Conquer Club

SolidLuigi wrote:How is Bush even on this list, let alone tied for first.

So please explain to me how Bush is worse than Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong Il

I'll tell you how:

In their eyes, Christians or people with a Theistic worldview are dangerous because they go around pronouncing moral judgements on people. They also believe that Christians (Bush has claimed that he is one) go around forcing conversions on people who were otherwise living happy lives.

Therefore, in their minds, Bush's policies are directed at forcing the rest of the world to be like the United States in culture and religion. Usually they mask this with the charge of "imperialistic oppression" so they can't be charged with religious bigotry. After all, they view themselves as the tolerant ones and their opposition as intolerant.

Bush also cut taxes during his first term. In their worldview, only the rich benefit from tax cuts. The poor are hurt by this (despite unemployment going way down after these cuts were enacted). So, in their minds, Bush is an imperialist who wishes to economically enslave the world and hurt the poor.

I'll ask this again: if given the choice to live in the United States under George W. Bush's leadership versus living in N. Korea under the leadership of Kim Jong Il (or living in Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), which would you choose?

luns101 wrote:

SolidLuigi wrote:How is Bush even on this list, let alone tied for first.

So please explain to me how Bush is worse than Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong Il

I'll tell you how:

1. In their eyes, anyone who doesn't believe in consolidating the wealth and private property of individuals into the hands of the state is evil.

2. In their eyes, anyone who doesn't believe in taking that wealth and redistributing it as they see fit is evil and uncompassionate. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is their mantra.

3. In their eyes, Christians or people with a Theistic worldview are dangerous because they go around pronouncing moral judgements on people. They also believe that Christians (Bush has claimed that he is one) go around forcing conversions on people who were otherwise living happy lives. Therefore, in their minds, Bush's policies are directed at forcing the rest of the world to be like the United States in culture and religion. Usually they mask this with the charge of "imperialistic oppression" so they can't be charged with religious bigotry. After all, they view themselves as the tolerant ones and their opposition as intolerant.

Yeah, you pretty much summed it up nicely for me

I obviously edited my first post and took out those first two points. Flashleg8 read my post before I reconsidered some of my thoughts. So I will offer this instead:

Although I generally am against social programs and redistribution of wealth, I do believe that our government owes African-Americans and Native American Indians assistance programs due to the injustices that have been done towards them. So anyway, it's not Flashleg's fault that his quote is different than my current post, as I edited it.

Oh sorry, yeh... The imperialistic oppression we accuse Bush of is actually a thinly veiled religious biggotry on our part... The criticism of the apparent 'oppression' exhibited by Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il in their own countries is also just our religious biggotry coming through...

You really think we believe Bush is in Iraq to 'convert' them to Christianity???

Nothing to do with politics, economics, hegemony etc. etc. whatsoever then...

bush...

flashleg8 wrote:

luns101 wrote:

SolidLuigi wrote:How is Bush even on this list, let alone tied for first.

So please explain to me how Bush is worse than Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong Il

I'll tell you how:

1. In their eyes, anyone who doesn't believe in consolidating the wealth and private property of individuals into the hands of the state is evil.

2. In their eyes, anyone who doesn't believe in taking that wealth and redistributing it as they see fit is evil and uncompassionate. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is their mantra.

3. In their eyes, Christians or people with a Theistic worldview are dangerous because they go around pronouncing moral judgements on people. They also believe that Christians (Bush has claimed that he is one) go around forcing conversions on people who were otherwise living happy lives. Therefore, in their minds, Bush's policies are directed at forcing the rest of the world to be like the United States in culture and religion. Usually they mask this with the charge of "imperialistic oppression" so they can't be charged with religious bigotry. After all, they view themselves as the tolerant ones and their opposition as intolerant.

Yeah, you pretty much summed it up nicely for me

Aww, come on now. Answer the question. Which would it be the U.S.A., under Bush, or Korea under Kim Jong Il? You completely ignored his argument Remember the sole reason we are able to have this debate among our (U.S.) citizens and others is because Bush does not ruthlessly put down opposition. For example the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Guiscard wrote:Oh sorry, yeh... The imperialistic oppression we accuse Bush of is actually a thinly veiled religious biggotry on our part... The criticism of the apparent 'oppression' exhibited by Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il in their own countries is also just our religious biggotry coming through...

You really think we believe Bush is in Iraq to 'convert' them to Christianity???

Nothing to do with politics, economics, hegemony etc. etc. whatsoever then...

Sorry, you've lost me man. Are you suggesting that criticizing Bush is a thinly veiled religious bigotry on the part of atheists? If so then I, a christian, have the same religious bigotry as you. It really has nothing to do with religion. As citizens of the United States, we are called upon to question our leaders. If you are looking for a place where that opposition is not tolerated, try North Korea, Cuba, Iran (actually not so much), Iraq (under Hussein), and Afghanistan (under the Taliban).

Now, If you're saying that a strong power, based on a perceived threat, does not necesssarily have the right to attack a weaker one. Then I would agree. I would, however, also say that once you begin down that road you have to set reasonable objectives, meet them, and get out.

Crazy Anglican, although Luns has edited his post somewhat, this is what I was reacting against:

Luns101 wrote:Therefore, in their minds, Bush's policies are directed at forcing the rest of the world to be like the United States in culture and religion. Usually they mask this with the charge of "imperialistic oppression" so they can't be charged with religious bigotry. After all, they view themselves as the tolerant ones and their opposition as intolerant.

and my post again:

Guiscard wrote:Oh sorry, yeh... The imperialistic oppression we accuse Bush of is actually a thinly veiled religious biggotry on our part... The criticism of the apparent 'oppression' exhibited by Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il in their own countries is also just our religious biggotry coming through...

You really think we believe Bush is in Iraq to 'convert' them to Christianity???

Nothing to do with politics, economics, hegemony etc. etc. whatsoever then...

As for my own opinion, I've stated before in this thread it is ridiculous that Blair and Bush are on the same list as Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il (although I would say Mugabe was worst re: genocide). It is just Luns thinks the criticisms of Bush are all rooted in some kind of abject fear of Christianity, rather than a rejection of imperialism, hegemony and military dominance and irresponsibility.

Guiscard wrote:As for my own opinion, I've stated before in this thread it is ridiculous that Blair and Bush are on the same list as Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il (although I would say Mugabe was worst re: genocide). It is just Luns thinks the criticisms of Bush are all rooted in some kind of abject fear of Christianity, rather than a rejection of imperialism, hegemony and military dominance and irresponsibility.

Okay, Thanks for clearing your position up. I was just alittle confused by the post.

Wow, go to work and miss a lot.

Except for the N. Ireland being part of both UK and Ireland

luns101 wrote:Although I generally am against social programs and redistribution of wealth, I do believe that our government owes African-Americans and Native American Indians assistance programs due to the injustices that have been done towards them.

I see that this in theory is a good hearted idea, but it is unrealistic. How will you determine which African-Americans presently living in the U.S. today have ancestors that were slaves? Many cannot trace their ancestry back because of no records. Native Americans were not treated well, it sounds cold-hearted but that is how imperialism works and America wasn't the only one doing it. Over history most prosperous nations ruined other nations or peoples to get there. Does that make it morally right? No, but that was the way of the world then and I don't think that reparations being paid out from people who live today who had nothing to do with it would work.

SolidLuigi wrote:

luns101 wrote:Although I generally am against social programs and redistribution of wealth, I do believe that our government owes African-Americans and Native American Indians assistance programs due to the injustices that have been done towards them.

I see that this in theory is a good hearted idea, but it is unrealistic.

Agreed. I don't really know the answer to that one. However, I cannot deny that certain people in our country were discriminated against and therefore might need some type of assistance in order to "level the playing field". I can only agree to the "principle" of helping.

I'm sure there are some success stories out there of people who have been helped by social programs, but for the most part they have been unsuccessful. In my own experience, it has been individuals who care about others and invest their own personal $$ and time that has made a difference. I got to admit that this is a tough one...there are no easy solutions.

luns101 wrote:

SolidLuigi wrote:

luns101 wrote:Although I generally am against social programs and redistribution of wealth, I do believe that our government owes African-Americans and Native American Indians assistance programs due to the injustices that have been done towards them.

I see that this in theory is a good hearted idea, but it is unrealistic.

Agreed. I don't really know the answer to that one. However, I cannot deny that certain people in our country were discriminated against and therefore might need some type of assistance in order to "level the playing field". I can only agree to the "principle" of helping.

I think this is way off. Civil Rights legislation and affirmative action have been around for four decades. This leveling of the playing field has worked in many amazing ways. The problem is there is a culture of entitlement in parts of our society. There are those that feel they should still be given rather than earn their living.

CrazyAnglican wrote:
Aww, come on now. Answer the question. Which would it be the U.S.A., under Bush, or Korea under Kim Jong Il? You completely ignored his argument Remember the sole reason we are able to have this debate among our (U.S.) citizens and others is because Bush does not ruthlessly put down opposition. For example the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Ach! - what's the point in debating in forums if you can't selectively ignore arguments you can't answer well

As best I could put my point of view, all these systems are different sides of the same coin. North Korea's political ideology would be closer to the kind I feel is needed to progress the future of the human race, though in practice it is horribly warped and twisted and falls far short of what it should be. The phrase "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" springs to mind. The U.S.A's lifestyle (under Republicans or Democrats) is on the surface freer and more affluent, but this wealth and liberty is made off the back of the exploitation of the poorest people on the planet. The materialistic consumerist ways of the USA (and the west in general) is holding back mankind’s advancement - its like the last days of Rome, where the elite can exits in hedonistic luxury while the rest of the empire slaves to feed them. This system seems fine to those privileged enough to be "on the top" but if you were working in a sweatshop in South East Asia to keep the masses in the latest Nike trainers I think you would feel differently about it.
The abuse of the worlds finite resources is staggering - we use vast amounts of oil to make the plastic wrappers for Big Macs that are thrown away. How can this be justified? We should be combining our efforts to produce goods that would help everyone - medicines, tools, infrastructure not waste them on ideal luxuries. Does anyone really need a 72 inch plasma screen TV? Or an 8 liter twin turbo sports car? Why fill a private swimming pool with water when a public one is just down the road?

To sum up: in answer to your (or really Luns) question, its like having to choose between being hit over the head with a frying pan or being poked in the eye with a stick.

Guiscard wrote:Oh sorry, yeh... The imperialistic oppression we accuse Bush of is actually a thinly veiled religious biggotry on our part... The criticism of the apparent 'oppression' exhibited by Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il in their own countries is also just our religious biggotry coming through...

And your veil is almost completely off. You guys on the left are becoming more and more open about your real views.

SolidLuigi wrote:Native Americans were not treated well, it sounds cold-hearted but that is how imperialism works and America wasn't the only one doing it. Over history most prosperous nations ruined other nations or peoples to get there. Does that make it morally right? No, but that was the way of the world then and I don't think that reparations being paid out from people who live today who had nothing to do with it would work.

Most natives don't want reparations. They would prefer to have an official recognition of what went on as well as a plan to end their chronic poverty issues in a way that doesn't involve casinos or the BIA. The first step would be to stop abusing reservation lands and respecting their rights but it won't happen. I don't have an exact quote but a person wrote something to the effect of "We aren't deluded, we don't see 200,000 natives having any power when 20 million blacks still can't escape their poverty issues either."

George Bush, no contest

You cant even argue the facts dont even try

DirtyDishSoap wrote:George Bush, no contest

You cant even argue the facts dont even try

I may be left wing but that is bullshit on a stick. We just hear about him more than any other option presented, therefore the things he does wrong seem like hell compared to the things mugabe and such do wrong.

Bush is the worst if you are talking about incompetence. He is not the most evil, because he does not have the capacity to be most anything. He is totally lacking in leadership, and possesses no discernible strength of character. Even his accent is phoney. His daddy gave him his career, his money, his wife, etc. As far as leadership ability, Georgie boy wins the booby prize, and gets my vote for cheesewanker of the decade.

b.k. barunt wrote:Bush is the worst if you are talking about incompetence. He is not the most evil, because he does not have the capacity to be most anything. He is totally lacking in leadership, and possesses no discernible strength of character. Even his accent is phoney. His daddy gave him his career, his money, his wife, etc. As far as leadership ability, Georgie boy wins the booby prize, and gets my vote for cheesewanker of the decade.

Just out of interest who was cheesewanker of last decade?

DirtyDishSoap wrote:George Bush, no contest

You cant even argue the facts dont even try

Sure, no problem. We wouldn't want to disturb your delusion.

Cheesewanker of the nineties, here's a clue - "read my lips". You see, we also have our inbreds, they just aren't as well mannered as yours. And beezer, you didn't just drink the kool-aid, you went back for seconds.

For lack of an option titled "Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand"...

I'll go with GeeDubya

Nobody is stopping all of you from moving to North Korea.