Bashing: Let's Do Gandhi Next

Superman · 05-23-2007, 02:32 PM

I noticed some folks talking ***** about Nelson Mandela. Now, most folks would consider that a pretty ignorant cheap shot but you guys wouldn't, so let's take it to the next level.

Mohandas Gandhi. Sheesh! What a wimp! No leadership skills whatsoever. I think that chicken-***** would NEVER have engaged in a war. I think he would have tried to achieve peace through only peaceful means, and not using any other tactics. Heck, he could be sitting on an army of a hundred millions guys.....overloaded the most modern and lethal weaponry imaginable.....and he still would not have clobbered anybody.

Pussy.

I'd say, in all honesty, with no sarcasm or facetiousness, that Gandhi was the exact opposite of George W Bush.

Now let's hear from you guys. About what a poor leader Gandhi was, and how superior Dubya is. Don't hold back, now.

Moneyguy1 · 05-23-2007, 02:41 PM

Supe...While perusing the other thread, the same thought was going through my somewhat limited mind.

Add to your thoughts whether one should consider meritorious or desirable an individual who creates a bad situation and then says that others may have to solve it. Alexander the Great led his troops personally as did Julius Caesar. Is that a noble trait or is it something that should be discounted as irrelevant? Gandhi spent a lot of time "with the people", some would say putting himself in mortal peril because of what he believed.

After Gandhi can we work on John Paul II? Please??

The list of possible targets is virtually unlimited!!!!!

vash · vash's Garage

been awhile, (read a book once) but wasnt gandhi a real jackass before he became enlightened? i think he was really bad to his wife. bush appears to be a great husband. again, i read this book along time ago. my memory is fuzzy. really fuzzy.

that is all i got. unless i am wrong about the first part...then i got nutin.

Joeaksa · 05-23-2007, 02:47 PM

I guess you wild eyed liberals call telling the truth "talking *****" but the rest of us can handle it.

Gandhi? Descent enough guy but any nation who is full of millions (total population is 1.3 billion now) and millions of STARVING people who let cows and other critters wander around the streets while being worshiped by everyone, well they need a talking to IMHO.

I know that you will find something wrong with the above statement, but I have been to India many times in the last year and the starvation and poverty really hits hard.

Oh yea, its all Dubya's fault over there in India. Not sure how but you libs will find a way to blame it on him.

Nostril Cheese · 05-23-2007, 02:49 PM

porsche911girl · porsche911girl's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeaksa
I guess you wild eyed liberals call telling the truth "talking *****" but the rest of us can handle it.

Oh yea, its all Dubya's fault over there in India. Not sure how but you libs will find a way to blame it on him.

haha nice!

Moneyguy1 · 05-23-2007, 02:53 PM

Is there anyone alive who can stand a microscopic scrutiny of their life? We ALL have something in our lives we would rather not become public information. That is part of the problem with politics. Hell, it is obvious in many posts here. Hang a title on someone, emphasize a shortcoming and then claim the high ground for yourself. Find a flaw, no matter how miniscule, harp on it, warp it out of all perspective and it soon dominates the situation. I, for one, prefer to see the individuals positive deeds as far more important than some previous flaw.

Tim Hancock · 05-23-2007, 02:55 PM

Take a pill Supe.

HardDrive · 05-23-2007, 03:05 PM

Lets just make it plain, HE WAS NO GEORGE BUSH.

Superman · 05-23-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Gandhi? Descent enough guy but any nation who is full of millions (total population is 1.3 billion now) and millions of STARVING people who let cows and other critters wander around the streets while being worshiped by everyone, well they need a talking to IMHO.

I shouldn't be, but I am shocked at this statement. I'm not going to take it apart since your mind is not going to change and those who read your statement will easily make their own determination. I will however, thank you for your tolerance of other peoples/ spiritual beliefs (which is obviously not what you present here). So much for freedom. I'm guessing you believe in freedom, as long as people act and think the right way.

Yes, I think John Paul II would be a good topic next, but you know I think we've already bashed him. I remember responding to it.

There is one Special Guest we could bash mercilessly. Lots of ammunition for that. Jesus Christ. There is no way he would be comfortable with what's happening now. Heck, his only violent outburst was toward the Money Changers in the temple yard. He was a pussy who hates free enterprise.

Peaceniks. Wimps. Makes ya wonder why they're in the history books in the first place.

Joeaksa · 05-23-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
Yes, I think John Paul II would be a good topic next, but you know I think we've already bashed him. I remember responding to it.

There is one Special Guest we could bash mercilessly. Lots of ammunition for that. Jesus Christ. There is no way he would be comfortable with what's happening now. Heck, his only violent outburst was toward the Money Changers in the temple yard. He was a pussy who hates free enterprise.

Peaceniks. Wimps. Makes ya wonder why they're in the history books in the first place.

We cannot bash Jesus Christ until the other threads have finally decided if there is a God. These idiots have been hashing this out over and over for almost a month now.

When they get finished and realize that there is a God, then he can have a Son...

Speaking of my mind and changing. If a society, any society, is going to allow themselves to multiply so rapidly that they are not able to support themselves but they then allow food to grow beside them and at the same time allow people to starve while worshiping that food, then yes, they have a problem. If you are so thick that you cannot see this then you as well have a problem. As Tim says, take a pill...

scottmandue · 05-23-2007, 03:38 PM

Now Hitler he was the shizel... or snizzel... or whatever...

Lots of guns, big cars, babes... he was livin large, a real OG. Didn't take ***** off anybody... I'm down wit dat!

Superman · 05-23-2007, 03:41 PM

We've already compared Hitler to Dubya, and it pisses some of the guys off. C'mon guys, tell us why Dubya is more like Gandhi than Hitler.

scottmandue · 03:45 PM

Just to note I wasn't comparing GWB to Hitler for gosh sakes!

I was mealy lampooning the MTV gangster mentality.

Joeaksa · 05-23-2007, 03:44 PM

Doesnt matter, it was Dubya's fault for Hitler and Gandhi. Everyone knows that! It was his fault for every bad thing in the last 200 years or so!

If Hitlery had not already taken the label of the anti-Christ, the libs would have it written all over Dubya dont you know!

Tim Hancock · 05-23-2007, 03:54 PM

Supe can you see now why some of us republicans get sick of hearing the same old Bush bashing week after week after week? Hell, you got riled over just one thread each about Carter and Mandella.

Disagreeing with policy is one thing, but making making Bush (who was elected twice) out to be a stupid dolt day after day is a bit pathetic (unless you truly do think that you and the anyone of the rest of the PPOT lefties is far more qualified to lead this country). I am frankly tired of trying to discuss this crap with folks who one day say they want to discuss politics reasonably, then the day go on a Bush bashing rant. You are not the worst here, but you do it plenty.

dd74 · 05-23-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
We've already compared Hitler to Dubya, and it pisses some of the guys off. C'mon guys, tell us why Dubya is more like Gandhi than Hitler.

I can tell you why Gandhi is no Hitler. Under Hitler didn't the trains always run on time, while under Gandhi they continually crashed into each other?

Superman · 05-23-2007, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Supe can you see now why some of us republicans get sick of hearing the same old Bush bashing week after week after week? Hell, you got riled over just one thread each about Carter and Mandella.

Disagreeing with policy is one thing, but making making Bush (who was elected twice) out to be a stupid dolt day after day is a bit pathetic (unless you truly do think that you and the anyone of the rest of the PPOT lefties is far more qualified to lead this country). I am frankly tired of trying to discuss this crap with folks who one day say they want to discuss politics reasonably, then the day go on a Bush bashing rant. You are not the worst here, but you do it plenty.

Tim, to some degree it goes with the territory. Welcome to the White House. I was here, and a liberal Democrat, when we talked about Clinton. Buck up.

Also, and I have never been anything but fully upfront about this.....I really don't like Dubya. First, I really, honestly, candidly, think he is dense. Dull. Not smart. His words and facial expressions and decisions......all point me to this conclusion.

Another thing I am not shy about is my impression of him as a wimp. From the first moment I saw a video of him before he was elected the first time, he struck me very clearly as the silver-spoon kid who would NEVER have graduated from my high school with his level of arrogance. The guys I went to school with would have moderated his bravado SUBSTANTIALLY. He strikes me as a protected coward. Interestingly, since that time I have met someone who knew him in college. This person punched his lights out at that time, and reports that my impression is accurate.

Finally, and I have said this before many times as well, while I respect folks who want to reshape or minimize government, I abhor the politicians who are actively trying to destroy it. This party, this Republican party and its operatives, are anarchists in my mind. Traitors. Look at it this way: Democrats want to use government to accomplish their goals. The goals we have in mind can only be addressed by the community itself. We want cooperation toward some greater public good. Republicans don't like government, don't know how to run it and wish for only two goals. First, they want to control government. Of course. That's where the power and money is. Failing that, or at least in between their opportunities to take the wheel, they want to make government run as poorly as possible. So.....when a Republican is in office, one of his main goals is to throw a wrench in the works. He's in power now, which is nice, and hopefully when he leaves, there will be a more poorly functioning government left behind. That gives him a better shot at returning. if the R's can keep gubmit from operating effectively, then voters will stay pissed at the Democrats.

No, I'm not going to ease up on Dubya. We're having a very American debate here, and that means you can say what you like. And so can I. And I think that is potentially constructive. In the meantime, I think your "president" is flushing my country down the drain in ways that will take decades to repair. I suspect you disagree. I hope you disagree. If you agree with my observations and are comfortable with that, then we are truly at odds and our goals are not shared. I suspect they are, as I think we all want a free and prosperous country. But if the mismagagement and tearing down of my government is your goal, then we're enemies, you and I. Make no mistake about it. I do not resent being called a liberal. But I would resent being called a traitor. I love my country. I truly believe that Dubya is comfortable with the idea that the country will suffer from his administration, but that commerce will prosper. I think he's okay with that. I'm NOT.

Dubya couldn't carry Gandhi's sandals.

Am I being clear?

legion · 05-23-2007, 04:31 PM

On a basic level, Gandhi advocated putting the needs of others above oneself. This is great in theory, but history is littered with examples of such economic systems, and they never last as intended longer than a generation (Amana Colonies, the USSR, the communes of the 1960s). Eventually, someone, a pig if you will, figures out that they can bend the system to their own benefit.

The advantage that capitalism has is that it has no illusions of altruism. If an economic system is openly based on selfishness, acting selfish is not hidden or shameful. One can anticipate everyone's selfishness rather than being the unfortunate victim of it.

BeyGon · 05-23-2007, 04:37 PM

Dubya couldn't carry Gandhi's sandals.

Am I being clear?

Last time it was Dubya couldn't carry LBJs sandals and had to eat that one.