Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

quienes es mas EVIL??

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Elginoid Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:16 AM
Original message
quienes es mas EVIL??
1. Richard Nixon
2. George H.W. Bush (aka poppa smirk)
3. George w. Bush
4. Dick Cheney
5. Don Rumsfeld
6. Karl Rove
7. Newt Gingrich
8. Pat Robertson
9. Richard Scaife

for me, it's a toss-up between 2 & 8...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
anti_shrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. As someone who sees his evil close up
Scaife is the most evil, no doubt.

Why you ask? Cause at least all the other people you list are pretty up-front with their evilness. Scaife keeps his evil on the D/L, lurking in the shadows funding right wing rags pretending to be newspapers and funding art exhibits at the Carnegie Museums.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hang a left Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'll take door number 2. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
3. Oy, tough choice
#2 for sure, followed very closely by 3, 6, 4, 5 and about in that order. I don't see Robertson as "evil," at least not in the same way the others are. Let's face it, Robertson isn't in a position to orchestrate the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anti_shrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Don't forget
Scaife-funded smears and lies are the reason the GOP can claim 50% support in the polls. Bushco would be nowhere if they didn't have Scaife's huge tentacles in every city spewing out lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Scaife is just window dressing for the Bush Crime Family
A bit player, really. (Well, that's probably a bit of an overstatement -- let's just say that Bush didn't need Scaife all that much to be what he is and do what he does).

Read the article linked to in this thread to get a feel for where I'm coming from:

Wanna know where today's Fascism came from? Look here 8/29/04
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2282969#2283235
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anti_shrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. That's being awful naive
Scaife made it possible for all the Clinton bashing that was all the rage, his newspapers were printing all the GOP talking points before FOX News was a gleam in Murdoch's eye as well.

These days, the hate-the-left agenda is so set in stone that Scaife isn't as important as he used to be, but he made it possible to make "liberal" to be a dirty word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. NAIVE?
Did you bother to read the article I referenced?

Let me put it another way: Richard Mellon Scaife is NOT our biggest problem. (Read the damn article.) He's a bit player. Has he had a role? of course. Has he bankrolled some nasty stuff? Of course. Hell, I don't even think he was that instrumental in making "liberal" a dirty word, as you claim. Reagan started that, and Bush Sr. made great strides with it in 1992 (sealed the deal), at his convention, when he spat out the word as if "liberal" was equivalent to "vermin."

Read the damn article. THEN get back to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anti_shrub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. I think you dismiss Scaife too easy
maybe naive was a poor word choice, but you seem to gloss over what Scaife is responsible for very easy.

BTW, I read your damn article. Yes the neo-cons obviously borrow from the Nazi playbook, but I steadfastly believe that the neo-con as we know it would have become extinct after Poppy Bush's crushing defeat if it hadn't been for Scaife pretty much single handedly financing the nonstop attacks on Clinton which re-energized the neo-con movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Well, you read it without all that much understanding then
It discusses the META-problem. It's NOT that these guys "borrow from the Nazi playbook." It's that they ARE Nazis (or fascists, if you prefer) themselves. And Scaife is just a supporting character -- an instrumental one, to be sure, but not the heart of beast. It's as if you were saying Goebbels, not Hitler, was the one responsible for all that nasty business in Germany.

I steadfastly believe that the neo-con as we know it would have become extinct after Poppy Bush's crushing defeat if it hadn't been for Scaife pretty much single handedly financing the nonstop attacks on Clinton which re-energized the neo-con movement.

And I steadfastly reject that -- precisely because it ignores the ENTIRE history of the Bush Crime Family. You're focusing just on recent history, ignoring the fact that the Bush clan have been at this for generations now. GENERATIONS!! The Clinton victory (Poppy's defeat) only gave them a chance to regroup, quietly, stealthily -- just as they've been "regrouping" around the world (literally) since their "defeat" in 1945. Was Scaife part of that recent regrouping? Sure. Was he driving it? Hardly. Even the neo-cons themselves are not so much recently "re-energized," but also supporting players who've been at this for generations.

But you go ahead and concentrate on Scaife if you want to. He's a bad actor, no doubt. But cut Scaife (a tentacle) out of the picture, and you'll still have the head of the octopus to deal with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elginoid Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. don't be so sure....
Let's face it, Robertson isn't in a position to orchestrate the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocents...

try telling that to the gold & diamond miners of Africa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elginoid Donating Member (387 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. to expound a little...
read this for starters, or try Googling "pat robertson" + "Freedom Gold" + "conflict diamonds":

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/07/we_477_05.html#three

The Dictator and the Televangelist
Poor Charles Taylor. These are dark days for the Liberian dictator. Rebels control most of the country, he's under indictment for war crimes, and George W. Bush has called for his ouster, though the White House hasn't yet committed troops to the effort. Everyone, it seems, has abandoned West Africa's most notorious warlord. Everyone, that is, except Pat Robertson. Indeed, the televangelist and GOP stalwart is loudly defending Taylor -- a human-rights nightmare known for recruiting child soldiers to help him with the massacre and mutilation of thousands, whose regime is linked not just to the "conflict diamond" trade in neighboring Sierra Leone but to Al Qaeda and destabilization campaigns against its neighbors. Robertson, however, is having none of it. As he declared on his TV show, the 700 Club, last month: "'This country has had a close relationship with the United States over the years, but of late -- the last oh, four, five, six years -- the United States State Department has tried as hard as it can to destabilize Liberia and to bring about the very outcome we're seeing now. They had no endgame, they have no plan of what to do, they only wanted to destroy the sitting president and his government, and as a result, the place is being plunged into chaos.'"

Why would Robertson defend such a man? Well, perhaps Robertson is simply standing up for a fellow evangelical. After all, Taylor is a born-again Christian, an ex-con turned Baptist preacher who frequently compares himself to Jesus ("Jesus Christ was accused of being a murderer in his time," he told the BBC in defense of his human rights record). To be sure, Robertson's ministry has a history in Liberia. Last year, his Christian Broadcasting Network held a massive, three-day rally in Monrovia, the capital city, an event described (rather puzzlingly) by one of Robertson's ministers as "the atomic bomb of peace." And in recent broadcasts of the 700 Club, Robertson has characterized Liberia's civil war as a battle between Taylor's God-fearing regime and fanatical Islamic rebels -- a gross oversimplification, the Washington Post's Alan Cooperman reports.

There's something else at work besides the Christian connection, though -- something Robertson hasn't mentioned in his broadcasts. As it turns out, Robertson and Taylor are business partners. Robertson's mining company, Freedom Gold, holds the prospecting rights to a large swath of Liberian jungle, and over the years Robertson has poured millions of dollars into his investment. So far, that investment hasn't panned out, but as Robertson told the Post, "Hope springs eternal": "'Once the dust has cleared on this thing, chances are there will be some investors from someplace who want to invest. If I could find some people to sell it to, I'd be more than delighted.'"

This isn't Robertson's first foray into the world of African dictators and diamond mines. Depite recent condemnations of Zaire (now Congo)'s late strongman, Mobutu Sese Seko, Robertson cut a deal with Mobutu's dying regime in 1994. As Bob Drury and Aram Roston reported for GQ, Robertson was so enthusiastic about his new diamonds-and-timber business that he diverted cargo planes intended to help alleviate the crisis brought on by Rwanda's genocide to his mines in Zaire....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Well, you have a point
but still that's not quite on the same order as Iraq, now, is it? Or the other geopolitical plans for death and destruction they've got cooked up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoMoreMrNiceGuy Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
5. Cuatro y seis son hijos de la chingada pero todos
son sinverguenzas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indiana_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
15. I never took Spanish but just listened to people
I had two years of French though; so did you just say 4 & 6 are sons of (a bad word) but all are (don't know that word).

Please translate! It's buggin me!:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoMoreMrNiceGuy Donating Member (603 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. You got everything right
insert in order (streetwalker) (without shame).

Hijo de la chingada is the worst thing you can say in Mexico to a person. It doesn't work in other spanish speaking countries its slang(obviously) Mexican. I never took spanish in school either I learned it through books and spanish speaking friends....still a work in progress,well when I actually work on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
checks-n-balances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
6. I say: 9, 6, 7, 4 & 3 - in that order
Edited on Tue Aug-31-04 12:27 AM by demo@midlife
We have
Scaife to thank for funding RW think tanks since the '80s,
Rove for propaganda,
Gingrich for demonizing Democrats & dividing democracy,
Cheney for his ties & influence in the military industrial complex, and
GWB for simplemindedness & inflexibility (among many other things)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flordehinojos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. some hide their evilness in their darkest part of their dark shadow
POPPY is one of those; others let the evil out closer to the surface, I think Gingrich might be in this group.

I don't know that I can be objective on this. I think POPPY is the most evil. He hides his evil side from view, plans his evil in dark secrecy, says he had no part in it when confronted with it, he likes to hide his sinesters acts (and papers) away from any FOIA or any sort of light that could shed light on his evil persona and like his son, he suffers from any apparent degree of self reflection, or ability to g r i e ve, say he is sorry of any misdoings, and he just goes full charge ahead against whatever he thinks an obstacle in his way is.

POPPY is my vote for the evil one to the umpteenth degree.}(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I agree with you, Poppy is my number one choice
everyone else is a satellite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andromeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-04 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
14. No mas numero uno.
Todos los hombres son EVIL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC