Hitler vs. Bush [Archive] - Ultimatecarpage.com forums

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 03:59 AM

Well I have to say I'm not a fan of Bush, but I have to stress the following:
1. What he's doing favours his country (and at the same time does the opposite to other countries). Anyone in his place would have done the same thing. Just look at history. All powerful nations engaged wars. The most powerful nation will always do WTF they like.
Not ALL nations all the time.
Japan was economically the strongest nation and didnt' push nations around.
Britain has managed to allow nations under the "empire" to gain independance with dignity - took a few decades to get it right tho' :)
Iraq was ( in their eyes ) the most powerful nation in the region and they did it, but seem to get in lots of trouble for having doen so :)

2. US residents get all the US propaganda. But it is fair to say that European people get all the anti-Bush propaganda. Fair and Square.
Not really.
Being multi-cultural we are used to loking across many different views on the same point and reaching conclusions. This makes it VERY difficult for any media to dominate our cultures. So Italian TVs naked everything TV shows havent' taken up all TV slots across Eureop, France's open forum studio discussions with the public hasn't filled all our air time. ( Sadly British stuff like Graham Norton seems to get an audience in English-speeking countries :) )

This accepted multi-culturalism helps us inspect issues with more clarity IMHO. And multi-nationlaism makes us NOT be too partisan on our own leaders who we dont' hold as being "above" other citizens.

drakkie

08-04-2005, 04:05 AM

There might be similarities, but Bush is almost every aspect unlike Hitler. He may have started a war on unjustified grounds, but he did kick out a dictator and now attempts to set up a proper government, which if he pulls it off is a respectable job. Hitler on the other hand invaded numerous countries for his gain only and then set out an ethnic cleansing operation not seen since the Spanish Inquisition.

do you call the killing of thousands of innocent people that mostly didn't even need/want war justified ?

Bush will probably get a lot richer after his retirement, cos of all the thank-you-for-letting-us-make-billions-of-the-war-gifts...

Jack_Bauer

08-04-2005, 04:12 AM

So Italian TVs naked everything TV shows havent' taken up all TV slots across Eureop,

Give it time, Matra. Give it time! :p

nota

08-04-2005, 04:21 AM

Current Iraq puppet-regime cannot rate as a 'proper' government imo. Likelyhood is, if Iraq were in fact to be allowed to regain self-determination through democracy, it'd promptly vote itself into religious fundamentalist rule

This represents something of a catch-22 for the Coalition's so-called 'liberators' doesn't it?

Wouter Melissen

08-04-2005, 04:23 AM

do you call the killing of thousands of innocent people that mostly didn't even need/want war justified ?

Bush will probably get a lot richer after his retirement, cos of all the thank-you-for-letting-us-make-billions-of-the-war-gifts...
Thousands or millions, it's of course a subtle difference. I doubt these people were better off under the reign of one of the cruellest dictators of recent years. If anybody should be compared to Hitler, it's Saddam Hussein.

lightweight

08-04-2005, 05:01 AM

i disagree on that with you.We also hear things he supposedly did right.however since we dont only hear good thngs, we can make a more balanced judgement.

Both US and European people get both opinions. It would be unrealistic to think otherwise. But in Europe, most reports on the subject are anti-Bush. On the other hand in the US, most reports favour Bush policy.
No-one gets 100% reports favouring one opinion. But MOST reports favour one opinion.

lightweight

08-04-2005, 05:12 AM

Not ALL nations all the time.
I admit that I didn't know about the examples you mentioned. But I think it's obvious that the general trend is the following "I have more power, I can do things my own way". For sure there are exceptions throughout history, but most dominant nations/tribes did this.

The easy way is to go and make war.
The hard way is to negotiate through diplomacy
The most effective way is to conquer a country economically. In other words make others depend on you and then capitalize from this connection.

Not really.
Being multi-cultural we are used to loking across many different views on the same point and reaching conclusions. This makes it VERY difficult for any media to dominate our cultures. So Italian TVs naked everything TV shows havent' taken up all TV slots across Eureop, France's open forum studio discussions with the public hasn't filled all our air time. ( Sadly British stuff like Graham Norton seems to get an audience in English-speeking countries :) )

This accepted multi-culturalism helps us inspect issues with more clarity IMHO. And multi-nationlaism makes us NOT be too partisan on our own leaders who we dont' hold as being "above" other citizens.

I think that you are overestimating European people and on the same time underestimating US residents. That's fine with me, I'm European:D, but I don't agree.
US is multi-cultural also. Europe can't be considered as one nation. It's comprised of several countries that are culturally seperate. For sure there are multi-cultural nations in Europe, but I don't see how they differ to the ones in the US.

I love this kind of discussions!!!! Especially when people from other countries participate!!!! :D

lightweight

08-04-2005, 05:24 AM

I have to report something that made a lasting impression to me.

It is NOT representative of the US public opinion, but shows a hint of the ignorance of the majority of US residents.

I had the chance to talk to a US student who was doing post-graduate studies in England. This person wasn't a fool, she could judge just like any other person, since she was doing her Master's Degree.
The discussion took place when the US was ready to invade in Iraq, but before doing so.
I asked her why do they have to invade Iraq.
The answer I got was: "We issued them an ultimatum ( a diplomatic paper telling Saddam to surrender or else...) and they didn't answer"

The fact that US didn't find any weapons of mass destruction wasn't even mentioned by her.

emperor

08-04-2005, 06:09 AM

One major difference:
Hitler was inteligent and he was one hell of a good strategic leader (none of which I can say about Bush)

lightweight

08-04-2005, 06:44 AM

One major difference:
Hitler was inteligent and he was one hell of a good strategic leader

I totally agree about the comments made on Hitler. We are led to believe that he was insane-paranoid-wacko etc. I don't think that a psycho-chimp would have such an effect on the world.
Clarification: I don't approve his methods, but I must say that in times of war, everybody makes war crimes. I don't think that it makes much difference if the crime is killing with a rifle, or burning a corpse after killing him in a gas chamber.

However I don't like it when people start saying Bush is stupid etc. If he was so, he wouldn't be where he is now. Opinions like the above are fuelled by the European propaganda, which tries to devalue Bush. I don't know if he is the best leader of them all, but I wouldn't go as far as calling him stupid

ScionDriver

08-04-2005, 07:09 AM

Look Bush is kind of a D-Bag and I do hate a lot of his policies, and I see what you are saying, but I don't think he is quite as bad as Hitler. I don't see this "propaganda" you speak of, however I do believe the only reason we have him around is because he promised tax cuts and that he would make America safer. He does divert from many of the US problems by focusing on the War.

I am not saying he is a good guy and that I disagree, I just think that him and Hitler are different, although they are both nationalistic a-holes.

lightweight

08-04-2005, 07:33 AM

Good points made on this topic. However I think that you can't really compare the actions of two leaders. You can't quantify their actions. You can't say
Hitler: 2000 points for killing Jews
Bush: 150 points for not finding Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

We can only discuss on facts, rather that compare actions

rev440

08-04-2005, 09:03 AM

do you call the killing of thousands of innocent people that mostly didn't even need/want war justified ?

Bush will probably get a lot richer after his retirement, cos of all the thank-you-for-letting-us-make-billions-of-the-war-gifts...

Youd feel differantly if you knew people over there fighitng. There was 3 kids over there from my high school. RIP SERGANT ANDY ECKERT. The world has problems and you really dont know alot about bush if you dont live here. The tax cuts are great for my family. Hes done many great things.

Rijoh

08-04-2005, 09:04 AM

I prefer Hitler's moustache....
ROFLMAO :D :D :D

Hitler has given us the Autobahn, Bush only gives us war and terrorism!

Esperante

08-04-2005, 09:14 AM

There is a difference. Hitler ruthlessly slaughtered millions. The only ones Bush have killed are those involved in teh war, and some civilians. But that is to be expected. I think this is a downright silly comparison.

Esperante

08-04-2005, 09:15 AM

ROFLMAO :D :D :D

Hitler has given us the Autobahn, Bush only gives us war and terrorism!
He also gave us Porsche and VW. But did Hitler not kill millions of innocent jews?
And how did Bush bring us terrorism? Are you saying its Bush's fault that 9-11 ever happened?

targa

08-04-2005, 10:47 AM

Hitler and Bush can not be compared fairly. Hitler was accomplished at things. speech, writing and strategy. bush is a little less qualified. he cant give a good speech. he cannot write a good speech(excluding the address on 9/11) and hes not that great of a leader. mind, im no nazi, but hitler had alot more going for him than bush does.

Rockefella

08-04-2005, 11:08 AM

Hitler: Genius, incredible strategist, saved Germany from depression. Result- killed millions of innocent people, spread hatred around the world, created a terrorist Nazi regime.

Bush: Well-liked (by SOME, not me), down-to-earth, had a great plan to dethrone a dictator by the name of Saddam Hussein. Result- Hussein is gone, but many innocent lives have been taken, and the war is still going on. The plan looks great on paper, but the execution was bad.

Ferrari Tifosi

08-04-2005, 01:12 PM

You can't compare the two at all, I don't personally like Bush but he in no way compares to Hitler. But still 2008 can't come soon enough. Also here in America there is plenty of anti-Bush news, propaganda, etc. The problem is that is overshadowed by America's love with nonsense news. Its pretty sad when the front page of the newspaper has stories on American Idol and Steroids in baseball, then on page 4 or 5 is a story about how in January 2001 the CIA had determined that Iraq no longer had or was trying to aquire WMD's. And whats this on the next page, a story of a ex-CIA agent sueing the CIA, after the CIA ignored his proof that Iraq did not have WMD's nor WMD programs, and then the CIA started a campain of slander against to discredit him. It's horrible and makes me sick. How can one president get impeached for receiving oral sex, and this man and a whole gov't can get away with ingaging in a senseless act of war?

Quiggs

08-04-2005, 01:13 PM

How can one president get impeached for receiving oral sex, and this man and a whole gov't can get away with ingaging in a senseless act of war?
Because people are stupid.

Isn't there an old saying about arguements, that if you have to bring up Hitler, you automatically lose?

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 01:18 PM

Both US and European people get both opinions. It would be unrealistic to think otherwise. But in Europe, most reports on the subject are anti-Bush. On the other hand in the US, most reports favour Bush policy.
No-one gets 100% reports favouring one opinion. But MOST reports favour one opinion.
WHERE are you getting the info that Europe gets "anti-Bush" reporting ??

AND if you think US news carries the breadth of opinion of European, Asian news then you need to get out more :)

Beyond SKY, "MOST" reports dont' favour one opinion !!!
Can you explain the reasoning and experience you have to make those statements ?

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 01:23 PM

I think that you are overestimating European people and on the same time underestimating US residents. That's fine with me, I'm European:D, but I don't agree.
Can you give us some insight into the experience this is based on ?

US is multi-cultural also. Europe can't be considered as one nation. It's comprised of several countries that are culturally seperate. For sure there are multi-cultural nations in Europe, but I don't see how they differ to the ones in the US.
IN the US the majority conform to a US-centric culture driven by the genreal uniformity of avialble life styles and media.
WHY can't Europe be considered in the same breath as the US on this topic ? I dont' understand.
There are as many differences between the history and the opinions of the differetn states that make up the US as there are in Eureop - just not as wide/disparate.

I love this kind of discussions!!!! Especially when people from other countries participate!!!! :D
true

Fleet 500

08-04-2005, 01:25 PM

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 01:29 PM

I totally agree about the comments made on Hitler. We are led to believe that he was insane-paranoid-wacko etc. I don't think that a psycho-chimp would have such an effect on the world.
Atilla did a not bad job :)

The first 5 years of Hitler coudl be considered driven by a desire to restore a great nation, but then it got all out of hand as some of his conclusions and decisions were clearly driven by a complete lack of morals and value for others. Of course by his last year he WAS certifiably insane !!

Clarification: I don't approve his methods, but I must say that in times of war, everybody makes war crimes. I don't think that it makes much difference if the crime is killing with a rifle, or burning a corpse after killing him in a gas chamber.
erm, it depends on whether the other person is trygin to KILL you or not and ho wmuch planning you put into extermination.
Nope, the gas chambers were inhumane and for that alone give the man a clear LUNATIC label.
His paranioa also took hold and EVERYTHING had to be agreed with him , despite NOT being a great battle tactician he was demanding he made the decisions. Be thankful for that tho as without the need to awaken him at 2am on D-day and everyeon terrified to do so then we may not have been successful !!

However I don't like it when people start saying Bush is stupid etc. If he was so, he wouldn't be where he is now. Opinions like the above are fuelled by the European propaganda, which tries to devalue Bush. I don't know if he is the best leader of them all, but I wouldn't go as far as calling him stupid
There's plenty of US "propoganda" makes the same claims.
I personally judge stupidity by a persons actions and not just what I've read.
It was stupid to go into a war without an exit strategy.
It was stupid to go after a nation because of a leader and because of an attack by individuals.
All these have done is create a mindset for the terrorists to build support.

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 01:30 PM

We can only discuss on facts, rather that compare actions
hmm, we disagree.

I think INTENT is more important, that ACTIONS demonstrate the person and 'facts' ( do you mean measureable results ) are dependant on too many things to be the only measure.

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 01:43 PM

Actually, about 75% of the American mainstream media is anti-Bush.
or alternatively ....

75% of mainstream media is for truth and decency and Bush supporters dont' like that and hence LABEL it "anti-Bush" because that salves their conscience :D

When you consider the OTHER 25% it's pretty sickening ....

Cavuto opened the segment wondering what Fahd's death meant for the markets. "Maybe more than you know," he said, ominously. After he introduced Jack Steinman of InvestedCentral.com, Cavuto said, "Jack, what do you make of the King going down?" Steinman said, "It has no affect whatsoever. In fact the markets..."

Cavuto interrupted, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, sparky. Now, I know you're new here but we've devoted a segment to this and you forgot the key rule of thumb here. If we devote a segment to it, you can't dismiss it. Having said that, continue."

I never saw it, taken from http://www.newshounds.us/2005/08/01/guest_is_reprimanded_for_not_doing_the_fox_trot.ph p HAPPY to be told it never happened like that !!!

But THAT sure sounds liek ratings coming before truth.

Any fox-lovers care to educate me on how this was NOT suppression of "truth" ????

IWantAnAudiRS6

08-04-2005, 01:49 PM

You cannot compare these two- they're on a different league.

Think of it like this- Hitler, McLaren F1. All-ruling. Powerful. Unmanageable. Innovating.

George Bush, Mustang II (1979) Mach 1. Looks approachable, but primitive. Diabolical regime. Terrible at handling. Tried to imitate it's daddy, failed miserably. The Gulf War is like the Mustang vs. Camaro war.

They are not playing the same league, not even the same sport.

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 02:02 PM

Now THAT is the cleverest post so far (IMHO).

lightweight

08-04-2005, 02:08 PM

WHERE are you getting the info that Europe gets "anti-Bush" reporting ??
Beyond SKY, "MOST" reports dont' favour one opinion !!!
Can you explain the reasoning and experience you have to make those statements ?

I see from your avatar that you live in Edinbrough (I'll be in Stirling next year:D)
UK press favours Bush more because US and UK were "partners in crime". Other countries such as France for example totally disagreed with the war, so their press was anti-war, anti-Bush etc. But the "average" (if I can use such a term) European reports are certainly anti-Bush. I have to clarify that when I say anti-Bush, I'm referring to the Bush policy about Iraq.

I have to say that I don't get informed by local newspapers. I read daily the news via the net. For example Times, CNN etc. I believe I get a broad coverage and I can judge a bit (oops I overestimated myself!). No one knows everything, right? That's what the internet is for. If you tell me something I didn't know, then good for me:D

AND if you think US news carries the breadth of opinion of European, Asian news then you need to get out more :)

I never said that. I said that all countries get both opinions. BUT i didn't say that the statistic distribution of reports is the same in US and Europe.

lightweight

08-04-2005, 02:15 PM

hmm, we disagree.

I think INTENT is more important, that ACTIONS demonstrate the person and 'facts' ( do you mean measureable results ) are dependant on too many things to be the only measure.

I understand your point, but when we compare 2 immeasurable entities, the result will inevitably be biased with personal beliefs. So if we have 100 people discussing the same immeasurable subject, then it is possible to have 100 different opinions. And we don't want that to happen..

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 02:19 PM

I see from your avatar that you live in Edinbrough (I'll be in Stirling next year:D)
UK press favours Bush more because US and UK were "partners in crime".
hmm, look at the amount of coverage Galloway gets.
His ideas aren't supporessed and the other side is given air time to put their points on him. Compare that with the coverage on CNN :) I hate to see what Fox had done :D

Other countries such as France for example totally disagreed with the war, so their press was anti-war, anti-Bush etc. But the "average" (if I can use such a term) European reports are certainly anti-Bush. I have to clarify that when I say anti-Bush, I'm referring to the Bush policy about Iraq.
erm, but most of the PEOPLE in Europre are anti the Bush policy.
So the news reflects the breadth that represents along with the pro-government/Bush points.

I have to say that I don't get informed by local newspapers. I read daily the news via the net. For example Times, CNN etc. I believe I get a broad coverage and I can judge a bit (oops I overestimated myself!). No one knows everything, right? That's what the internet is for. If you tell me something I didn't know, then good for me:D
You shoudl try to get US new channels like ABC/Fox. Occasianlly ABC coverage pops up on cable in the UK. Travelling in the US is an experience in "international events" coverage !!

I never said that. I said that all countries get both opinions. BUT i didn't say that the statistic distribution of reports is the same in US and Europe.
ah OK. I jsut took it that when you said both opinions that you embraced the breadth of those as ther arent' only two :)
My fault for assuming.
No the distribution of news (IMHO) coverage and political comment is very narrow in the US compared to most European countries. You'll struggle to find anti-government on mainstream, most Eureopan media constantly challenges their nations leaders.

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 02:21 PM

I understand your point, but when we compare 2 immeasurable entities, the result will inevitably be biased with personal beliefs. So if we have 100 people discussing the same immeasurable subject, then it is possible to have 100 different opinions. And we don't want that to happen..
WHy not ?

That's the real world.

There are NOT only 2 political parties in te universe.

There are NOT only 2 fiscal policies in the world.

The "bias" as you call it that personal beliefs adds to a message are important to then share as only that way do we expose our own bias to understand it better and to appreciate when it is useful/helpful/appropriate and when it's not.

lightweight

08-04-2005, 02:28 PM

Can you give us some insight into the experience this is based on ?

I say that you are overestimating European people because you say that we look at many different views and it's difficult to trick Europeans. At the same time you say that US people are easily fooled.
It looks like you think that Europeans are "smart" and US people "silly".

IN the US the majority conform to a US-centric culture driven by the genreal uniformity of avialble life styles and media.
WHY can't Europe be considered in the same breath as the US on this topic ? I dont' understand.
There are as many differences between the history and the opinions of the differetn states that make up the US as there are in Eureop - just not as wide/disparate.

With that post I wanted to say that both Europe and US are multi-cultural. If I understood correctly, you have the same opinion. If so, we agree.

lightweight

08-04-2005, 02:39 PM

WHy not ?

That's the real world.

There are NOT only 2 political parties in te universe.

There are NOT only 2 fiscal policies in the world.

The "bias" as you call it that personal beliefs adds to a message are important to then share as only that way do we expose our own bias to understand it better and to appreciate when it is useful/helpful/appropriate and when it's not.

Well you are opening a BIG discussion here, but I'll try to be as precise as possible.

When we deal with deterministic problems, the solution is based on a formula. For example v=s/t. If s=1 and t=1 then v=1. As simple as that.

In real life, problems are not deterministic. You can't say "I proved with a new mathematic formula that I must impose a new $1000 tax".

So, if no solution is possible in real life problems, WTF are we supposed to do?

The solution is democracy. If people want something to happen, then it's the "right" thing. So in real life we shift from "deterministic correctness" to "democratic correctness"

What I said is that you can't compare Hitler vs Bush actions in a deterministic way.

We can do so in a "democratic way". We will reach a conclusion that is right for the society. The society accepts it as correct, so it is considered as correct.

If the US society thinks its right to go to war, then for them it's the right thing to do. You can't convince them in a deterministic way, so off they go...

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 03:12 PM

I say that you are overestimating European people because you say that we look at many different views and it's difficult to trick Europeans. At the same time you say that US people are easily fooled.
It looks like you think that Europeans are "smart" and US people "silly".
I never said it's difficult to "trick".
I said that we tend to look more because we are used to doing that and not allowign oour governments to control our views.
Blair has been the exception to this, even Thatcher never managed it - probably because she was too honest about it !!

With that post I wanted to say that both Europe and US are multi-cultural. If I understood correctly, you have the same opinion. If so, we agree.
I'm not sure we agree on the breadth and the overlap but the core belief is agreed :)

IWantAnAudiRS6

08-04-2005, 03:24 PM

Looks like someone's found a Fleet replacement... ;)

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 03:27 PM

Well you are opening a BIG discussion here, but I'll try to be as precise as possible.
The big ones are the best :)

When we deal with deterministic problems, the solution is based on a formula. For example v=s/t. If s=1 and t=1 then v=1. As simple as that.

In real life, problems are not deterministic. You can't say "I proved with a new mathematic formula that I must impose a new $1000 tax".
Single problems aren't but modern statistical and especially the complex are of chaos maths DOES make it more deterministic.
Now that doens't mean you can say "I prove" but you CAN say "within reasonable bounds I expect" and that's the way those choices are made.
No government can control it's budget without applying "rules" like that.
They DO "determine" the levels of taxation necessary and the outcomes of expenditure, bank rates etc.

So, if no solution is possible in real life problems, WTF are we supposed to do?
So solutions ARE possible. Just not readily acceptable to complete analytical thinkers.

The solution is democracy. If people want something to happen, then it's the "right" thing. So in real life we shift from "deterministic correctness" to "democratic correctness"
Now we're transgressing into socio-politics and ethics - even better :D
"People" want all to be millionaires, but that's not the "right" thing as it may produce a lack of community and caring. So it DOES become much more complex as we add more of the "wooly" variables of sociology.
BUT still it can be "determined" using statistics and profiling.
So you could determine by observation that say 10% of a population show entrepreneurial characteristics. So if you do nothing else BUT make more meony availabel to entreprenuer activities then you'll only get 10% of the population to take it up. So education comes into the play as you ahve to get more than 10% of people to feel they can/want to be entrepreneurs.

Social engineering has been going on since man first started bartering and was VERY strong in UK society during the industrial era when may of those who became millionaires developed towns and sport for families and educatino systems to improve the lot for those around.

What I said is that you can't compare Hitler vs Bush actions in a deterministic way.
Well the thread is more in fun than reality but good for exploring beliefs.
You can't determine their individual acts you are right. But that's not how socilogoical issues have EVER been done!
It's usually the investigation of the INTENT and the exploration of the motives.
As you say you can't say killing millions of Jews equates to thousands of Iraqis -- UNLESS you take it to a 'simpler' view that the motives in both cases were to have a "common enemy" to unite a people for propoganda manipulation. There are numerous cases where 'motive' is common and not a great surprise when analysed from a psychological level and the label "bully" :(

We can do so in a "democratic way". We will reach a conclusion that is right for the society. The society accepts it as correct, so it is considered as correct.
There is no thing as "society".
There are people, the problem with the circular arguments is that it's very easy to justify acts as beign "right" because the people wanted them. The majority of Jews wanted to crucify Jesus - was THAT right ?
Most Britains wanted the Empire to expand, more opportunity and jobs to be availabel, more raw goods to be imported and expensive goods exported. That did NOT make Imperialism right.
Most Britains of that day wanted missionaries to spread the word of God.
Not clever :)

If the US society thinks its right to go to war, then for them it's the right thing to do. You can't convince them in a deterministic way, so off they go...
That statement pushes aside the MORAL question and my experience is that often the morals aren't given voice because facts aren't shared and the importance of empathy is downgraded.
You cannot convince using the tools of determinism, but you can with education and debate :)

QuattroMan

08-04-2005, 03:28 PM

do you call the killing of thousands of innocent people that mostly didn't even need/want war justified ?

Bush will probably get a lot richer after his retirement, cos of all the thank-you-for-letting-us-make-billions-of-the-war-gifts...
I'm sorry but this thread deserves what im about to type!!If your going to be a d@ck about it here I go! TWO OF THE GREATEST PEOPLE EVER LIVED!except Bush is going to finish what he stared,LOL! :)

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 03:45 PM

Q, dont' mix drugs and UCP the effect isn't pretty :D

IWantAnAudiRS6

08-04-2005, 03:53 PM

I'm sorry but this thread deserves what im about to type!!If your going to be a d@ck about it here I go! TWO OF THE GREATEST PEOPLE EVER LIVED!except Bush is going to finish what he stared,LOL! :)
ATTENTION QUATTRO MAN- Someone from www.ronaldreagan.com has hijacked your computer. Restart immediately!

QuattroMan

08-04-2005, 03:58 PM

Q, dont' mix drugs and UCP the effect isn't pretty :D
LOL!!I'm getting tired of seeing the same sh@t over an over,threads like this dose only one thing,getting members pissed off of each other, that I don't like to see...

QuattroMan

08-04-2005, 04:00 PM

ATTENTION QUATTRO MAN- Someone from www.ronaldreagan.com has hijacked your computer. Restart immediately!

lol!!i hope they do...so I can go home early :)

IWantAnAudiRS6

08-04-2005, 04:03 PM

lol!!i hope they do...so I can go home early :)
No- that's the very last thing you'd want. A bunch of naysaying, idiotic wankers.

I just got banned there!

QuattroMan

08-04-2005, 04:11 PM

No- that's the very last thing you'd want. A bunch of naysaying, idiotic wankers.

I just got banned there!

You know what you need to today?! you need to drive an RS6...

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 04:20 PM

LOL!!I'm getting tired of seeing the same sh@t over an over,threads like this dose only one thing,getting members pissed off of each other, that I don't like to see...
First --- dont' read the bloody thread then.

it doens't piss me off to see loads of Audi threads :) I just ignore most. Easy.

Secondly I think you confuse DEBATE with "getting pissed off".
MOST of what has transpired so far has been debate.

IWantAnAudiRS6

08-04-2005, 04:22 PM

You know what you need to today?! you need to drive an RS6...
I know. Or I need to relax in the back of the wagon with Casey :D.

Matra, it seems that a few debate threads turn into bloodbaths with 2 members posting the living crap out of each other. One is generally a guy who has over 10,000 posts, and is far too intelligent, and eats too many batter-fried Mars bars :D (erroneous information after point 1 :D)

QuattroMan

08-04-2005, 04:48 PM

First --- dont' read the bloody thread then.

it doens't piss me off to see loads of Audi threads :) I just ignore most. Easy.

Secondly I think you confuse DEBATE with "getting pissed off".
MOST of what has transpired so far has been debate.
At least Audi is a car that is what UCP is suppose to be.I guess the only way Bush will be liked,that's if he was a lay-down president,Yes Sir! No Sir president right, Well! im glad he is not,he's doing exactly what he suppose to be doing,protecting America and its people....

QuattroMan

08-04-2005, 04:50 PM

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 05:03 PM

I know. Or I need to relax in the back of the wagon with Casey :D.

Matra, it seems that a few debate threads turn into bloodbaths with 2 members posting the living crap out of each other. One is generally a guy who has over 10,000 posts, and is far too intelligent, and eats too many batter-fried Mars bars :D (erroneous information after point 1 :D)
erm, bias ?

Check out lightweights.

We've each explained the points we saw as in conflict and explained then sufficiently that I understand where he's coming from and can see why there was a difference - and will always be. THAT is debate. Lightweights willingness to poast HIS factual view rather than spout opionion gleand and not understood makes the difference perhaps.

The difference is debate versus intransigence. There is a difference :)

As stated before if you don't like you are not FORCED to open the thread.

In a 'free' environment the discourse in debate is important.

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 05:06 PM

At least Audi is a car that is what UCP is suppose to be.I guess the only way Bush will be liked,that's if he was a lay-down president,Yes Sir! No Sir president right, Well! im glad he is not,he's doing exactly what he suppose to be doing,protecting America and its people....
erm, well, there is what's normally called "appropriate response".

So if someone stole your do'nut in a diner you dont' really have the jsutification to shoot them.
If they were in the midst of murdering a family member or trying to murder you then there coudl be legimiate jsutification for self-defence.

So "protecting" America from what ?
Certainly not untethered capitlaism and corruption and profiteering :)
Seriously, wht is he protecting you from - and in the response please explain how they are a credible threat to America and it's people ?

PS: you're in a thread in Miscellaneous. All theother threads and posts in the other forums are covering cars. What's the problem ??

spi-ti-tout

08-04-2005, 05:27 PM

PS: you're in a thread in Miscellaneous. All theother threads and posts in the other forums are covering cars. What's the problem ??
Let it go. You know you're not going to get anything out of it when the person whose trying to teach you about forums posted a European car press release in the Miscellaneous "Sub-Section" :)

CSL

08-04-2005, 05:33 PM

the stupidty of the maker of this thread is great. Saying Bush is like Hitler is a slap in the face to every single person who died and suffered through the holocaust. You say America is biased? Do you live here? NOPE, if you knew anything you would know that the media has a heavy left bias which is against Bush in America. it is the exact same thing in Europe, you only get the left spin of everything and that only paints half the picture. Europeans are more informed? About what exactly?

I bet you think the count from iraqbodycount is accurate and im sure you believe that Americans have killed that many people there because if you believe this then you are gullable enough to believe anything

"When Bush doesnt get a third term (which he will surely get, by changing the constitution)"

The Kyoto treaty? You mean the Global Climate change one that the USA refused to sign because it dosent hold China, the fastest growing and quickly becoming the most polluting nation in the world to the same rules? What Problems came directly from this?

Its 9/11 loser and it dosent mean a single thing to you because it didnt happen to your nation.

What decisions has Bush made bypassing congress? Of course you wouldnt know this but the Congress is the body that makes ALL the rules, not the president. The President is there to sign the bills into law and the bills he vetos can go back to congress and get voted past him.

Yet another example of stupid europeans going off on something they know NOTHING about. You shouldnt post stuff because right now all the information you are posting is coming straight from your ass

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 05:50 PM

the stupidty of the maker of this thread is great. Saying Bush is like Hitler is a slap in the face to every single person who died and suffered through the holocaust. You say America is biased? Do you live here? NOPE, if you knew anything you would know that the media has a heavy left bias which is against Bush in America. it is the exact same thing in Europe, you only get the left spin of everything and that only paints half the picture. Europeans are more informed? About what exactly?
First, some have experienced both and more in the respective countries.
Second, America doens't HAVE a "left" its mainly jsut all slightly right of centre in terms of world politics. Not saying that's bad or good, but worth noting.

I bet you think the count from iraqbodycount is accurate and im sure you believe that Americans have killed that many people there because if you believe this then you are gullable enough to believe anything
On a similar point, IF you are willing to toss those points out are you also willing to accept that not all right wing propoganda is truth ?
Read Robin COok's autobuiography and the Downing Street Notes to see what you've possibly missed.

"When Bush doesnt get a third term (which he will surely get, by changing the constitution)"
Yet another example of stupid europeans going off on something they know NOTHING about. You shouldnt post stuff because right now all the information you are posting is coming straight from your ass
Why "stupid" it was a comical point to highlight the abuse of the intention of the consitituion just as Bolton's job is OK by the LETTER of the law, but morally is corrupt - althoug I concede that so is the unique concept of filibuster in US concgress.
Ulysees Grant tried for a third term, Bush may just decide that returning to those times is a good thing :)

CSL

08-04-2005, 05:52 PM

i disagree on that with you.We also hear things he supposedly did right.however since we dont only hear good thngs, we can make a more balanced judgement.

You actually think the United States media only reports the good things he has done? Ignorance is bliss on your part huh?

CSL

08-04-2005, 06:01 PM

First, some have experienced both and more in the respective countries.
Second, America doens't HAVE a "left" its mainly jsut all slightly right of centre in terms of world politics. Not saying that's bad or good, but worth noting.

On a similar point, IF you are willing to toss those points out are you also willing to accept that not all right wing propoganda is truth ?
Read Robin COok's autobuiography and the Downing Street Notes to see what you've possibly missed.

Why "stupid" it was a comical point to highlight the abuse of the intention of the consitituion just as Bolton's job is OK by the LETTER of the law, but morally is corrupt - althoug I concede that so is the unique concept of filibuster in US concgress.
Ulysees Grant tried for a third term, Bush may just decide that returning to those times is a good thing :)

President Bush has every right to appoint someone to a office without a bickering senate approval, naming bolton to the UN is not the same thing as changing laws. It was well within the law for the President to do this.

Grant could have ran for a third term since it wasant a constiutional ammendment till 1947
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment22/

No matter what Bush did, he wouldnt be able to change the ammendment

Not all right wing information is true, not all left wing information is true either. i disagree with you on the basis of everyone is center on world politics seeing there are huge difference between what democrats want and what republicans want.

Everything is spun the way they want you to hear it, thats why getting news information from one source is dumb. read between the lines and thats where you will find the truth

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 06:18 PM

You actually think the United States media only reports the good things he has done? Ignorance is bliss on your part huh?
How much coverage on the Downing Street Notes ?
How much on the CIA investigation on the WMD intelligence ?
There is a tendency on US news channels to ahve very limited coverage of updates on stories as details unfodl later.
If it's not big enough to get a headline it's likely only going to appear on an obscure late night "opinion" show.
Unless TV schedules gave changed a lot in the last 2 years :)

How much time was given over to the George Galloway appearance ?
Form the coverage here that we got about the coverage there is was not covered in any detail. Most of the Galloway responses were not commented on. PS: I dont' liek galloway, he's a professioanl politician in my book and I've never liked him from his days as a Glasgow MP. BUT that doesnt' remove the importance of the points made about the exposure of truth.

Matra et Alpine

08-04-2005, 06:24 PM

President Bush has every right to appoint someone to a office without a bickering senate approval, naming bolton to the UN is not the same thing as changing laws. It was well within the law for the President to do this.
Please review my comment on INTENT on the constituaion and statement.
The option was clearly INTENDED to not require congress to get together for minor appointments. Bolton to the UN wasn't "minor" was it :)

Grant could have ran for a third term since it wasant a constiutional ammendment till 1947
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment22/

No matter what Bush did, he wouldnt be able to change the ammendment

I knew the amendment. The point about Grant was to come back to the funny part of the original. That Bush woudl ignore the legal process. BTW *IF* he signs the 11 FEMA orders he can do what the hell he likes. It only needs his signature, they are all pre-approved and sitting there :D

Not all right wing information is true, not all left wing information is true either. i disagree with you on the basis of everyone is center on world politics seeing there are huge difference between what democrats want and what republicans want.
That's because you've not seen a fascist party or a communist/socialist workers party given any air time to explain thir points. As I said the Democrats are slightly right of the current British Labour Party adn the Republicans are slightly right of the current British Tory Party and left of the British National Party. There are a whoel raft of political views and parties WELL to the left of the Labour party. THAT was the infomration I was tryign to impart. It's like as if you were in a country that ONLY had diesel engines. Some woudl be faster than others, some would be cleaner than others but that is small differences compared to petrol and electric and hybrid and LPG and fuel cell and biodiesel etc etc. Hope that helps explain it.

Everything is spun the way they want you to hear it, thats why getting news information from one source is dumb. read between the lines and thats where you will find the truth
AND from as many sources as possible and try to empathise with those that are opposing your opinion.