Debate and Discussion

Bush Vs. Hitler: Relevent Comparison?
Mazoo at 4:04PM, March 6, 2006
(offline)
posts: 601
joined: 1-2-2006
I was recently on DA, and I found one of those comics by Bleedman, you know, those remake CN comics? Well, he had to make an alternate page of one of his comics, because one of the characters had a poster of Hitler and people were offended. As you can see, he replaced the picture with George W. Bush.

If you want to spend the time to read the endless comment list, you can, but an overview is that someone said Bush was much more evil than Hitler. It started an uproar.

It got me thinking and I think it makes a pretty good, albeit strange debate topic.

I personally think that it's a horrible comparison. Bush may not be the best president America has ever seen, but he is no where near as evil as Adolf Hitler.

What do you guys think?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:56PM
hpkomic at 4:44PM, March 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 943
joined: 1-1-2006
People who think Bush is “zomg wtf EVIL!!!” need to grow up, in my opinion.

He's defiantely one of the more dissapointing presidents we've had (perhaps history will say, the most) but for now, is he a Hitler?

Not at all.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
SpANG at 5:29PM, March 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
It's true. Hitler killed MILLIONS with a lie.

Bush has only killed TENS OF THOUSANDS with a lie (so far).

He really needs to play catchup if he wants to even be considered as evil as Hitler. :roll:

.: SpANG! :.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:51PM
Terminal at 5:42PM, March 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 5,505
joined: 1-6-2006
Hitler was hell bend on killing the Jews, Bush just doesn`t know how to do his job (and people get killed). The comparison is way overblown.

Yeah.

.: Myxomatosis :.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:09PM
SpANG at 5:59PM, March 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
Myxomatosis
Hitler was hell bend on killing the Jews, Bush just doesn’t know how to do his job (and people get killed). The comparison is way overblown.

Yeah.

Nice. The republican party has already convinced you that he is a “bumbling fool” so that they can position (and create distance from) a new candidate.

For years I have heard that Bush was this “aw, shucks” type of president. A real guy. The reality is that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and got whatever he wanted in life because he had money and connections from daddy. And he FAILED at EVERYTHING he did. Why should the presidency be any different?

But yes, the comparison is way overblown. Hitler was the only Hitler.
Bush is just a lap dog to corporate power. And people get killed because of that. And he and his freinds get richer.

.: SpANG! :.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:51PM
ozoneocean at 6:00PM, March 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
Well it's all about definitions, hmm. Was Hitler really even evil? Could he have just been a very stupid man who was controlled by others and swept up in a whole tight community of self sustaining craziness?

No. No, I don't really think that explains him… even if that explanation has any merit at all, he was still the centre of it and he was still a very nasty, evil, awful man. He was entirely humanly evil though, not some fantastic ultimate evil demon in human form, like people tend to imagine him. That's very dangerous, because if you think that way then you ignore the fact that any one of us could easily turn into such a monster, and many have, (rarely on the same scale though).

USA President George W Bush junior is similar to Hitler in that he has invaded another country entirely without provocation, invaded another on flimsy provocation and occupied both: imprisoned, tortured and killed innocents and guilty alike… He claims divine guidance like Hitler did. He demonised an entire “race” of people, (or at least encouraged demonisation), he encourages their persecution etc. He claims some kind of weird ultimate agenda, although instead of a 1000 year Reich it’s “Global democracy”- pretty much the same thing in practise.
So there are your similarities, or some of them anyway.

No, I don’t think Bush jnr is as evil as Hitler (yet), the man is too much of a puppet for a whole group of people who are driving that way of thinking. However the similarities are real, and if he manages to influence more invasions, (of Iran, Syria, or North Korea), then he really will be another Hitler.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
Hawk at 6:00PM, March 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
Hitler is the stereotypical comparison tool… probably because it's hard to imagine a more awful person. If I wanted to make William Hung look bad for instance, the cheap easy way out would be to compare him to Hitler by noting that he has tortured millions of people.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:45PM
hpkomic at 6:09PM, March 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 943
joined: 1-1-2006
What SpANG is illustrating for us is that if you doggedly despise someone, you can claim they're evil.
Thus I declare Britney Spears is the anti-christ.
While we're at it, I'd like to throw Michael Eisner, the creators of Totally Spies and since I kind of dislike Seth McFarlane's work, we'll toss him in as well.

Evil suggests malicious behavior. Bush has not shown malicious character, he's just hasty and ill-informed.

His actions are the result of a poor process of thought, not a deliberate attempt to destroy the population of the earth.

Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to quit subscribing to their conspiracy theory newsletters.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
Mazoo at 6:24PM, March 6, 2006
(offline)
posts: 601
joined: 1-2-2006
One of the commenters on the DA page said that both of them were evil, but Hitler was the “smart” kind of evil, and Bush was the “stupid” kind of evil.

I don't think I agree with that.

I don't see Bush as “evil,” just someone who's looking out for his own gain, and not really for his country as a whole. Like people have said, he's not intentionally killing people. I don't believe he's committing genocide.

But also, a difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler had genocide happen within his own country. Bush isn't killing “arab-americans” or “middle-eastern” people in the US, just because they are “arabs” or “middle-eastern.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:56PM
Black_Kitty at 6:37PM, March 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,481
joined: 1-1-2006
I find it mildly distasteful that someone can think that Hitler and what he has done could be on the same level as Bush and what he has done. It's almost belittling to the Holocaust in a way.

Call me back when Bush starts eliminating the democratic system in the United States completely (so as to keep himself in power) and ordering mass genocides while operating horrific concentration camps.

(As an aside: Those people who are complaining about Bush better either be underage or had voted in the elections.)

.: Black Kitty :.
  
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
hpkomic at 6:47PM, March 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 943
joined: 1-1-2006
I think all of this Bush-Bashing (yes, I'm quite proud of that term) is unnavoidable considering that every president we've had within the last 50 years has been referred to as the “Ultimate Evil”.

People want a scapegoat for all of their problems, and who better than the leader of their country?

Now, I am not a supporter of Bush. I am neither Democrat, or Republican, as far as I'm concerned, I have no party affiliation whatsoever.

I just see all this for what it truly is, a continuation of something that's been happening to presidents for years.

I guarentee that we'll hear similar rumblings about our next president, no matter who he/she may be.

It's all just the same dance with different partners frankly, and it's a bit disturbing that people get so into it.

I'd like to see for once, instead of having people bitch about how horrible president such and such is making our country, people go out, donate their money to help the poor, clean up a city street, actively engage in doing something, instead of just sitting around, bitching and grumbling when something CAN be done. That's what I dislike about my country the most, the people in it, who want something, never do anything about it, and then whine when they don't get it.

But then I realize that this is america, and we reward people for being this way.

Sigh.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
ozoneocean at 7:39PM, March 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
There have still been two very large invasions, many, many people dead and many more maimed for life, prison camps, torture, people ‘disappearing’ from their countries, grand schemes. All that is 100% real. Don't ignore or belittle it, that's disgusting. There's no conspiracy about that. The only conspiracy here is one of silence; by pretending these awful things don't matter or don't exist.

There hasn't been a holocaust, or an Auschwitz, but there does not need to be! Monsters come in all shapes and sizes, they're not all the same. Bush jnr has directly caused more people to be killed than Charles Manson. You could say he's almost on a par with Sadam Husain.

Perhaps people shouldn’t get so hung up with this STUPID idea of comparative “evil”, it seems to be causing them to ignore or minimise the bad things that actually happen.

By saying Bush Jnr is as bad as Hitler actually HELPS him, because it forces you to say “no, no he's not nearly that bad…”, and then go on to forget that anything wrong ever happened in his name.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
hpkomic at 7:46PM, March 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 943
joined: 1-1-2006
Bad shit is happening, sure.

Bad shit happened during prior presidencies as well. I'm just saying there is a certain cycle to all of this. Needless to say, this will happen again.

So why is Bush the only “evil” one, when compared against Clinton, Bush sr, Reagan or Carter and the evils they've commited?

I think people like to claim the president after is always worse then the president before.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
ozoneocean at 10:21PM, March 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
hpkomic
I think people like to claim the president after is always worse then the president before.
People like me say Bush Jnr is a bad man because of these wars and the threat of more war. That's a different thing to the partisan griping you always have within America; entirely different. You have mooncalves who think lying about the definition of a blowjob is somehow satanic… I don't care which American political party any of the presidents belong to, what happens within the USA is for people in the USA to worry about, but invasions take things to a different level.

Out of those presidents you mentioned, Clinton participated in military action against Serbia; that was pretty limited. He had a few missiles lobbed at Afghanistan, which was a stupid thing to do, but still irrelevant in this context. Regan shelled Lebanon, sanctioned the invasion of Grenada and military action in quite a few South American countries, proxy wars in the Middle East. He supported vicious rightwing regimes that tortured and killed political prisoners etc. but most of the wrongness there was indirect and in the context of the cold war where ALL the major powers were either colluding, doing the same things, or competing.
The real George Bush invaded Panama; that was an evil act and not as defensible as the liberation of Kuwait. The original campaign against Iraq was unnecessary and brutal, but you can still defend it because they did actually liberate a country that had been invaded, (a much worse country than Iraq, but still…).

Further back you have other conflicts and Vietnam, but in the past 30 years you can honestly say that no American president has done something as bad as or on the scale of these current invasions. He's really made his mark.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
Ronin at 5:48AM, March 7, 2006
(online)
posts: 21
joined: 1-3-2006
SpANG!
Nice. The republican party has already convinced you that he is a “bumbling fool” so that they can position (and create distance from) a new candidate.

I'm both amused and frightened by your paranoia, Spang. Tone it down a little, you're scaring the kids.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Goblyn at 6:07AM, March 7, 2006
(offline)
posts: 32
joined: 2-22-2006
I think that what hpkimoc said is really the truth… can anyone remember a president that WASN'T referred to as evil, the worst president, total crap, etc…

I thought this topic was interesting because here in Colorado, we are currently enduring big issues regarding a high school teacher who said, in his class, that Bush's staements were lie those of Hitler. The teacher is currently suspended because a kid in his class recoded the comments on his MP3 player and gave them to the press.

Personally, I don't see how you could compare ANYONE to Hitler. Seriously, the guy set out to perform genocide! I don;t think that Bush is thebest president we've had, but Idon;t remember wiping out any other races as being part of his state of the union address.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:38PM
SpANG at 6:09AM, March 7, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
Ronin
SpANG!
Nice. The republican party has already convinced you that he is a “bumbling fool” so that they can position (and create distance from) a new candidate.

I'm both amused and frightened by your paranoia, Spang. Tone it down a little, you're scaring the kids.

What's paranoid about that? FACT: Bush's approval rating is in the toilet. FACT: Republican candidates ARE distancing themselves from him. How else could the republican party get another one in the white house?

Your blindness frightens me. Because you represent the majority of people that don't even see what's in front of their face.

.: SpANG! :.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:51PM
hpkomic at 7:20AM, March 7, 2006
(online)
posts: 943
joined: 1-1-2006
SpANG!
Ronin
SpANG!
Nice. The republican party has already convinced you that he is a “bumbling fool” so that they can position (and create distance from) a new candidate.

I'm both amused and frightened by your paranoia, Spang. Tone it down a little, you're scaring the kids.

What's paranoid about that? FACT: Bush's approval rating is in the toilet. FACT: Republican candidates ARE distancing themselves from him. How else could the republican party get another one in the white house?

Your blindness frightens me. Because you represent the majority of people that don't even see what's in front of their face.

I believe everyone here has acknowledged Bush is a less than stellar president (even awful). What we're concerned with in regards to your statements that he is on par with Adolph Hitler in terms of sheer malicious thoughts and crimes when it simply isn't true.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
Ronson at 7:41AM, March 7, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
There's a teacher in Colorado who was suspended for comparing Bush's language to the things Hitler said. Instead of analyzing what he said, the mainstream media simplified it to him comparing Bush to Hitler.

The two comparisons are not the same.

Hitler was German, Bush is American. Hitler served in the military, Bush avoided actual service. Hitler was a failed artist, Bush was a failed businessman. Hitler killed many, many, many more people in the name of “German supremecy”, Bush killed far fewer for corporate interests (which I suppose makes him more like Mussolini!).

They are not the same.

But their rhetoric…oh, baby… you betcha.

In one of Bush's speeches a few years ago, he talked about his - and our - struggle against Muslim extremism.

Hitler's published work “Mein Kampf” can be translated to mean “my struggle”.

If you read about Hitler's history, you see some striking parallels. He scared his nation into losing many of their freedoms for the sake of safety.

The PATRIOT act, the NSA wiretapping, the renditioning of political prisoners, the torture of Iraqi prisoners, the “disappearing” of hundreds of legal Arab immigrants … these are dangerous precedents that have parallels to early Hitlerian acts.

Bush and his actions and policies are by no means as severe as what Hitler ultimately did. No one is saying that.

But how Hitler-esque do you have to be before you're TOO Hitler-esqe? Does the fact that other presidents did similar - but somewhat less extreme - things excuse Bush from his actions?

__________

I think the only thing that can be said for the sake of fairness is that most leaders - evil and good alike - beat the drum of war, wave the flag of patriotism and work their slight of hand on their public.

There are parallels between all leaders in this respect. Sometimes it was done well, sometimes it was done for honest intentions…and sometimes they overreach.

But when they restrict freedom, expression and speech. When they fix the voting systems, when they vilify opposing viewpoints - well, that's when things start to fall apart in any system.

I can list thousands of things Bush has done to hurt this country without once mentioning Hitler. But for some to react too strongly with the “that can't happen here” mentality is a scary thing. If we can't admit that it very well COULD happen here, then I submit that it's ALREADY starting to happen here.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Black_Kitty at 5:53PM, March 7, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,481
joined: 1-1-2006
If we're going to talk about the teacher in Colorado, then I would just like to point out three things:
1. He was teaching geography at the time, not political science or history.
2. The student remarked that the teacher only spent about 20% of classroom time teaching geography. The rest of it he spent talking about personal politics.
3. It is generally regarded as a big nono to use your authority as a teacher to force religious/political statements onto young impressionable minds under your authority. So for example, I can't tell my students to vote Liberal and that anyone who doesn't lacks the appropriate brain mass. Neither can I tell them to all become Catholic or else they'll burn in eternal damnation. These are the kind of things that would get me into trouble.

I guess you could say that the teacher didn't do the third but I do like to know why he spent less than half of his classtime actually teaching his subject and what Bush's language have anything to do with geography. I think it isn't so much that he got suspended for comparing Bush's language with Hitler's but that he wasn't doing his job properly.

.: Black Kitty :.
  
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
Ronson at 8:16PM, March 7, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Black Kitty
If we're going to talk about the teacher in Colorado, then I would just like to point out three things:
1. He was teaching geography at the time, not political science or history.
2. The student remarked that the teacher only spent about 20% of classroom time teaching geography. The rest of it he spent talking about personal politics.
3. It is generally regarded as a big nono to use your authority as a teacher to force religious/political statements onto young impressionable minds under your authority. So for example, I can't tell my students to vote Liberal and that anyone who doesn't lacks the appropriate brain mass. Neither can I tell them to all become Catholic or else they'll burn in eternal damnation. These are the kind of things that would get me into trouble.

I guess you could say that the teacher didn't do the third but I do like to know why he spent less than half of his classtime actually teaching his subject and what Bush's language have anything to do with geography. I think it isn't so much that he got suspended for comparing Bush's language with Hitler's but that he wasn't doing his job properly.

I love ya, BK, but don't use FOX for your source. They lie to make their points.

Facts as I've found them:

1. He's a social studies teacher teaching world geography. In the United States, that includes historical references. I can personally vouch that my World Geography class in eight grade was mostly history, with a few maps thrown in.

2. His 50 minute lecture included 20 minutes of statements saying that the rhetoric from Hitler is similar to the rhetoric from Bush. He claims that the other 30 minutes provided the balance required by the school. Since the student only submitted the statements that made the poor kid mad, there's no way to prove or disprove either person's statement.

3. IT IS THE TRUTH. Rhetoric takes a very similar form no matter who is saying it. The only quote I heard made this very true statement. If it makes the students think a bit instead of waving the flag like zombies, I'm all for it. George Bush, Adolph Hitler, FDR – whoever – in a time of war, the rhetoric is “We're the best, they're horrible, we'll win because we're right, if you aren't with us you're against us … blah, blah, blah”

here's one of the articles I've drawn from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030700734.html?sub=AR

the pertinent data:

Bennish told “Today” the excerpts broadcast weren't representative of the full lecture.

“This is 20 minutes out of a 50-minute class. The rest of the class provides the balance,” he said.

On the recording, Bennish told the students that some of Bush's speech “sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler used to say. We're the only ones who are right, everyone else is backwards and our job is to conquer the world and make sure that they all live just like we want them to.”

Later in the recording, Bennish said he was not claiming Bush and Hitler were the same, “but there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use.”

Bennish said no parents _ including the family of the student who recorded the lecture _ have complained to him. He said all the students' parents had seen his syllabus and that school officials had approved it.

“My job as a social studies teacher is to argue alternative perspectives and viewpoints so that students are aware of those point of views. They do not necessarily reflect my own views. They are simply thrown out there to encourage critical thought,” he told “Today.”

okedoke?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Black_Kitty at 8:33PM, March 7, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,481
joined: 1-1-2006
Ah I stand corrected. :) I actually saw a discussion about this in another forum so I pulled their sources. Now I'm curious as to how the other thirty minutes will be proven.

On a completely off tangent point, I just realized I can't remember when I had social studies class in high school. O.o

.: Black Kitty :.
  
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
Ronin at 2:40AM, March 8, 2006
(online)
posts: 21
joined: 1-3-2006
SpANG!
What's paranoid about that? FACT: Bush's approval rating is in the toilet. FACT: Republican candidates ARE distancing themselves from him. How else could the republican party get another one in the white house?

Your blindness frightens me. Because you represent the majority of people that don't even see what's in front of their face.

Of course they're distancing themselves from someone who's approval rating is in the toilet. They're politicians, it's their job to try to make themselves look good, because having strong ethics and a will to do what's right go unseen by the people. They're forced to look after their image, else they lose financial backing.

Your facts are straight, yes, but you percieve them in a far different light than I do. You've turned a very basic rule of politics into “Oh my gosh those republicans are at it again! XO”. Would the democrats be doing it any differently if they were in the republican's seats and Jim Kerry was up there being compared to Hitler? Of course not, because they're the good guys. The righteous knights in shining armor, here to slay the dark lord of evil who terrorizes the lands.

As for my ‘blindness’, SpANG my friend, had that comment come from anyone but you, I'd be concerned for the opinion that I try so hard to keep unbiased. I happen to know from experience, however, that to be called ‘blind’ or ‘unintelligent’ by you is simply your way of confirming that I don't happen to agree with you.

As for Bush, no. He's no Hitler. History has desensitized the world into thinking less of his disturbed nature to the point that we'd have people seriously consitering Bush for comparison. Bush's term is almost halfway over now. Sizing him up to Hitler's profile isn't going to make November '08 come any faster.

Thank you.

~Ronin~
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Ronson at 6:49AM, March 8, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
As long as we can all agree that Bush should be impeached for the criminal acts he committed in office, we don't even need the Hitler comparison.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Dubba G at 8:49AM, March 8, 2006
(offline)
posts: 62
joined: 1-23-2006
Bush is no where near as bad as Hitler, I don't think you can compare anyone to Hitler really. This guy really does think that Bush is as bad as Hitler, actually he believes him to be the manifestation of pure evil. http://www.bushisantichrist.com/ He's probably just crazy though.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
hpkomic at 9:49AM, March 8, 2006
(online)
posts: 943
joined: 1-1-2006
Not as crazy a this guy.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
ozoneocean at 11:46AM, March 10, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
hpkomic
Not as crazy a this guy.
I know a guy who was actually into that. Hmm, yup. He was trying to convince people to set up a community with him somewhere in the bush. He bought a house out there, miles from anywhere, and got some others to move out there too… I don't really know what happened to him after that, but I don't think it worked out.

Fancy that, believing in lizard people and secret brotherhoods… They're almost as insane as evangelists!

Back to the topic though, Bush is still comparable to Hitler in his Invasions of both Iraq an Afghanistan, as well as his insane ideas about bringing democracy and American Christian values to the rest of the world. But I would agree that the Mussolini comparison is a bit better.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
ozoneocean at 1:20PM, March 11, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
It’s a fierce double combo of my horrible avatar and mention of Bush jnr. –makes me come over all fiendinsh… ^_^

anyway speaking of comparing bad people; even if Bush jnr is nothing more than the figurehead for a nasty organisation that Rumsfeld really controls, Bush jnr is still about 50 times more “evil” than Osama Bin Laden!
Try and dispute that! :P

-Osama is another figurehead for a bunch of nasty, horrible, stupid, people. But curiously, in real numbers his guys really haven’t caused all that much death and destruction, especially when compared to Bush Jnr and his allies. Ah, but destruction by the “good guys” is ok isn’t it?

They’re all bad guys to me. Not much distinction. The important difference for me is that out of the poor bastards actually doing the fighting, there are soldiers who don’t necessarily want to be there, unlike the people fighting for a reason or the mad fanatics. The reluctant ones aren’t bad guys.
The only good guys are the NGOs and humanitarian workers.

Time for another avatar change you think? I thought the bunny ears should have lightened the mood a little at least. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
ozoneocean at 2:59PM, March 11, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,966
joined: 1-2-2004
mike z.
As far as i know, we haven't exasctly invented the patented Evilisis Quantifiometer.
Well you know how it is, the mathematics of malfeasance is pretty bloody complicated and not easily comprehended by the layman, so I thought I’d provide a simplified equation in lieu of something more precise and expanded… Sort of like Bush=Osama multiplied by the speed of light squared. :-D
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
hpkomic at 8:14AM, March 12, 2006
(online)
posts: 943
joined: 1-1-2006
Mr. Neil
hpkomic
Evil suggests malicious behavior. Bush has not shown malicious character, he's just hasty and ill-informed.

His actions are the result of a poor process of thought, not a deliberate attempt to destroy the population of the earth.

Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to quit subscribing to their conspiracy theory newsletters.
Malicious is not a synonym for evil. Evil simply implies that one is incapable of correct moral judgement. What's scary about evil people is not that they do things for the sake of being evil, but rather that they do evil things because they think that what they're doing is good.

Comparing people to Hitler is a bit harsh, and it's become somewhat of a cliche cheapshot. I'm not going to compare Bush to Hitler. But I think it goes without saying that Bush has done some terribly evil things in office. And I don't even have to reference his military behavior.

Look at how he's retarded stem cell research. The most promising medical breakthrough of all time is upon us, the only thing standing in the way is a president with a heightened sense of regard for God's creation. The man simply will not set aside his personal beliefs in the name of progress, and thus his “moral objection” to using aborted fetuses comes at the expense of those who could potentially benefit from the medicine of tomorrow. What he's doing is evil, but he acts out of good intentions, because he thinks that what he's doing is right.

To quote a horrible movie, “Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions.” Good intentions are not good enough. People need to be able to weigh the consequence of their actions and the harm they could potentially cause. If they refuse to do so, then they're evil.

The only things Bush has done to piss me off are all in regards to scientific and medicinal breakthroughs, IE, Stem Cells. You have a point of course, but even under what you've said, I still don't consider him evil, much less as evil as hitler.

Just an idiot.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved