When does it become 'politics'?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 18:35
VIEWED: 6108
PAGE 5 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by DreamTrove:
I once got into an argument with a couple of liberals who were not nazis, yet were defending the position 'Hitler was a good leader of Germany.' I don't think the flaws in such a position need exosure, but these were educated people, one had a PhD. The thing is, taking aside the net effect, and the qualification of 'who exactly is a German' ...where does this leave us?
I guess ultimately, what is or isn't political and what is objective is subjective.
I agree, it depends what your criteria for a good leader is. If a good leader is someone who prevents mass death and war, Hitler is about the worst leader who ever dared to lead.
If your criteria is material gain, for want of a better term, I'd say he was the greatest leader that ever lived. Both the British and Roman empires, lets be honest they were the big ones, took centuries to carve out, and were largely created from lands taken from people a hell of a lot less technologically advanced than the aggressor. By comparision Hitler took a country litterally on it's knees and in a few short years turned it into a nation that threatened to take over most of the world, including nations as technologically advanced.
So it depends on where you're coming from.
This is kinda where I got my idea that everything is politics...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn,
Not a chance.
I'm sorry, the constitution is not a decree of divine dictatorship. The CiC does not decide where and when we go to war. It's not his position to decide who Americas enemies are and why we fight. The president is top General, not legislator.
What you give here is the line that ArchDictator Cheney and the monkey puppet Bush want you to believe, as told by the ArchTraitor Stanley H. Gonzalez.
Quote:
irrational personal hatred of George Bush or Dick Cheney
Nothing irrational about hating these international terrorists who are trying to destroy everything we have worked for, and turning America into a four letter word internationally.
Finn, as a rhetorrical style alone, this isn't working, perhaps you should think about you're overall position before you lose my vote to Pirate News.
The truth is the wealth and good name of America have been trown away, treated as worse than dog excrement by this administration. The end effect of this has been a marvelous hallelujah jihad hiring bonanza Al Qaeda's new Terrorists 'R' Us Supercenter: Iraq.
I think the only patriotic thing to do is to burn Bush to the ground, and anyone who tried to follow in his footsteps. Bear in mind that Bush's Supreme court nominations were not his own, or the those of Cheney. Bush had made it perfectly clear that he wanted Harriet Miers instead of Alito, and nixed out Alito's name the first time it was given to him, and the instead of Roberts, Bush had wanted to nominate Gonzalez, a point that was so clear in his mind that he had twice made unmistakeable hints about it publicly.
The fact is, Bush was at a political weakpoint, and was these picks, which I agree with, by a group of GOP Senators led by Arlen Spector. I know that the lefties are never going to be happy with the right, but they don't have to be, the point is, these republicans who did this are the good guys, and they did it pretty close to over the dead body of Bush. So before you go and give him more credit than is due him...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn:
Chris has a lot more tact then all of us. I tend to put my foot in my mouth a lot, and I’m afraid by bring up the issue of bush hating in this thread that I’ve done just that. Perhaps I’m beating up against opinions that are so inflexible that I’m wasting my time. Or perhaps I lack my own sense of tact to voice my position in a way that won’t insult people. Perhaps it is pointless to say, but we might actually agree on this subject more then we disagree.
Finn,
Sometimes I suspect that you actually have more tact than I do. I don't think it does a lot of good. My own position on Bush, which to be fair is my position on Cheney. I know people who know Bush, personally. He's a pretty morally bankrupt individual, delusional, with a serious drug problem. I hear he's a nice enough guy, but sick, mentally disturbed, but also, and more importantly, not in any way in power. All of Bush's own personal faults are not helping the country to fall apart because Cheney is actually pulling the strings.
But the thing that I've noticed here is that if anything, my opinion has been effected probably more negatively here on the forum than positively. People on the far-pro-bush end consitantly lost my support for the admin by never having anything to say other than the mindless rhetoric of the admin. I'm slowing beginning to accept the possibility that this administration might be a whole lot worse than just 'bad for a republican' which is more or less what I came in with. In all fairness, the administration itself has done a fair job towards making me feel that.
But people on the far left here have done the same thing, pushing me away from their position. I can think three or four who have made me less likely to vote for a democrat in '08. At the moment my positions is "only if it's russ feingold." I'd also consider a vote for barbara boxer, if she ran. But otherwise, I'm liable to vote for Jeb/Condi over Kerry/Hillary or however it comes down.
I also am becoming increasingly concerned with the Iran situation. I read Cheney's whole mideast attack plan. Long before Iran did anything, or the president said 'Iran', when we invaded Iraq and people said "oh yadadada, it's vietnam" I said "no, Iran is vietnam," Iraq is basically target practice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
...it depends what your criteria for a good leader is.
Citizen,
I've got to go with Chris on this one. Good leader isn't subjective. A good leader is one who makes life better for his subjects, and doesn't kill them.
An excellent leader goes out and makes life better for people who are not directly his subjects, though not at the expense of his own subjects.
Bush's own subjects include the people of Iraq, and have from the moment the Hussein govt. fell. Since Abu Ghraib happened after that, which we know because before that, Abu Ghraib was run by Saddam Hussein, then this was a horrible abuse of power against his own subjects. Everything Bush does to the Iraqis, he does to his people, because they are his people.
Whether or not they elected him is irrelevant. Democrats didn't elect Bush, but they are subject to his policies, just as people who are under 18, or live on Indian Reservations. It's entirely possible that republicans didn't even elect him.
Damn, I meant to say Cheney. I was going to stop using the "B" word. On the grounds that he's not really president.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But what if that isn't your definition of a good leader?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If your criteria is material gain, for want of a better term, I'd say he was the greatest leader that ever lived.
You mean territorial, not material.
But you're still wrong. I'm not going to have this argument over again, but this is where the left shoots itself in the foot.
What you should have said was "Yes, there's somethign objective that makes Nazis bad." By the constant devil's advocate, you lose me. This is what makes you one of the people who, and I say this with all due respect, because I like you fine personally, one of the people who is probably more likely to make me vote for the other guy by your argument.
Every time your own argument loses votes, you should re-examine your strategy. I think Kerry worked long and hard for Bush. If Kerry had kept his mouth shut Bush would have gotten a lot fewer votes. Mr. Plywood Plank probably had a better shot of beating Bush. He might've even won.
I want to make another point. Just because I thought of it. Whether or not Bush/Cheney won the 2000 election against Gore fair and square, he cheated the 2000 primary. Technically, Steve Forbes was working for Cheney at the time, as his underling in the PNAC think tank. Without getting into an argument with anyone about that, the conflict of interests is clear, and the fact that Forbes entered the race, cloned McCain's platform, and split his vote, causing a Bush victory, does mean that he cheated. Forbes was not actually a credible candidate, but was still working for Cheney at the time.
Anyway, the short argument is this: At he end of the term, regarless of the interim possession, the Nazis left the country divided in 2, over 1/3 of their people dead. Conquest isn't about temporary ownership. Anyone can invade and occupy the Earth. Mongolia, for example. But holding territory is another matter. Even so, conquest is not an achievement. When the left figures that out, they can start campaigning for the people's votes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT, erm, huh?
Where in my post did you get the notion that I was trying to say Hitler was a good leader? I thought I stated quite clearly both sides, he's a bad leader because X, but if you think a good leader is Y rather than X than he was actually quite successful, in your eyes. Where you say "I should have said..." I think I did say that, and I thought it was fairly clear.
I mean at the end of the day there was two big turning points in the Second World War, the Battle of Britain and America joining the war on the side of the Allies. If the Battle of Britain had been lost, then the war in Europe would have been won by Germany, I have no doubt. The reason that it wasn't won was Hitler's own stupidity, I'm not trying to say he was a good leader, either as devils advocate or anything else. If a few events had changed (like Churchill ordering the bombing of Berlin in responce to the accidental bombing of London by the Luftwaffer) it's a very real possibillity that the Nazis would still be around today and in control of Europe if not America as well.
I think Material is a good word for it, since I wasn't just talking about territory, but other aspects as well. But in the cold light of day Territorial gain is a material gain.
My 'devils advocate' had nothing to do with Hitler, more to do with why someone may say he was a good leader, which I thought was more or less your point to be honest.
In the end I never tried to start an argument over whether Hitler was a good leader or not, I don't want that argument and I don't believe it anyway.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Secondly, and I'm aware of what may happen after I post this, but Imperialism and national militarism/expansion is not a partisan issue, it is not a 'thing of the left'. It is every bit as much 'a thing of the right'.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Secondly, and I'm aware of what may happen after I post this, but Imperialism and national militarism/expansion is not a partisan issue, it is not a 'thing of the left'. It is every bit as much 'a thing of the right'.
No, it's not. It's really really not. And just because Bush/Cheney were elected on a republican ticket, doesn't make it so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, the fact that it is makes it so.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME