The Puppet President ?

Great Debates
21

Anybody who said that Bill Clinton is/was a communist is an idiot, whether they are left or right, up or down. Anyone who says that GW Bush is worse than Hitler is an idiot, whether they are left or right, up or down.

See, it’s really pretty foolish. I mean, I can REFUTE the accusation that Bush is worse than Hitler. I can show that GW Bush never ordered the invasion of neighboring countries, and that he has no designs to subjugate the entire world, that he doesn’t have a pathological hatred for the Jews, and that he never ordered the genocide of millions of innocent people. I mean, it kind of lowers the bar a bit, you know?

If you accused GW Bush of being a mediocre intellect, or a man with no ideas, or an empty suit, I might have trouble refuting that. Anyone can see that Bush, like Clinton, has no real personal ideology other than his career. That makes him a pretty standard politician. Worse than Millard Filmore? More indecisive than Franklin Pierce? Less relevant than Chester A Arthur? As beholden to special interests as Benjamin Harrison? Those are comparisons that might arguably make sense.

Oh, you were joking? How funny, how droll. See, it’s funny because Hitler was bad, and Bush is bad! Get it?

22

Which is very true, Lemur. Of course, anyone who goes off on a rant after misquoting the original question could also be construed as an idiot:

Is a man who appears to be very much influenced by oil companies possibly an extremely dangerous person to be in charge of the worlds most industrialized nation at a time when environmental concerns need to be addressed? Is a man who seems to have very little tact in foreign relations a dangerous person to be in charge of the worlds most influential nation at a time of international strife?

President Bush is probably as well meaning as any of us, but I can’t help but recall adage’s involving the road to hell, paving and good intentions.

23

From the looks of it, Bush is simply carrying out a conservative course of action (that’s conservative as in right-wing, not conservative as in cautious). Favoring Taiwan over PRC, and Israel over the PLO have long been advocated by conservatives. The Kyoto Treaty, as mentioned, has been rejected by 95% of the Senate. Just because you disagree with these actions, doesn’t mean that they don’t enjoy the support of people outside the oil industry.

Conservative policies are generally favored by a large segment of big business. That includes the oil industry. That some of Bush’s actions might help the oil industry is not evidence that that was his goal in undertaking them. Tactics like this, where it is assumed from the start that liberal environmental policies are correct, and the debate becomes “why does Bush not acknowledge the inherent rightness of the Kyoto Treaty if he’s not a pawn of the oil industry?”, are rather disingenious. Debate the issues, not how evil those who disagree with you are.

Three points:

A. Hayes-Tilden, 1876, for an example in this country.

B. Countless examples of outright vote-stealing, stuffed ballot boxes, etc. throughout the world.

C. Where was it that the Supreme Court admitted that they acted out of partisanship? And at what point did Souter, Stevens, and Ginsberg become completely unpartisan.

I think this thread could win some award for a Great Debates thread with the most blatant hyperbole trying to masquerade as an intelligent argument.

Yeah, moron right-wingers did that. That doesn’t mean that the rest of us who might generally be included in the right wing are obliged to accept similar arguments from nitwit left-wingers. Or does this style of debate somehow gain respectability when you use it? Aren’t you acknowledging that it’s a stupid argument? If I never called Clinton a commie, why can’t I object to you comparing Bush to Hitler?

24

puddleglum states:

Well, that does sound likely. The fact that Germany (a sort of heavy player in European economy, I believe you’d agree) has actually made a nice cut in CO2 emissions would, however, seem to deflate your theory just a bit.

And I’d advise people who sneer at environmentalist hippies to look up “Brent Spar”. Shell got hit in the pocketbook by appearing to ignore the environment by dumping an oil rig in the North Sea. I’m hearing anti-American rumbles along the same lines right now. The environmentalist hippies are good at making people vote with their credit cards.

Be that as it may, I guess the particular thing that gets my boxers in a knot right now about this administration is NMD.

We’re hearing two things: “We won’t implement NMD without consulting with our Allies”, but also “We are going to implement NMD”. Well, which one is it ? And why waste our time with consultations if you’re going to put it up anyway ? It might be a good idea, it might be bad one. And it’s your own money & reputation. But don’t just go through the motions of consulting. We’re supposed to be on the same side, right ?

S. Norman

25

<-------- starting to get annoyed
Memo
To: Dopers
Re: eradication of ignorance regarding Kyoto agreement

Not even President Clinton believed the Kyoto treaty should have been ratified as it was presented. Most of congress opposed it? No shit–so did the White House. But Mr. Clinton and his supporters believed that the treaty had some valid points and could be rewritten in such a way that it would meet congressional muster. Many in congress believed this as well.

Mr. Bush, OTOH, decided there was nothing in the Kyoto agreement worth keeping. Many in Congress held and hold this view as well.

That’s all. Clinton didn’t try to pull a fast one on anyone here, folks. His decisions were made with reasonable support in the rest of the government, with the intent of reframing the treaty into something that at least half of Congress would support.

26

Uh, let’s see. Where did I say that all conservatives described Clinton as a communist? Nowhere. I just said that some conservatives were guilty of exagerration (if you don’t believe me, check the freepers’ message board.) My point was that it was wrong for an earlier poster to charge that all left wingers had lost their sense of perspective based on the OP.

and another award for most attempts to intentionally misrepresent the viewpoints of other posters.

27

Instead of comparing Bush to Hitler, I’d compare him to Kaiser Willy-egotistical, naive, out of touch, and a moron.

There, everyone happy?

28

rjung – The Forrest Gump comparison is rather amusing. ‘Forrest’, ‘Bush’ and ‘Environment’ – could work on something there.

Lemur You’re acting like one of those guys who stands on street corners shouting to himself. You’re missing the point, dude.

december – I respect your perspectives but the world changes. A majority of the American people seemingly want the Environment addressed through higher fuel taxes and I understand that both the Democrats and a significant number within the Administration are not at all happy with Bush’s agenda – his policy may be focusing the minds of hi sopponents.

puddlegum – You seem to have no grasp of the world. Euro politicians signed up to Kyoto to appease enviro’s – what planet are you on ??

Fretful and Undcle goddammed Beer – I’ve tried to better explain my position below

sofa king Thorough and insightful analysis, as usual

Asmodean – Hippy enviro’s ? Do the rest of the worlds political leaders look like hippy enviro’s ?

Gary Kumquat – I like writing the screen name and thanks for clarifying. However, I’m going to have to explain a little further.

Spiny – How dare you come in here and hijack my thread – is your mind on other matters ? :wink: BTW, I agree on that but would also include landmines, drilling in East Alaska, arsenic levels in US drinking water……

Anyways,

“Dangerous” was the word I used. What was it that made Hitler ‘dangerous’ ? To my mind, it was a combination of these things:

His Agenda (to create a German Empire - a Third Reich that would last for a 1000 years - extending right across Europe and into Asia and Africa), and

His lack of conventional regard / morality for the consequences of pursuing that end and the radical / evil determination with which he pursued that end.

Could Hitler have foreseen that the consequences of his policy would see the death of (perhaps) 25 million people of the Soviet Union, 6 million Jews and the other many millions ? Probably not but he didn’t care and, in any event, would likely have been pleased. However, that is a side issue to this debate because I’m not talking either about what actually happened, nor of Hitler’s capacity for evil.

I am talking about the adoption and pursuit of a radical, fuck the world agenda for which the destructive consequences are unknown / open ended / not quantifiable yet, in the pursuit of which, the proponent has demonstrated no regard or moral compass. Hitler and Bush share those characteristics.

I think it is reasonable, given the potential consequences of both Bush’s and Hitler’s agenda, to compare these individuals although I can only speculate that Bush will ultimately beat Hitler in the ‘most dangerous’ stakes because, frankly, none of us will know until after his agenda is fully played out. Why is Bush’s potential worthy of comparison with Hitler’s ?:

The long-term (meaning hundreds / thousands of years) problems the planet faces depend on where the high point on emissions finally stabilise. It will stabilise (because it has to) but clearly not during Bush’s Administration nor in the years following because the consensus has to be re-built and then we, as First World nations, can’t begin to exert serious influence over developing countries until we have fully developed the technology and understood the means by which to implement effective measures). However what Bush is doing guarantees the high point on emissions will be higher, that’s crucial because:

The level at which we (eventually) stabilise emissions is tied in with the total (final) temperature change on the surface but it will take, quite literally, thousands of years for the rate of Ice Sheet melting to catch up with the rate at which we are warming the atmosphere. Also, the slowest factor to kick in and to stabilise will be the temperature of the deep ocean – we won’t know that effect for several hundreds of years. However, on current modelling, the oceans will rise by 3’ within 100 years – less if we stabilise sooner at a lower level (which we won’t, it will actually be later and higher as Bush’s energy expansion plans outweigh the savings made by the rest of the First World). For an overview, I’d recommend the PDF available http://www.ipcc.ch/ from the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In other words: After that extra ½” of flooding, that extra 2-3% of force in the cyclone, that extra few days of drought – your grandchildren will be able to say :”Gee, thanks, George”

Side Note: For all you property speculators out there: This isn’t a great time to be investing in Greenland cos a lot of it it ain’t going to be there.

I won’t bore you with more details except to say: Expect more extremes of hot and cold weather, more extreme cyclones, monsoons and floods and a serious change in your eating habits as traditional crops fail due to prolonged and un-seasonal frosts as well as drought. Expect taxes to rise to deal with the effects of change and insurance premiums to rocket. But don’t worry too much as things will only start to get more challenging about 100 years down the road.

It would seem to me that the potential of Bush is greater than that of Hitler in so far as the world will not so deal with, nor easily recover, from his destructive and immoral agenda. Let me introduce you to Sparrows Den………….

29

I moved out to the fringes of London a few months ago and I’m close to countryside now. About three miles from me is an area of playing fields and houses These fields and homes fall between a road – on an embankment - and a steep hill. The topography of the area – known as Sparrows Den, is similar to the shape of the letter ‘J’ (with the playing fields and houses at, or near, the bottom of the curve and the up slop on the hill far less acute).

In January we had lots and lots of rain that came on the back of the floods of late last year. It now seems that, because the water table had risen so highly, an ancient stream / spring re-emerged. Local historians can find nothing concerning the existence of the stream itself since it was reported in the Doomsday Book (11th century) when a mill was situated on the site of the playing fields. Sometime between the Doomsday Book and January this year the stream / spring dried up – no one knows when although local Parish records extend back 300 years and do not note the stream.

When this ‘new’ stream emerged it flooded the low area of the ‘J’. Despite the best efforts of the Fire Brigade and local council (with pumping equipment) it hasn’t receded an inch since that time and remains approximately 100 yards wide, ½ mile long and at its deepest 4’ - 5’. The playing fields remain (obviously) unusable, the houses threatened and can’t be sold until some kind of determination is made about what can be done / what is actually happening.

What has followed has become something akin to an Ealing Comedy – people canoe and sail around this new lake, swans from a nearby park have relocated and a local builder promises to import sand (for a beach) during the kids summer holidays. During the recent week long school holiday, mums sat in the café chatting and drinking tea while their children splashed around. All rather surreal.

The problem is this lake shouldn’t be there, nor should the two other ‘new’ streams and springs that (I’m aware of) have emerged over the past months (affecting roads, housing and other playing fields) across South London. None of them are going away any time soon.

Now, this could all be a one-off, a freaky weather pattern that won’t be repeated. I don’t know and I guess no one can say for sure whether or not this is the first manifestation we (locally here) have seen of global warming. However, it is clear something very unusual is happening.

What is fact is that a stream has emerged after hundreds of years and threatens the value of those houses close by. Also, if the water level rises further the road is threatened, as is the new tram terminus about a mile away. That might not happen this year but will it next or in five years time ? We don’t know.

Side note: If people really want to see what I’m trying to explain, I’ll take the web cam down there and try to get some shots. If anyone is in the area, take a look at the playing fields along a road called The Kent Gateway on the border of the London Borough’s of Bromley and Croydon.

I can say for sure that when something like this happens near you, all those scientific reports and theory’s about what will happen at some point in the future take on a new meaning.

30

LC, with the best will in the world, that’s hardly irrefutable evidence of global warming. I’m currently based a fair bit further north than London, and we’ve just had the coldest March on record.

The whole problem is that there isn’t irrefutable proof that global warming will occur and until there is some people will happily continue to ignore any calls for increased pollution control - heck, it might cost them money!

31

As I say, Gary, I don’t know, either. But it is very freaky and it is ‘historic’. Actually, I have no idea when we will be able to actually point at something and say “Yep, that’s it” but I do think that, when we can, it will be rather late in the day.

I don’t think I need “irrefutable” proof given the weight of scientific research and opinion - bit like evolution, the big bang, etc.

32

This took me by surprise. Most of the Americans I know were seriously unhappy when gas prices hit $2 a gallon, and didn’t the federal government have to act when heating oil prices rocketed over the winter? Maybe some people think like this, but I’d find it hard to believe that it’s the majority (cite?).

33

Yep, I was a little surprised when I came across the survey results in Yahoo’s news section. I looked for it again this morning, needless to say…I can’t find it!

Will keep looking……

34

Last summer my brother in law decided to build a pool in his backyard. But last summer was so rainy and cool that we hardly ever got to use it. This winter, especially November and December was very cold. Our electric bills were huge and even though the heat pump seemed to be runing all the time, I still felt cold. My grandmother said in her town they had snow on the ground for months.
Now I know this doesn’t prove anything “scientifically” but I figure it has just as much validity as a suburb of London having a wet January.

35

In order for the Kyoto Treaty to make sense, 6 things must be true:

  1. GW is taking place

  2. Human activity is the primary cause of GW

  3. Massive reduction in human-caused CO2 are a good way to stop GW.

  4. The economic cost of CO2 reduction is reasonable.

  5. As a practical matter, the world can be convinced to agree on massive CO2 reduction.

  6. There is no better way to fight GW than CO2 reducton.

IMHO

#1 The warming trend has substantial evidence. The globe has been warming since the last ice age.

#2 The role of human activity has slight evidence, but is controversial.

#3 Models do not show that CO2 reduction will make a big difference., as I understand it. And, the models themselves are questionable.

#4 The economic cost would be quite high.

#5 The Kyoto Treaty was not going to be ratified.

#6 Some scientists think other approaches are much more effective.

Thank goodness President Bush is haveing serious scientific and economic reviews performed! Then the best policies can be selelcted.

36

OK, points taken regarding GWB’s reckless disregard for the future. But allow me to explain my position:

The US is still (sorta, kinda, well most of the time anyway) a democracy. Barring a repeat of last November’s extraordinary events, if Bush wins re-election 3 1/2 years from now, he’ll do so with the consent of a plurality of the American people. The man may not be a rocket scientist, but he knows this. His policies are ones he thinks he can get away with. If he’s wrong, if a majority of the American people do want the environment to come before profit, Bush will be out of here in four years’ time and many of his key policies will be reversed.

You can argue that our collective priorities are misplaced, short-sighted, and potentially dangerous (and I’d agree), but it isn’t Bush’s fault. He’s a product of a certain attitude that has existed here for a long time, but not the cause. And, as I’ve said, he’s not much of a propaganda artist, so it’s highly unlikely he’ll do much to reinforce or propagate these attitudes. So for what it’s worth, I don’t see him as a highly dangerous man.

Whether we are a dangerous country, of course, is another question entirely…

37

London_Calling:

Are you out of your mind? The extermination camps were part of Hitler’s goals from the very beginning, not merely a consequence of his world conquest campaign. Read Mein Kampf; it’ll give you a seriously-needed sense of history.

38

True - but it’s a brave person who posts the question “Are Americans more dangerous than Adolf Hitler” :smiley:

39

As an American in an America that has conclusively proven to the world that in certain circumstances our highest office is up for grabs, that’s a question that I hope my fellow citizens and I will ask ourselves every single day.

It’s a lot better than chanting, “can’t possibly happen here” all the way to the pock-marked wall.

40

I would not compare Bush to Hitler. HOWEVER…some of the dictators we have supported-Somoza, Pinochet, etc etc…really aren’t that much better.