of people who are certain that's the case. I guess you could start a thread with a poll if you think you can make the opposite case, and even then, it would only be from those who cared to reply on this forum.

Get over it, John. Bush is a LOSER. He's right to be so worried about his legacy in history. He's screwed up everything he's touched so badly that history will remember him as "The Man Who Broke The World." :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Harvey, Twist my words all you want. The fact remains that the number of people who agree with you and your idea that Bush is evil or invading Iraq is evil is so small as to be totally irrelevant.

It is nice to know that you have friends who agree with you, but in the spirit of this thread I will remind you that even Hitler had followers right to the end.

Perhaps if you tried to contain some of your hatred for Bush and looked at things in a more rational manor you might be able to rejoin the main stream of America. As it is, not even the most anti-Bush/anti-war person in congress comes close to saying what you are saying.
A reasonable person may make the argument that Iraq was a mistake, but a reasonable person would not call our actions there an act of evil. Try to understand this.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,050
6
81
PJ, guess what? You are not mainstream, the vast majority cannot stand bush or his war either.

You are part of a last bunch of dead enders swallowing BS propaganda trying to "rationalize" why it is all falling apart around you, guess what? You are wrong, and your mccarthy right wing crap has always been so.

Americans will only take so much before kicking this extremist right wing fearmongering bs back into the dustbin.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
PJ, guess what? You are not mainstream, the vast majority cannot stand bush or his war either.

You are part of a last bunch of dead enders swallowing BS propaganda trying to "rationalize" why it is all falling apart around you, guess what? You are wrong, and your mccarthy right wing crap has always been so.
Well I was looking at some recent polls, and you are right in that the majority of America now disapproves of this war. However, I could not find the question "Do you think Bush is evil" listed, I guess the media is behind the times huh?

I am not sure where you get the McCarthy right wing stuff from.
I am apart of the group that believes that if we don't stay and get the job down right we will end up back there again in the future. (Something that was stated in the Baker report)
Bringing the troops home tomorrow will certainly make everyone feel good about themselves today, but what happens in the future?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
To non-Prof John and Harvey,

Says non Prof John---Even with the huge group of anti-Bush and anti-war people we have on this web site I doubt you could find a dozen people who would agree with you that our actions there are in any way shape or form ?evil.?

This assertion by non-professor John that he can't find a dozen on this forum to agree on pure evil on GWB's part is probably pure bunk like many of his past predictions---Harvey, count me in---just 11 more to go.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I think Bush is a disaster as a President but I would never compare him to Hitler. Dan Quayle maybe.
I think the only thing he has in common with Hitler is that the world would have been better off if neither had ever been born.
Well, I'll give you credit for the first line.
But your second one is a little off the mark.

Has anyone ever heard a conservative say this about Clinton? (The world would have been better if he had never been born?) Maybe this shows that conservatives value life more than liberals?
I wouldn't know as I'm neither a Liberal nor a Conservative. I do know that there would be a lot more people alive today if Bush had never existed or at least never became President.

 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Not only is the Bush invasion of Iraq evil. By any definition it is an illegal war of aggression - the supreme crimes of all crimes.

?The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.?







 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey, Twist my words all you want. The fact remains that the number of people who agree with you and your idea that Bush is evil or invading Iraq is evil is so small as to be totally irrelevant.
No, John. What's pathetic is that you're so blinded by your own misplaced loyalty to a failed administration that you fail to recognize the evil they are or the evil they have committed on others in the name of our great nation and the grave and immediate threat the continuation of their evil poses to all of us.
It is nice to know that you have friends who agree with you, but in the spirit of this thread I will remind you that even Hitler had followers right to the end.
Just as YOU appear to be willing to follow Bush and his evil cadre to their bitter end.
Perhaps if you tried to contain some of your hatred for Bush and looked at things in a more rational manor you might be able to rejoin the main stream of America. As it is, not even the most anti-Bush/anti-war person in congress comes close to saying what you are saying.
Far too many in Congress are more concerned with the possibility of negative political fallout from speaking the truth bluntly. They've learned that the Rove propoganda machine is highly skilled at twisting such blunt statements of truth to attack those that dare to speak it. Ask John Kerry, Max Cleland or even John McCain, who, after being falsely attacked by the Rove machine of being unfaithful to his wife and fathering an illegitmate child of mixed race, wimped out of standing up for his own beliefs to support Bush's election.
A reasonable person may make the argument that Iraq was a mistake, but a reasonable person would not call our actions there an act of evil. Try to understand this.
Based on the piss poor planning for the war in Iraq, expecting anything other than the dismal situation we have now was a "mistake." Based on what is known, now, any genuinely reasonable person will make the argument that Iraq was far more than any simple mistake. Furthermore, based on the record of what we now know the Bush administration knew at the time, as opposed to what they told us and our elected representatives in Congress, it was an intentionally planned attack based on fabrication, fiction and outright lies. NOTHING they said and NONE of the pathetic excuses they gave for starting the war was true. EVERYTHING they told us was bullsh8 calculated to further their political agenda, regardless of the truth or how much human suffering would follow as a direct, foreseeable result of their criminality.

Based on what they knew when they first started to prepare for this war, and based on their lack of any plausible excuse for it, and most importantly, based on any semblance of ethical or moral behavior among human beings, they were dead ass wrong, Thousands of American troops are dead, tens of thousands more Americans are horribly wounded and damaged for the rest of their lives, and possibly hundreds of thousands of other innocent people, are dead and wounded as a direct result of Bush's war of lies. :(

This administration is as EVIL as evil gets. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

I doubt that anyone as intellectually, ethically and morally challenged and self deluded as you will ever understand this. :(
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
RANT! RANT! RANT! :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
Believe whatever you want to believe.

As I said, the number of people who agree with you that Bush is evil is so small that it is inconsequential.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
It's funny how people claim that Bush and his administration are EVIL EVIL EVIL.... yet when it comes to any other matter, it's claimed that there is no such thing as evil. Terrorists aren't evil.. we just don't understaaaand them. People who target civilians on a bus aren't evil... they're simply victims of opressssssion. Hypocritical indeed. :laugh:
 

operaman1

Senior member
Mar 21, 2004
570
0
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by:
Harvey

I doubt that anyone as intellectually, ethically and morally challenged and self deluded as you will ever understand this. :(


May I ask what the point to this is and why mods are not on this like stink on shiznit? You just called this guy immoral, stupid, and a sheep for arguing with you on a point by point basis. You did this simply because he disagrees with your assessment that Bush is Hitler. Is there a reason the mods have not sent you away for a week for this or do they simply agree with your view and allow this completely ridiculous type of insulting to continue?

Seriously, we are a board of intelligent, free-thinking people. Just because someone doesn't agree with your assessment is no reason to then haul off and just wreck the guy. :roll:

Unbelievable. I cannot understand how highly intelligent people (you must be Harvey this is Anandtech. Not many dumb people are computer geeks), can so quickly go on a diatribe in a discussion. Pray tell Harvey what is the difference in the extreme opinion that Bush is Hitler as saying the opposite derivative from the Right Wing concerning the morality of former President Bill Clinton.

I think if people take the time to think rather than insult (I have been guilty of this myself), we might come to the realization that the truth is somewhere between both sides, and there are legitimate reasons for someone's beliefs outside of stupidity and ignorance. Heck, there might be some TRUTH in someone's view or opinion, Imagine that ;)

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Harvey
RANT! RANT! RANT! :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
Believe whatever you want to believe.

As I said, the number of people who agree with you that Bush is evil is so small that it is inconsequential.
Of course those believing that he is an imbecile is a different story.
 

operaman1

Senior member
Mar 21, 2004
570
0
76
Bush is a leader who surrounded himself with the wrong advisers. He listened to their advice exclusively and is paying the price for it. I do not see him as evil or stupid in so much as insulated and not realistic in some of his assessments. This can be attributed to not having enough dissenting opinions which I put more at the feet of Cheney and Rumsfeld than Bush.

I see him as a guy who saw North Korea and saw the potential in Iraq, rolled the dice that Saddam was closer than he was in getting a nuke and it came up snake eyes. Then, when he needed to be realistic concerning the way the war was going was too stubborn to go the United Nations for help.

In 04 he should have dumped Cheney then, but his "loyalty" to people kept him from making the prudent decision that has left the Republicans with the Albatross they have today. Also the bright guy who thought giving Halliburton the contracts in Iraq was a good idea is a moron as it would take two seconds to make the connection between Cheney and them. Really just a terrible job of public relations and damage control all the way around.

As to the war? I mean really it is not a war in so much as a civil war and conflict now. The difference is it comes 20 years sooner than if we had left Saddam in charge and we are flipping the bill for it. It is different groups all wanting the same pie. There really was not going to be a winner in all of this and there may never be. It is a sad, sad commentary on mankind to see it all. What is more sad is worse things go on in Africa everyday and no one cares. Hey, wait a minute, they aren't sitting on some gargantuan percentage of the world's oil supply. Never mind then...

Seriously, it is an unfortunate situation. Had the war been avoided I think Saddam would have gotten a nuke at some point if for no other reason than Iran is close now. Still then the UN would be flipping the bill for dealing with Saddam instead of the US flipping the bill for everything.

I wonder though: All in all, if man had the hindsight to realize the devastation that is the atomic bomb would there be a huge case of taksey backsies even going back to WWII? Ah, but that is neither here nor there. There were a lot of different factors then just like there are now. Nukes are here to stay, and unfortunately, there are leaders dumb enough to use them...

So really no one wins.
 
Feb 9, 2005
79
0
0
Would it be so bad to have another nuclear power in the middle-east to balance out Israel? Has India's nuclear power done any harm? (Bush doesn't think so) Would Saddam actually use one if he had it? He didn't use chemical weapons against Israel, did he? He didn't use the against the U.S. troops invading his country, did he? I hope Iran goes through with their nuclear weapon program so Israel will HONESTLY deal with it's neighbors instead of agreeing to cease-fires and the following day killing one of the opposition with a missle strike. Hilter did not personally kill one person during WW2, yet like Bush, he is responsible for every crime his soldiers commited because he sent them there to do it. Bush is a war crimminal. Cheney and Rumsfeld are equally to blame. We should hang them all so we won't have to hang our heads in shame.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: my sons father
Would it be so bad to have another nuclear power in the middle-east to balance out Israel? Has India's nuclear power done any harm? (Bush doesn't think so) Would Saddam actually use one if he had it? He didn't use chemical weapons against Israel, did he? He didn't use the against the U.S. troops invading his country, did he? I hope Iran goes through with their nuclear weapon program so Israel will HONESTLY deal with it's neighbors instead of agreeing to cease-fires and the following day killing one of the opposition with a missle strike. Hilter did not personally kill one person during WW2, yet like Bush, he is responsible for every crime his soldiers commited because he sent them there to do it. Bush is a war crimminal. Cheney and Rumsfeld are equally to blame. We should hang them all so we won't have to hang our heads in shame.
Is Israel taunting their nuclear weapons in the region? So there isnt a need for Iran to have nuclear weapons to balance Israel out. Much worse however is a radical regime that has publically stated is their mission to wipe Israel off the map with Nuclear weapons.

Does that balance or stabalize the situation?

 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
"The fact remains that the number of people who agree with you and your idea that Bush is evil or invading Iraq is evil is so small as to be totally irrelevant."

I hope this is a joke...
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"The fact remains that the number of people who agree with you and your idea that Bush is evil or invading Iraq is evil is so small as to be totally irrelevant."

I hope this is a joke...
Nope, not at all. Even on here I have only seen two people say what Bush did was "evil"
Even after being given the chance by Harvey and my exchange only one person has joined in Harvey's little group.

Even Red Dawn did not go so far as to make that statement in his little insult of me.

How about you, do you believe that Bush invaded Iraq because he is "evil"?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"The fact remains that the number of people who agree with you and your idea that Bush is evil or invading Iraq is evil is so small as to be totally irrelevant."

I hope this is a joke...
Nope, not at all. Even on here I have only seen two people say what Bush did was "evil"
Even after being given the chance by Harvey and my exchange only one person has joined in Harvey's little group.

Even Red Dawn did not go so far as to make that statement in his little insult of me.

How about you, do you believe that Bush invaded Iraq because he is "evil"?

I think he is a corrupt liar(attacked Iraq because god told him, WMD?, great job brownie?, fire anyone responsible for the leak?) who has used a tragedy to further his political career through the sacrificing of even MORE lives and while ignoring the main causes(supplying ME dictators with money through oil). This is about as evil as can be. I don't know where you live or who you talk to, but even here in Florida, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks Bush is anything but corrupt, both politically and morally.

You are fighting semantics with your personal definition of the word "evil." Have you seen the protests in NY when Bush comes? This is your "so small to be totally irrelevant"?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"The fact remains that the number of people who agree with you and your idea that Bush is evil or invading Iraq is evil is so small as to be totally irrelevant."

I hope this is a joke...
Nope, not at all. Even on here I have only seen two people say what Bush did was "evil"
Even after being given the chance by Harvey and my exchange only one person has joined in Harvey's little group.

Even Red Dawn did not go so far as to make that statement in his little insult of me.

How about you, do you believe that Bush invaded Iraq because he is "evil"?
No not at all:laugh:

 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
the whole concept of this thread is too absurd to even debate, but I especially like the first point.
About the 2000 and 2004 elections.
I will never ceased to be amazed at what poor loosers the left are.
Strangely this last election when dems won there were no rampant conspiracy loons out.
The problem just evaporated.
Poof, just like magic:roll:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Even after being given the chance by Harvey and my exchange only one person has joined in Harvey's little group.
This may come as a shock to you, John, but some people occasionally have more important things to do than continuing any mindless banter with intelltectual lightweights like you 24/7. Now, the holiday weekend's over, and I can reply.

While you sit there with your head lodged deeply between your gluteal cheeks in your futile effort to convince yourself none of Bush's fiasco of a presidency is the result of his incompetence, his intentional wrongdoing, or both. Meanwhile, "Harvey's little group" of those disapproving of Bush's presidency now exceeds 70% of Americans.

I really don't give a damn if you don't like my choice of the word, EVIL to describe it. As a direct result of Bush's WAR OF LIES in Iraq:
  • Thousands of American troops are DEAD. :(
  • Tens of thousands of American troops are wounded -- scarred and damaged for life.
  • Hundreds of thousands of other innocent people are dead and wounded.
  • Billions of dollars have gone to line the pockets of Bush's war profiteering buddies like Halliburton, etc. even as they fail to provide the goods and services for which they were hired in the first place.
  • The U.S. faces trillions of dollars of debt our great grandchildren will be paying while the Bushwhackos continue to rant about cutting taxes for the very wealthy.
Meanwhile, this same administration has screwed the pooch on every domestic issue they've attempted, from disaster relief and recovery to envirionmental policy to "homeland security" efforts, to education.

These morons could screw up a wet dream. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:

The facts are simple enough. You don't have to get into deep philosophical or religious discussions. Start with a simple definition of evil as the opposite of good. If you can look at the sum of what Bush and his cohorts have done on EVERY front since they took office, and you can say that their performance was anything other than a total disaster, and if you can look at what they've done and say that much of it, including going to war in Iraq, wasn't intentional, miguided, wrong, or that they didn't lie to Congress, the American people and the world about their motives and their agenda, there are only two possiblities:

1. You've been living in a cave without a clue about what's happened in the world.

2. You're an active part of their cabal, and your motives are thiers.

In either case, you're so dead ass wrong that no one can take anything you say seriously. Considering all the death, pain, suffering and horror they have wrought upon the nation and the world caused by both their intentional actions and their dismal failures, if you don't like the word, evil, I'll settle for any other word that conveys the meaning.

If you believe anything to the contrary, you need a serious reality check. :roll:
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
the whole concept of this thread is too absurd to even debate, but I especially like the first point.
About the 2000 and 2004 elections.
I will never ceased to be amazed at what poor loosers the left are.
Strangely this last election when dems won there were no rampant conspiracy loons out.
The problem just evaporated.
Poof, just like magic:roll:
Yeah, it was odd, oh..

wait...

The supreme court didn't need to get involved to elect them...

yep, forgot about that itsy bitty lil piece of info.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
Harvey, you said
The incompetence could be written off to arrogance, ineptitude and stupidity. The costs in lives, money and the credibility and reputation of our nation for going into Iraq can only be ascribed to pure evil.
Implying that Bush is evil. Am I wrong in my interpretation of what you said? Are you not saying Bush is evil?

The 70% you quote is the number of people who now think the war was a mistake, or that we should not have done it etc.

However, in 2003 there was 70% of Americans who were in support of the war and the invasion. Does that mean that these 70% of Americans were evil too in their intent?

As I see it, as long as you want to think of Bush as evil you are in an extreme minority of people in this country. And I believe that minority to be so small as to make it irrelevant.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY