NationStates Jolt Archive

Having watched every one of Dubbya's State of the Union Adresses, and just finishing watching his last one, there is one thing Ive learned since he has been president, and Ive just been reminicing on this.

While I may disagree with this president on...well...everything. And I may find him a dividing, inept leader, there is an important distinction Ive been able to make between him and other politicians I dislike (like Rommney).

I dont think he's evil.

Hear me out. I think that with everything Bush has ever done, even though it is misguided and at times decietful or stretching the law (or outright breaking it), I dont think hes done any of it with malicious intent. I personally truely believe that everything George Bush has done, he has done with the best intrest of America in mind. I truely believe (or maybe I just want to believe) that everything he has done, he has done because he really believes it is for the good of America as a hole.

I dont think hes bright. I dont think hes a good leader. And I dont think hes done very many things that are good ideas or benefit America. But I think he believes what hes done is truely a good idea. Does that make him stupid? Yes. Does that make him evil? Not to me.

Anyway, Im done. Ill be the first to admit that maybe its all just a bunch of youthful idealism (still in college after all) and a bit of naivity, but this is just what I truely (want to) believe.

Hows everyone else feel about this? Forigners' opinions and comments are of course welcome and encouraged.

Evil implies intention and intelligence.

Beloved Dear Leader is simply an incompetent and stubborn fratboy who's close to running the United States into the ground, just like he ran every other business he's been put in charge of into the ground. The fact that he's doing favors for his corporate and fundie buddies along the way doesn't help.

If anything, the Bush 2 Administration is the closest that the real world will ever get to a Peter Griffin Administration running the country. Into the ground.

Having watched every one of Dubbya's State of the Union Adresses, and just finishing watching his last one, there is one thing Ive learned since he has been president, and Ive just been reminicing on this.

While I may disagree with this president on...well...everything. And I may find him a dividing, inept leader, there is an important distinction Ive been able to make between him and other politicians I dislike (like Rommney).

I dont think he's evil.

Hear me out. I think that with everything Bush has ever done, even though it is misguided and at times decietful or stretching the law (or outright breaking it), I dont think hes done any of it with malicious intent. I personally truely believe that everything George Bush has done, he has done with the best intrest of America in mind. I truely believe (or maybe I just want to believe) that everything he has done, he has done because he really believes it is for the good of America as a hole.

I dont think hes bright. I dont think hes a good leader. And I dont think hes done very many things that are good ideas or benefit America. But I think he believes what hes done is truely a good idea. Does that make him stupid? Yes. Does that make him evil? Not to me.

Anyway, Im done. Ill be the first to admit that maybe its all just a bunch of youthful idealism (still in college after all) and a bit of naivity, but this is just what I truely (want to) believe.

Hows everyone else feel about this? Forigners' opinions and comments are of course welcome and encouraged.

You're more mature than most people here.

I truely believe (or maybe I just want to believe) that everything he has done, he has done because he really believes it is for the good of America as a hole.

Indeed, he has done his best to turn America into a hole.

Yet seriously, I think the word is 'sincere'. He's been sincere in his efforts to do good, according to what he believes is good. I'm all for conviction politicians when the cause is good but I think there's two problems with George Bush.

He has never had to face personal responsibility and this gives him a very skewed view of the actual plight of many people. I don't think he understands that people struggle in life.

His view of economics means he has simply lined the pockets of his friends.

This lies at the core, he's been surrounded by like-minded people his entire life and therefore has no ability for empathy with those who think differently - his way or the highway and alas his highway led nowhere.

I don't think he's a bad man, I just think he's not a good leader.

you think mitt romney is evil?


I think Rommney is in it more for himself and his buddies than for the American people. But can we not get side tracked with this? This isnt about Rommney;)

Is this a spin-off from the other thread, or did this come first/after?

Is this a spin-off from the other thread, or did this come first/after?

Mine wa first, but mine is also on a different toic.

you think mitt romney is evil?

I think Rommney is in it more for himself and his buddies than for the American people. But can we not get side tracked with this? This isnt about Rommney;)

youre the one who brought him up in a discussion of who is and who is not evil.

I tend to agree that Bush himself is only guilty of incompetence of criminal magnitude. War criminal magnitude.

The evil people are certainly pulling his strings from the shadows. I've always been under the impression of an elaborate puppet show every time I've seen Bush in the media.

So basically, yeah, one should look for the evil puppeteer instead of focusing only on the marionette.

Nope, I don't think Bush is particularly evil; I think he's just a bad president. He's not the worst president we've had, but I'd rank him in the bottom 10 at least.

I never thought George was evil. Back in 2000 when he "choked" on a pretzel, George's poor soul panicked and left his body. The devil took that opportunity to possess his body. Satan has been running our country since then.

Having watched every one of Dubbya's State of the Union Adresses, and just finishing watching his last one, there is one thing Ive learned since he has been president, and Ive just been reminicing on this.

While I may disagree with this president on...well...everything. And I may find him a dividing, inept leader, there is an important distinction Ive been able to make between him and other politicians I dislike (like Rommney).

I dont think he's evil.

Hear me out. I think that with everything Bush has ever done, even though it is misguided and at times decietful or stretching the law (or outright breaking it), I dont think hes done any of it with malicious intent. I personally truely believe that everything George Bush has done, he has done with the best intrest of America in mind. I truely believe (or maybe I just want to believe) that everything he has done, he has done because he really believes it is for the good of America as a hole.

I dont think hes bright. I dont think hes a good leader. And I dont think hes done very many things that are good ideas or benefit America. But I think he believes what hes done is truely a good idea. Does that make him stupid? Yes. Does that make him evil? Not to me.

Anyway, Im done. Ill be the first to admit that maybe its all just a bunch of youthful idealism (still in college after all) and a bit of naivity, but this is just what I truely (want to) believe.

Hows everyone else feel about this? Forigners' opinions and comments are of course welcome and encouraged.

I think this is the first time (lol, and it may well be the last) that I mostly agree with you.

Granted I support Bush myself, but that aside, I respect that you can at least look at him with a thoughtful perspective. Kudos.

I find Bush to be rather trustful of people. He is/was an academically smart guy that surrounded himself with bad people. I actually feel sorry for him.

I find Bush to be rather trustful of people. He is/was an academically smart guy that surrounded himself with bad people. I actually feel sorry for him.

President Ulysses Simpson Grant, redux?

I see Dubya as the anti-Nixon. Now hear me out: Nixon was an intelligent, clever (if also Machiavellian) man surrounded by idiots. Bush is a sincere (if misguided) idiot surrounded by clever, calculating, and in some cases downright callous and manipulative people.

President Ulysses Simpson Grant, redux?

Yes. Someone who was a figurehead for other people controlling the Government. Someone who came in to the White House sincerely looking to change the nation and the world for the better. He failed because the people that got him elected and the people that surrounded him were Evil.

What is evil, really?

If you consider purposely misleading a nation into a war that costs over 4000 American troops, and @200,000 Iraqi civillian lives, evil...then fuck yes, hes an evil fuckbasket.

I dont really think Bush is evil. Im positive he believes he's doing the right thing.
However, the Road to Hell, as they say, is paved with the best intentions.

Instead of asking what hes done wrong, it would be quicker to name what he has done right. Go ahead.... I'll wait...

Take your time....

Right.

I dont think he's evil.

Hear me out. I think that with everything Bush has ever done, even though it is misguided and at times decietful or stretching the law (or outright breaking it), I dont think hes done any of it with malicious intent. I personally truely believe that everything George Bush has done, he has done with the best intrest of America in mind. I truely believe (or maybe I just want to believe) that everything he has done, he has done because he really believes it is for the good of America as a hole.

It is very important to remember that almost no one acts with "malicious intent." The Snidely Whiplash villain archetype that is so often the basic model for fictional villains seldom if ever exists in real life.

As a rule, the worst criminals in human history have all acted with "the best of intentions." Everything they did, they believed was in the best interests of their country. Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, the list goes on and on. Every single one of them thought that they were on the side of good, and that what they were doing was right.

They may not have had "evil intentions", but their actions are all undeniably evil. Perhaps it is not someone's intentions that we should measure them by, but rather their actions, and the maxim by which they act. For all of these people, the end always justified the means when it came to their goal. I would submit to you that this is the criterion by which we should evaluated whether an action is "evil" or not.

*snip*

I've heard it said that no one ever really commits an evil act -- if you accept their worldview.

I find Bush to be rather trustful of people. He is/was an academically smart guy that surrounded himself with bad people. I actually feel sorry for him.

Academically smart? Where?

I've heard it said that no one ever really commits an evil act -- if you accept their worldview.

Indeed. That's the sad truth.

"Good for America as a whole" not hole. Anyway, I agree with you. I think he believes he's doing what's right. I would also say I don't think he is the worst President ever or even really near the bottom. I'd say he's very average. He did provide tax cuts which help create a healthy economy for much of his term, he's at least done a few things to prevent another attack since 9/11 and he has spoken out on darfur. However his policies on social issues have been among the worst of any President as have his policies in regards to privacy and the consitution.

I truely believe (or maybe I just want to believe) that everything he has done, he has done because he really believes it is for the good of America as a hole.
/thread
I have to say that his actions really, REALLY do NOT imply the best interests of the country. Seriously.

I agree that I do believe he feels he is doing what he does for the country. I have survived some truly horrid presidents (Carter for one) and Bush looks magnificent next to those hell years. As far as his ability, well he carried this nation through one of it's darkest days in it's history and managed to keep our morale high and our economy strong when those who would kill us tried to destroy both. For all his short comings he over all has done fine.

well he carried this nation through one of it's darkest days in it's historyBy running away on a plane, out of communication for 8+ hours, and then retaliating by invading a completely uninvolved country and killing our own soldiers for a PNAC directive and to usurp oil reserve deals. And by reneging on his claim to make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbour them.
and managed to keep our morale highKeep America rolling! Attack "the libruhls"! PATRIOT Act! Presidential "Heckuva Job Brownie" appointments! Come visit Guantanamo Bay!
and our economy strongKeep America rolling! Spend! Buy a house! Get a loan! How's them oil prices doing?
For all his short comings he over all has done fine.No he hasn't. He's a fucking disgrace. And don't forget,
I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. - Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006

No more of the "unknowing bumbling well-meaning doofus" bullshit. Even if bricks have an exponentially higher IQ, he STILL INTENDS TO INFLICT what he's doing. Don't kid yourselves.

"Good for America as a whole" not hole.
No, you had it right the first time.
He did provide tax cuts which help create a healthy economy for much of his term
For under 10% of the people. The rest of us are stagnating or having a miserable time.

Back in 2000 when he "choked" on a pretzel, George's poor soul panicked and left his body. The devil took that opportunity to possess his body. Satan has been running our country since then.
The obvious solution is for him to "choke" on the Pope's holy "sceptre" and feel the cleansing "holiness" wash down his throat and through every fibre of his being until that Satan fella/madame blows out of every orifice.
Every orifice that isn't already occupied, that is, by evangelist/fundies and neocons. Hell, give them a blast too.

President Ulysses Simpson Grant, redux?

Indeed so. Grant seems to be a good comparison, with the exception that Grant served out his time in the military honorably unlike tyhe current deserter-in-chief.

I see Dubya as the anti-Nixon. Now hear me out: Nixon was an intelligent, clever (if also Machiavellian) man surrounded by idiots. Bush is a sincere (if misguided) idiot surrounded by clever, calculating, and in some cases downright callous and manipulative people.

Also a good comparison.

I see Dubya as the anti-Nixon. Now hear me out: Nixon was an intelligent, clever (if also Machiavellian) man surrounded by idiots. Bush is a sincere (if misguided) idiot surrounded by clever, calculating, and in some cases downright callous and manipulative people.
Your assuming that he is naturally a naive and easily manipulated person, as opposed to a very deceptive person, which I think is far more likely given his past association with politics and his ability to become President.

As many have said, Bush can speak well, and succinctly and be very well versed, but you just rarely see it, the whole image of him of the 'War against Terror' commander doesn't require a well-talking intellectual guy, in fact it hinders it, it requires for lack of a better word a 'simpleton'. For Bush to play this 'part' he needs to speak in absolutes, of 'good' and 'evil', silly stuff which has no part (and is indeed quite dangerous) in politics. I mean honestly only the most naive and stupidest person would prattle on about 'your with us or your with the terrorists', I think it's far more likely he's deceptive and used 9/11 in a very 'reichstag fire' type way.

Your assuming that he is naturally a naive and easily manipulated person, as opposed to a very deceptive person, which I think is far more likely given his past association with politics and his ability to become President.

As many have said, Bush can speak well, and succinctly and be very well versed, but you just rarely see it, the whole image of him of the 'War against Terror' commander doesn't require a well-talking intellectual guy, in fact it hinders it, it requires for lack of a better word a 'simpleton'. For Bush to play this 'part' he needs to speak in absolutes, of 'good' and 'evil', silly stuff which has no part (and is indeed quite dangerous) in politics. I mean honestly only the most naive and stupidest person would prattle on about 'your with us or your with the terrorists', I think it's far more likely he's deceptive and used 9/11 in a very 'reichstag fire' type way.

You're not wrong in essence but I think you err in origin.

He beat Gore by being the straight shooting man you can have a beer with over Gore's intellectual snob you'd be friends with but wouldn't invite to the Friday poker game.

It was an election strategy not a war strategy although, yes, it worked well for that.

Hows everyone else feel about this?I mostly agree. "The opposite of good is not evil, but good intentions."

Or, as Dr. Grant put it:

"With the best intentions? Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions."

I think this is the first time (lol, and it may well be the last) that I mostly agree with you.

Granted I support Bush myself, but that aside, I respect that you can at least look at him with a thoughtful perspective. Kudos.


Do you also support Hitler?

Do you also support Hitler?Do you?

Do you?

What about you?

I don't think Bush is evil either but he does seem to be led by his father and the oil industry.

Do you also support Hitler?

Not in entirety, no. Then again, Hitler is dead (or at least, pretty convincingly presumed so, there was a Simpsons episode where he was in South America, so who knows?).

If he were running for election I wouldn't vote him, but... ummm, he isn't so whether or I support is moot, he isn't going to win (not running and such).

Would I have supported him had I been of age in Germany at the time? Almost undoubtedly, but then, Hitler was one of history's greatest manipulators, so I'm just thankful that I never got the chacne to have behind him at any point.

I don't agree with all of his policy, and specifically I disagree with enough of his policy to say that I currently do not support what he did.

But that was in the past, and entirely unrelated to Bush, or any other modern example.

Nice stab at relevance though... but you were way, way off.

Not in entirety, no. Then again, Hitler is dead (or at least, pretty convincingly presumed so, there was a Simpsons episode where he was in South America, so who knows?).Few people live past 100...

Few people live past 100...

I know, I was just kidding... then again if that bullet didn't kill him, who says something as trivial as old age would? :p

I know, I was just kidding... then again if that bullet didn't kill him, who says something as trivial as old age would? :pUniformitarianism :)

Not in entirety, no. Then again, Hitler is dead (or at least, pretty convincingly presumed so, there was a Simpsons episode where he was in South America, so who knows?).

If he were running for election I wouldn't vote him, but... ummm, he isn't so whether or I support is moot, he isn't going to win (not running and such).

Would I have supported him had I been of age in Germany at the time? Almost undoubtedly, but then, Hitler was one of history's greatest manipulators, so I'm just thankful that I never got the chacne to have behind him at any point.

I don't agree with all of his policy, and specifically I disagree with enough of his policy to say that I currently do not support what he did.

But that was in the past, and entirely unrelated to Bush, or any other modern example.

Nice stab at relevance though... but you were way, way off.


I'm sorry, I just dont see how anyone whe more than 2 braincells could support Bush, a man who has proven time and time again that he doesnt give a shit about the law and has no respect for human life. Are you a moron?

I dont think hes bright. I dont think hes a good leader. And I dont think hes done very many things that are good ideas or benefit America. But I think he believes what hes done is truely a good idea. Does that make him stupid? Yes. Does that make him evil? Not to me.

Any number of murderous, fucked-up psychopaths thought they were God's beloved and could do no wrong.

Do you honestly need someone to believe themselves to be evil, before you will believe their actions to be evil? Because... very few people see themselves as villains.

Do you honestly need someone to believe themselves to be evil, before you will believe their actions to be evil? Because... very few people see themselves as villains.
I don’t know about Knights of Liberty, but I certainly do.

To me, an evil person is someone who is completely devoid of any moral goodness, or intended goodness. It seems rather strange to say that someone who was acting on good intentions, even if those intentions and the resultant actions are terrible, was acting in an ‘evil’ manner.

And I hardly think that Bush sits in the Oval Office planning ways to be deliberately evil to anyone; he didn’t invade Iraq so thousands of civilians and military personal could die, he invaded for other (albeit mistaken) reasons.

The man’s a ****; but he’s in no way evil.

I don't think he's psychopathic/sociopathic as discussed over on the Morality and Religion thread, that is, devoid of empathy. But people can be trained to downplay or disregard empathy, and use religion as a substitute for morality, and this is what has happened to him.

To me, an evil person is someone who is completely devoid of any moral goodness, or intended goodness. It seems rather strange to say that someone who was acting on good intentions, even if those intentions and the resultant actions are terrible, was acting in an ‘evil’ manner.

Believing one's intentions to be good doesn't make them so, and it certainly doesn't excuse anything one ever does.

And I hardly think that Bush sits in the Oval Office planning ways to be deliberately evil to anyone; he didn’t invade Iraq so thousands of civilians and military personal could die, he invaded for other (albeit mistaken) reasons.

The man’s a ****; but he’s in no way evil.

Again, this apparent need for someone to say, "Gosh! I'm evil, and what I do is, I believe, also evil!" before you'll consider them evil is unrealistic.

Having watched every one of Dubbya's State of the Union Adresses, and just finishing watching his last one, there is one thing Ive learned since he has been president, and Ive just been reminicing on this.

While I may disagree with this president on...well...everything. And I may find him a dividing, inept leader, there is an important distinction Ive been able to make between him and other politicians I dislike (like Rommney).

I dont think he's evil.

Hear me out. I think that with everything Bush has ever done, even though it is misguided and at times decietful or stretching the law (or outright breaking it), I dont think hes done any of it with malicious intent. I personally truely believe that everything George Bush has done, he has done with the best intrest of America in mind. I truely believe (or maybe I just want to believe) that everything he has done, he has done because he really believes it is for the good of America as a hole.

I dont think hes bright. I dont think hes a good leader. And I dont think hes done very many things that are good ideas or benefit America. But I think he believes what hes done is truely a good idea. Does that make him stupid? Yes. Does that make him evil? Not to me.

Anyway, Im done. Ill be the first to admit that maybe its all just a bunch of youthful idealism (still in college after all) and a bit of naivity, but this is just what I truely (want to) believe.

Hows everyone else feel about this? Forigners' opinions and comments are of course welcome and encouraged.
And that's the scary thing...

Of course he isn't evil. Evil is intelligent. He's a monster. :)

Believing one’s intentions to be good doesn’t make them so, and it certainly doesn’t excuse anything one ever does.
Of course not; that’s ridiculous.

But how is someone evil (that is, completely devoid of any moral goodness or intention of morally good acts) if they regard themselves as doing good? Our use of the word ‘evil’, and the portrayal of ‘evil’ characters in literature and film, seems to indicate that those who are ‘evil’, as opposed to those who are ‘bad’, are acting in a morally bad way in the full knowledge that such actions are morally bad.

They’re not just simply mistaken that their acts are morally correct, when in fact they’re not; they are devoid of any morally redeeming features, and do bad acts for the sake of them being bad.

Again, this apparent need for someone to say, “Gosh! I’m evil, and what I do is, I believe, also evil!” before you’ll consider them evil is unrealistic.
It is completely unrealistic, because I feel the idea of an ‘evil’ human is completely unrealistic in itself.

Evil acts I’m not too sure about (i.e. actions with no moral goodness in them whatsoever, and not done for any good intentions, even mistaken ones), but even those people who arguably commit evil acts have some other acts of moral goodness in their lives, albeit usually only towards a very select group of people.

Obviously, you may disagree with my definition of evil. But I really don’t think ‘evil’ is synonymous with ‘very bad’; it’s usually used in much stronger terms.

Of course not; that’s ridiculous.

But how is someone evil (that is, completely devoid of any moral goodness or intention of morally good acts) if they regard themselves as doing good? Our use of the word ‘evil’, and the portrayal of ‘evil’ characters in literature and film, seems to indicate that those who are ‘evil’, as opposed to those who are ‘bad’, are acting in a morally bad way in the full knowledge that such actions are morally bad.

They’re not just simply mistaken that their acts are morally correct, when in fact they’re not; they are devoid of any morally redeeming features, and do bad acts for the sake of them being bad.

Movies =/= Real Life.

A psychopath who goes around killing people for fun and because he believes it's the right thing to do is still an evil murdering psychopath.

It is completely unrealistic, because I feel the idea of an ‘evil’ human is completely unrealistic in itself.

Evil acts I’m not too sure about (i.e. actions with no moral goodness in them whatsoever, and not done for any good intentions, even mistaken ones), but even those people who arguably commit evil acts have some other acts of moral goodness in their lives, albeit usually only towards a very select group of people.

Obviously, you may disagree with my definition of evil. But I really don’t think ‘evil’ is synonymous with ‘very bad’; it’s usually used in much stronger terms.

The existence of evil is debatable of course, but since we as humans choose to define it, it also depends on our definitions.

And since we have a tendency never to share these with anyone, what is evil to you isn't evil to me. That, however, is merely words.

Hear me out. I think that with everything Bush has ever done, even though it is misguided and at times decietful or stretching the law (or outright breaking it), I dont think hes done any of it with malicious intent. I personally truely believe that everything George Bush has done, he has done with the best intrest of America in mind. I truely believe (or maybe I just want to believe) that everything he has done, he has done because he really believes it is for the good of America as a hole.

I dont think hes bright. I dont think hes a good leader. And I dont think hes done very many things that are good ideas or benefit America. But I think he believes what hes done is truely a good idea. Does that make him stupid? Yes. Does that make him evil? Not to me.
I don't think he's evil, but I think he's a useful idiot for the powers behind the scene. He's letting himself be manipulated, he refuses to gather info himself, he doesn't want dissenting opinions and he reacts angily to bad news so his assistants avoids giving him it. That makes him an idiot, albeit not in an academic sense.

Also, I believe that he has faith in his actions, a strong unwavering faith that you can find in some born-again Christians. He believes he's doing the right things, and no amounts of facts or logic will persuade him otherwise.

Forigners' opinions and comments are of course welcome and encouraged.
Damn furreiners <.<

Indeed, he has done his best to turn America into a hole.

Yet seriously, I think the word is 'sincere'. He's been sincere in his efforts to do good, according to what he believes is good. I'm all for conviction politicians when the cause is good but I think there's two problems with George Bush.

He has never had to face personal responsibility and this gives him a very skewed view of the actual plight of many people. I don't think he understands that people struggle in life.

His view of economics means he has simply lined the pockets of his friends.

This lies at the core, he's been surrounded by like-minded people his entire life and therefore has no ability for empathy with those who think differently - his way or the highway and alas his highway led nowhere.

I don't think he's a bad man, I just think he's not a good leader.
This too...

I tend to agree that Bush himself is only guilty of incompetence of criminal magnitude. War criminal magnitude.

The evil people are certainly pulling his strings from the shadows. I've always been under the impression of an elaborate puppet show every time I've seen Bush in the media.

So basically, yeah, one should look for the evil puppeteer instead of focusing only on the marionette.
And some of this...
Nope, I don't think Bush is particularly evil; I think he's just a bad president. He's not the worst president we've had, but I'd rank him in the bottom 10 at least.
And a bit of this.

I can't think of anybody worse than him though...

Movies =/= Real Life.
Again, quite obviously.

But our usage of terms in real life, including literature and film, can be eye-opening. As is, I believe, the case with ‘evil’ characters in a story; they’re quite different to merely ‘bad’ people. Or look at tabloid newspaper headlines., When the Daily Mail calls someone an ‘evil sicko’ or suchlike in their headlines, they’re not insinuating that the person in question has merely done some bad deeds, IMO they’re implying such a person is devoid of any moral worth.

A psychopath who goes around killing people for fun and because he believes it’s the right thing to do is still an evil murdering psychopath.
A murdering psychopath, certainly, but unless that person has never, ever, committed any morally worthy acts, I would hesitate to call them ‘evil’ at all.

To be honest, the moral status of psychopaths and sociopaths is tricky to discuss, because for many of them it appears they have a limited or non-existent ‘moral compass’.

The existence of evil is debatable of course, but since we as humans choose to define it, it also depends on our definitions.

And since we have a tendency never to share these with anyone, what is evil to you isn’t evil to me. That, however, is merely words.
Quite, but I’m sharing my usage right now.

Your usage of ‘evil’ seems very strange to me; it seems synonymous with ‘very bad’ which, as I have said, appears to me to be an incorrect usage. Does it not mean something stronger than ‘very bad’?

Of course not; that’s ridiculous.

But how is someone evil (that is, completely devoid of any moral goodness or intention of morally good acts) if they regard themselves as doing good?

Because what they regard as "good" is in fact morally reprehensible. And I don't think "completely devoid ..." is required to label someone as evil.

Our use of the word ‘evil’, and the portrayal of ‘evil’ characters in literature and film, seems to indicate that those who are ‘evil’, as opposed to those who are ‘bad’, are acting in a morally bad way in the full knowledge that such actions are morally bad.

They’re not just simply mistaken that their acts are morally correct, when in fact they’re not; they are devoid of any morally redeeming features, and do bad acts for the sake of them being bad.

Some of the best stories in film and literature involve people who think they are doing good, but are doing evil. It's tragedy. Perhaps you can see Bush as a flawed, hapless character, a victim of his own tragic inability to differentiate between what is really good and what his PNAC buddies and administration and zealous constituents think is good. But flawed or not he is the villain in this story.

It is completely unrealistic, because I feel the idea of an ‘evil’ human is completely unrealistic in itself.

Evil acts I’m not too sure about (i.e. actions with no moral goodness in them whatsoever, and not done for any good intentions, even mistaken ones), but even those people who arguably commit evil acts have some other acts of moral goodness in their lives, albeit usually only towards a very select group of people.

Yeah, there's a silver lining in every cloud. Hitler was a vegetarian for moral reasons. But that doesn't really outweigh what his actions are.

As I said I try to avoid the "evil" label but in this case it can certainly apply.

Obviously, you may disagree with my definition of evil. But I really don’t think ‘evil’ is synonymous with ‘very bad’; it’s usually used in much stronger terms.

True, but I think the situation caused by Bush is worse than merely "very bad." Maybe not for me, but it would be selfish to ignore the suffering of others simply cuz I got mine at the moment.

Because what they regard as “good” is in fact morally reprehensible. And I don’t think “completely devoid ...” is required to label someone as evil.
And there we depart from one another.

The rest of your post assumes a different usage of the word ‘evil’ from what I’m proposing, so I’ll refrain from replying to it so we don’t go round and round in circles.

Having watched every one of Dubbya's State of the Union Adresses, and just finishing watching his last one, there is one thing Ive learned since he has been president, and Ive just been reminicing on this.

While I may disagree with this president on...well...everything. And I may find him a dividing, inept leader, there is an important distinction Ive been able to make between him and other politicians I dislike (like Rommney).

I dont think he's evil.

Hear me out. I think that with everything Bush has ever done, even though it is misguided and at times decietful or stretching the law (or outright breaking it), I dont think hes done any of it with malicious intent. I personally truely believe that everything George Bush has done, he has done with the best intrest of America in mind. I truely believe (or maybe I just want to believe) that everything he has done, he has done because he really believes it is for the good of America as a hole.

I dont think hes bright. I dont think hes a good leader. And I dont think hes done very many things that are good ideas or benefit America. But I think he believes what hes done is truely a good idea. Does that make him stupid? Yes. Does that make him evil? Not to me.

Anyway, Im done. Ill be the first to admit that maybe its all just a bunch of youthful idealism (still in college after all) and a bit of naivity, but this is just what I truely (want to) believe.

Hows everyone else feel about this? Forigners' opinions and comments are of course welcome and encouraged.

I think that when it comes to immigration, and scientific and environmental policies, the man is pretty evil. Otherwise, I think he is an adorable little fuzzball.

Having watched every one of Dubbya's State of the Union Adresses, and just finishing watching his last one, there is one thing Ive learned since he has been president, and Ive just been reminicing on this.

While I may disagree with this president on...well...everything. And I may find him a dividing, inept leader, there is an important distinction Ive been able to make between him and other politicians I dislike (like Rommney).

I dont think he's evil.

Hear me out. I think that with everything Bush has ever done, even though it is misguided and at times decietful or stretching the law (or outright breaking it), I dont think hes done any of it with malicious intent. I personally truely believe that everything George Bush has done, he has done with the best intrest of America in mind. I truely believe (or maybe I just want to believe) that everything he has done, he has done because he really believes it is for the good of America as a hole.

I dont think hes bright. I dont think hes a good leader. And I dont think hes done very many things that are good ideas or benefit America. But I think he believes what hes done is truely a good idea. Does that make him stupid? Yes. Does that make him evil? Not to me.

Anyway, Im done. Ill be the first to admit that maybe its all just a bunch of youthful idealism (still in college after all) and a bit of naivity, but this is just what I truely (want to) believe.

Hows everyone else feel about this? Forigners' opinions and comments are of course welcome and encouraged.

If I get hit with an axe, I don't care if it's a GOOD axe.

If I get hit with an axe, I don't care if it's a GOOD axe.Yes you do. If its nice and clean, the chances of you not dying of tetanus or other infectious diseases should you survive the initial axe blow are considerably lessened. Like if I were to get hit with an arrow, I'd prefer it to be a sporting arrow, and not a hunting arrow.

Yes you do. If its nice and clean, the chances of you not dying of tetanus or other infectious diseases should you survive the initial axe blow are considerably lessened. Like if I were to get hit with an arrow, I'd prefer it to be a sporting arrow, and not a hunting arrow.

I think we're agreed none of the axes in this game are noticably clean. :)

I think we're agreed none of the axes in this game are noticably clean. :)Then go for the one with the least rust :D

Then go for the one with the least rust :D

I suppose it could be argued, at least we've been getting hit with one of the 'less sharp' ones... :D

I suppose it could be argued, at least we've been getting hit with one of the 'less sharp' ones... :DOr go for the other side.

What is evil, really?

If you consider purposely misleading a nation into a war that costs over 4000 American troops, and @200,000 Iraqi civillian lives, evil...then fuck yes, hes an evil fuckbasket.

I dont really think Bush is evil. Im positive he believes he's doing the right thing.
However, the Road to Hell, as they say, is paved with the best intentions.

Instead of asking what hes done wrong, it would be quicker to name what he has done right. Go ahead.... I'll wait...

Take your time....

Right.

Well, firstly, if your reason for starting that war is to prevent the deaths of thousands of American civilians, then I don't find it evil. I don't know what a fuckbasket is, but I have a feeling it's a word used by people who are side-splittingly hilarious and clever.
Bush has opposed abortion. Since I view abortion as killing a baby, I would define that as "right."
He refused to let stem cell research slide when it depended on the deaths of children, and now look- we have a way to perform it without killing anyone.
He did invade Iraq when he should have given it more thought, and he did support Rumsfeld. But as stated before, that just makes him stupid, not evil.
He's not responsible for the economic recession, though people like to bring that up. And I supported the "No Child Left Behind" act because, well... I think education should have standards.

Knights Of Liberty

I completely agree with you. I hate everything about Bush. I used to support him though. However, I don't hate him because he honestly believes what he's doing is for the benefit of someone in particular. Also, you've got to give him credit for one thing. He sticks to his guns. No pun intended. Everyone in America critisizes politicians because they have no back bone. Bush does though.

Also, you've got to give him credit for one thing. He sticks to his guns. No pun intended.No credit for him whatsoever.
Peruse:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2004/bush_flipflopper.html
Bush does though.No he doesn't. As the saying goes ...
Like a rock ... only dumber.

He refused to let stem cell research slide when it depended on the deaths of children, and now look- we have a way to perform it without killing anyone.You should research that before you make statements like this. We've had it for some time. It didn't "depend" on the deaths of "children".

He did invade Iraq when he should have given it more thought, and he did support Rumsfeld. But as stated before, that just makes him stupid, not evil.Wrong. He gave it as much thought as he needed. Even his dad (who should've flipped the bucket on that little prick) said it was a bad idea. He can be stupid AND evil.

He's not responsible for the economic recession, though people like to bring that up.Oh really? Back up your statement. I'll bring it up. What do you have to qualify that?
And I supported the "No Child Left Behind" act because, well... I think education should have standards..... but obviously not the funding.

He's a monster. :)

An abomination, no?

I find Bush to be rather trustful of people. He is/was an academically smart guy that surrounded himself with bad people. I actually feel sorry for him.

How low have our standards fallen that he has come to be considered "Academically smart"

How low have our standards fallen that he has come to be considered "Academically smart"

Nigeria is too a continent! I can has diploma?

Just because President Bush intended to help America doesn't make his actions wholly moral, as he (on a number of occaisons) has ignored the consequences of potential actions.
If he really wanted to help America why go in for a second term? If he knew that what he had already done had poor results?
I don't think President Bush is a good president or a nice person. I know these things have been said countless times before.

Bush is president. That means he has an obligation to all the people.

The problem is he is incredibly selfish. He sees no problem with using Taxpayer money to get him and his friends rich, and due to lining the pockets of his friends in the military industrial complex, other things, such as repairing New Orleans doesn't happen.

His selfishness, and the consequences of this selfishness, make him at least callous, and by some people's perceptions, evil.

Bush is president. That means he has an obligation to all the people.

The problem is he is incredibly selfish. He sees no problem with using Taxpayer money to get him and his friends rich, and due to lining the pockets of his friends in the military industrial complex, other things, such as repairing New Orleans doesn't happen.

His selfishness, and the consequences of this selfishness, make him at least callous, and by some people's perceptions, evil.
Well put. *bows*

Just because President Bush intended to help America doesn't make his actions wholly moral, as he (on a number of occaisons) has ignored the consequences of potential actions.And left it to the "conservative" media to bloviate and twist the consequences into somehow not being his fault while simultaneously laying blame with his political enemies.
If he really wanted to help America why go in for a second term? If he knew that what he had already done had poor results?The way he procured the first term itself spoke volumes about what he truly thought about "helping" America.

I don't think President Bush is a good president or a nice person. I know these things have been said countless times before.
There's no shame in saying it again, and again, for it's the truth.

How low have our standards fallen that he has come to be considered "Academically smart"
They've been being whittled away for some time. I've got this book mentioning "The Impudent Snobs" and Spiro Agnew ...
http://www.freepress.net/news/16707
moreso that the right wing for QUITE a while now has been using intelligence and science as enemies of the common folk, with bullshit titles like "elitist" and such to appeal to the more infantile and emotionally unstable populace whose egos inflate easily to any perceived slight.

A few of you out there might need a more clear understanding of Bush's supposed benign-but-stupid attitude about his choices, so i'll provide this one.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/
January 30, 2008

WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.

Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008.
...
One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq." (remember, it's NOT FOR THE OIL :rolleyes:)
...
The signing statement also targeted a provision in the defense bill that strengthens protections for whistle-blowers working for companies that hold government contracts. The new law expands employees' ability to disclose wrongdoing without being fired, and it gives greater responsibility to federal inspectors general to investigate complaints of retaliation.

In addition, Bush targeted a section that requires intelligence agencies to turn over "any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate or legal opinion" requested by the leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees within 45 days. If the president wants to assert executive privilege to deny the request, the law says, White House counsel must do so in writing.

Finally, Bush's signing statement raised constitutional questions about a section of the bill that established an independent, bipartisan "Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan" to investigate allegations of waste, mismanagement, and excessive force by contractors.

The law requires the Pentagon to provide information to the panel "expeditiously" upon its request.[/quote]

Also, take note of the "stick to his guns" philosophy here:
The negotiations have drawn fire in part because the administration has said it does not intend to designate the compact as a "treaty," and so will not submit it to Congress for approval. Critics are also concerned Bush might lock the United States into a deal that would make it difficult for the next president to withdraw US troops from Iraq.
+
http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSN24244265
Thu Jan 24 20:43:42 UTC 2008

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - The Bush administration will not tie the hands of the next U.S. president with a planned agreement on future relations with Iraq and such a pact will not set U.S. troop levels, the State Department said on Thursday.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey was responding to concerns expressed by U.S. lawmakers and presidential candidates that the deal to be negotiated might lock in a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next White House occupant is elected on Nov. 4.

"If anybody is worried that this agreement somehow ties the hands of future policy-makers, it's just simply not true," Casey told reporters in a regular briefing.

snip*

Bush = Colonel Klink.

Cheney = General Burkhalter.

Bush is not evil, but Cheney might be.


Now, who is Sergeant Schultz?

Bush = Colonel Klink.

Cheney = General Burkhalter.

Bush is not evil, but Cheney might be.


Now, who is Sergeant Schultz?

Probably the "Liberal Media". "I see noh-tink, I hear noh-tink, I know... NOH-TINK!"