I still can't really get past this... my inner English teacher is lashing out every time I hit "New Posts" and this thread comes up. Then again, my dad calls it "foo-pah," so maybe I should just get used to it.

/nothing else constructive to add that hasn't already been said, sorry.

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Were you raised in some backwoods fundamentalist parish by autistic, transsexual pulpitarians? Lacking "intellectual content"? And you speak for anyone else but yourself, since when? What do you have against a little bawdy humor anyway -- too barbaric and unsophisticated for you?

Smoke a bowl and go read The Hairy Ape or something.

:cringe:

There are of course comparisons to be made, but that's really beside the point. It was a chronological marker with a negative connotation. What, does Bush not deserve a negative connotation? The sentence provided does not even present a direct comparison, i.e. "is bush as bad as hitler?". It simply states:
1) Hitler was bad for the US.
2) Hitler's effect was at this given time.
3) Since said given time, Bush is the worst thing.

I don't see any problems with that.
Sure.

Will, you could compare Bush to Nixon much more profitably, and even that one would be a stretch. Or Carter, who was a bit like Nixon but without the felonies. He actually might be most like Emperor Paul of Russia, except that Paul got assassinated and his wife, Catherine the Great, took over the throne. And we know what happened to her, don't we...........

Enjoy your world alone then. You can, and will be held responsible for people's misunderstandings in a world populated by other people. I view it is just as much a failure of the speaker as the receiver is the meaning is unclear. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY as the speaker to anticipate how the recipient will misunderstand or misinterpret what you've said and speak clearly enough to avoid such things.

I'm very well versed in English, I have a very logical emotional process and yet I still don't think that blaming the receiver for misunderstanding what you've said is fair or responsible.

Words get a lot of people in trouble when they think that it's "not my responsibility to make sure I'm understood."

Fortunately, I'm not alone at all. I asked a few people I work with and a few on AIM about it after I posted and they agreed with me 100%.
Translation: Hmmm... I'm way smarter than everyone so I should speak in baby talk so that these idiots will get what I' saying.

I don't think so.

Next time, no more Coronas with lime twists, Rekna...a fews pints of Guinness or even ice cold Labatts Blue will clarify your worldview in no time.

Real men drink single malt scotch.

Mmmmmmm scotch, although a nice Canadian beer is always good as well, yeah I have nothing constructive to add to the thread, just that I like beer and scotch.

Highland? Islay? or what?

One of my friends says that anything lighter than Lagavulin is for pansies.

Hear that Rekna? Scotch, for real men. Go forth now and drink properly. Bars are for escaping talk of Chimpton Haliburton McBushitler.

I have to say I like Scotch but I make it a point to find microbrews when I travel and try out the local brews. Last night I was drinking some nice German style Hefes.

I've been at a conference all day so I haven't been able to respond but I'm with Will on this one. "Since" implies that Bush is not as bad as Hitler but does imply he is worse than anything since then.....

As for 9/11, I believe Bushes reaction to 9/11 and what he has had us doing since then has been far worse than the initial act itself. Had a wiser person been in the Whitehouse at the time the world as a whole could be a lot better off.

dunno, Rekna..... if my grandma had wheels she would have been a trolley car....

Close, but you left out:

5 - All of the above

Hey, no fair. host went back and wrote Hitler.

The Hitler comparison served only as a distraction. I think a better OP would have been to ask the question:

Have the Bush policies of the last eight years resulted in the greatest US loss of credibility and influence around the world in the recent (post WW II) history of our nation?

IMO, the answer is a resounding YES.

About all this 'since' business. I don't think I'm stupid, but when I think about bad things that have happened to 'this country' I don't think Hitler. Hence, the statement in the OP seems heavy-handed. Like Hitler was being used for effect. If it were being used solely as a chronological marker, it would have made more sense to use our president at that time.

I would possibly stand behind the statement: Bush is the worst thing to happen to this world since Hitler. But I would have to give the matter some serious thought.

Will, I already defined the word "since" according to the OED in an earlier post and that will be the definition I will follow.

On the one hand you talk about being "smarter than everyone else" and so you choose NOT to "baby talk" so everyone else can understand you. Yet, here is the crux of the problem at hand. Rekna used the word "since" in a way that is not particularly accepted except in lazy speech or vernacular.

Then a whole shitload of interpretations ensued. Wonder why?

It's not that I disagree with the SENTIMENT of the original phrase ... but I didn't think we were discussing that issue. I thought the debate was over whether the phrase was accurate in LANGUAGE not IDEA.

Rekna even corroborated it:

(Bold is mine.)

The word "since" didn't imply anything ... THE SPEAKER implied the idea. But that's where the barrier is ... a speaker should not IMPLY anything but rather spell it out exactly. When you IMPLY something you should not be upset when those around you don't understand the implication. They have their own pre-conceived notions about the language and thus react within their own understanding.

I can't be sure that it was a bar full of neocons ... but if this thread is any indication as to the demographics then I'm pretty sure it wasn't.

I'm not a neocon by any stretch of the imagination and I disagree with the original statement.

If I say "Martin Luther King is the most profound person to walk to the earth since Jesus" would I have just insulted every Christian on the planet by implying that Martin Luther King is better than Jesus?

Martin Luther King Jr. could fly.

No but you would have insulted your history teachers.

ftfy

Come again?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Probably some of them. Just like in your neocon biker-bar Bush/Hitler scenario. You will still have to choose your words carefully ...

Besides, I can't compare a non-fiction character (MLK) with one that I believe to be fictional (the Legend of Jesus). Whether or not there was an actual man called Jesus to whom all this NT Christianity is attributed is up in the air for me (and a topic for another post).

I suppose you could have said, "The teachings of Martin Luther King are the most profound since the teachings of Jesus."

Furthermore, with regard to MLK and Jesus as people, there is no "IS" ... only "WAS."

:thumbsup: :D

actually, I would have to very much agree with this statement. Bush makes executive number three to have wantonly violated numerous areas of the constitution and not only should he and cheney be impeached, tried, and convicted, but also serve life sentences or be executed. This should immediately be followed by the trials of ashcroft and gonzalez. Then every congress and senate miscreant who voted FOR these 'laws' that violated the constitution should face charges and expulsion. Follow that with the judges who sided with the government in these cases.

Unfortunately, in todays wishy washy and apathetically fearful society, none of this will ever happen.

Quoted for Truth!!!!

and just to make sure nobody misses it. :thumbsup:

FWIW, I found these on a site called lolpresident. Enjoy!!<br><br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...8/03/turdz.jpg<br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...rylostcape.jpg<br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...potatochip.JPG<br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...ry_hillary.jpg<br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...le-boobies.jpg<br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...-out-again.jpg<br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...oozenboobs.jpg<br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...yr-contrys.jpg<br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...07/06/dick.jpg<br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...07/06/taft.jpg<br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...07/06/halp.jpg<br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...6/lolnixon.jpg<br>
http://lolpresident.com/wp-content/u...06/lolbush.jpg

OK, you did say "since". But if we reviewed history with balanced detached non-political honesty, I believe there would be little that compares in design and scope to the effects of Hitler on America (or the world).

Saying that Bush is worst for America since Hitler draws a back-handed comparison of the two. Why not say "since WWII" if it's what you really mean? ...it still wouldn't be true. Were you not backpedaling to avoid drunken criticism? If it's something really believe, stand up for your beliefs.

Bush isn't the best ever ... thank goodness for the hard work of our House and Senate. Always vigilant, incorruptible, marshaling the people's mandate.

Let me cast a "False, but not out of line" vote. There have certainly been worse leaders than Bush since Hitler (maybe not a worse American President, but I don't think that was the question). However, I wouldn't call the comment out of line because I don't assume that most people actually mean it when they say such things and even if they do it is almost entirely unlikely that they did the research to back up such an opinion. If the comment is meant as to analogize the relative badness of awful world leaders then I suppose that is a valid opinion, though the one I don't agree with. Bush is awful, and some may consider him evil I suppose (though I wouldn't take it that far), but Hitler and other leaders since have been intentionally, maliciously, and truly evil in a category all together separate from any terrible results that were birthed by Bush.

Nothing back-handed about it. What it EXPLICITLY SAYS is that Bush is NOT as bad as Hitler. I don't understand why this is hard to understand, but evidently it is.

The statement asserts that nobody SINCE Hitler has been worse for America than George Bush is. But that the comparison ENDS with Hitler, since Hitler was WORSE. That's actually what the WORDS MEAN.

I respond, as before:

Since I would guess just about every president is worthy of execution in your eyes, perhaps you can start a new party. I'd recommend the name "Sacred King Party", where the president would be sacrificed at the end of his term.

Term limits would really have meaning.

I am curious as to who you would consider executives #1 and #2...

I think Henry Waxman could look in to this right after the MLB steroids investigations.

Abraham Lincoln and FDR.

And I would also like to add (again) that the association between Bush and Hitler has been so ill-used and over-used that a person should never be surprised at getting a negative reaction from people...regardless of the subtlety of their intent. Rekna would have been better off choosing another bad world leader, lol.

And that said, I do realize that what was said was an off-hand comment in a bar and not a calculated statement. If I had a nickel for everytime I said something and later wished I had said it differently I'd...well, I'd have a shitload of nickels.

First of all, fohpah? If you don't know, google is your friend.

Second, I've totally got Will's back in the literal interpretation that the remark uses Hitler as a chronological marker.

Turn off your kneejerk for a moment, and observe my handy visual aid:


http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c5.../badthings.gif

This is an awesome graph of bad things that have happened to America over time. Here are some true things you can say about this graph:

Bush is the worst thing for this country since Adolf Hitler
Bush is the worst thing for this country since Hippies
Hitler is the worst thing for this country since Great Depression
Hippies were the worst thing for this country since Hitler (until Bush)

etc etc.

All that statement means is "Starting immediately after Event B, there is nothing worse than event A for our country". It doesn't give you any relative measure of badness between events A and B.

edit: Holy crap, thread has moved significantly since last page. Why didn't I see it was two pages? Feel free to disregard. :orly:

Twisted gets it.

My world isn't alone!

apparently.

well god forbid that we should actually hold our so called elected representatives accountable when they violate the law/constitution/our basic fundamental rights.

I think we all understand the meaning of the word 'since.' But there are many ways in which a statement, especially a loaded one, can be interpreted and that's what the rest of us are talking about.