Guest $iLk Posted November 3, 2001 Report Posted November 3, 2001 It is time to elect the world leader, and your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates: Candidate A - Associates with crooked politicians, consults with astrologists. Has had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 - 10 martinis a day. ------------------------------------- Candidate B - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon,used opium in college, and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening. ------------------------------------- Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero, a vegetarian, doesn't smoke,drinks an occasional beer, and has never had any extra-marital affairs.. -------------------------------------Who would you vote for with the knowledge presented here which is TRUE? Candidate A? Candidate B? Candidate C?(No spoilers if you've heard this)
me Posted November 3, 2001 Report Posted November 3, 2001 Bah, You're no Fun. quote: (No spoilers if you've heard this) Guess That means I must Abstain...
Põdi Posted November 3, 2001 Report Posted November 3, 2001 I wouldn't vote for any of them, because they haven't stated their policies. Am I right in thinking they were ALL elected US president at some time or another?
Guest $iLk Posted November 3, 2001 Report Posted November 3, 2001 One of them is a US president. i'm talking about voting based on character as stated in the information above.
Guest Posted November 3, 2001 Report Posted November 3, 2001 I have to abstain as well, darnit!! I won't spoil it!!
Epsilon 5 Posted November 3, 2001 Report Posted November 3, 2001 I know that one, but even then I would like to know first what are their policies and realisations. Since they go for world leading, they should have a past behind them, right?
Menchise Posted November 4, 2001 Report Posted November 4, 2001 Maybe I should create a similar thread for the Australian Federal Election that's coming up. [ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Guest $iLk Posted November 4, 2001 Report Posted November 4, 2001 *$iLk shakes his headOkay, the point of this whole exercise is to get people to vote for Candidate C. However the moral is that people aren't always what they appear to be. The candidates are:Candidate A is Franklin RooseveltCandidate B is Winston CHurchillCandidate C is Adolf HitlerKinda makes ya think, doesn't it ??????
Steve Schacher Posted November 4, 2001 Report Posted November 4, 2001 quote:Maybe I should create a similar thread for the Australian Federal Election that's coming up. Maybe you should.Then we would really see how Ameri-centric we all really are.Not that there's anything wrong with that...
SpotSD Posted November 5, 2001 Report Posted November 5, 2001 quote: Candidate A is Franklin RooseveltCandidate B is Winston CHurchillCandidate C is Adolf HitlerKinda makes ya think, doesn't it ?????No it dosen't. If you look hard enough there's a good side and a bad side to everyone. You just happend to post the bad side of Candidates A and B, and post the good side of Candidate C.
Razorback Posted November 5, 2001 Report Posted November 5, 2001 From what I gather then of the 3 choices that the 'normal' choices A & B is that these types of charachters make better leaders. It's no wonder that the USA seems to turn the other cheek as to our leaders in office.
SpotSD Posted November 5, 2001 Report Posted November 5, 2001 quote: From what I gather then of the 3 choices that the 'normal' choices A & B is that these types of charachters make better leaders. Candidate C was a brillent leader, he just had all the wrong motives.[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: SpotSD ]
Põdi Posted November 5, 2001 Report Posted November 5, 2001 quote:Originally posted by SpotSD: Candidate C was a brillent leader, he just had all the wrong motives.[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: SpotSD ] Erm , hardly. His motivation was to make Germany great. Nothing wrong with that. His methods of leadership were at fault: hate, xenophobia, anti-semiticism, racism, fervent nationalism? Hardly the methods of a great leader.I wouldn't have voted for C anyway. Never trust a vegetarian.
Emmett.hendrick Posted November 5, 2001 Report Posted November 5, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Paddy Gregory: Erm , hardly. His motivation was to make Germany great. Nothing wrong with that. His methods of leadership were at fault: hate, xenophobia, anti-semiticism, racism, fervent nationalism? Hardly the methods of a great leader.I wouldn't have voted for C anyway. Never trust a vegetarian. Hey whats wrong with VegetariansLOL just joking
Epsilon 5 Posted November 5, 2001 Report Posted November 5, 2001 Yes, Hitler was a gentleman, a brilliant and intelligent guy, but he had the wrong ideas.
Scrivener Posted November 5, 2001 Report Posted November 5, 2001 Actually, I agree with SpotSD and Epsilon 5. What Adolf Hitler did was brilliantly evil. He took a minority (Knowing that a majority usually has more power) and made them scapegoats. He gave the people a common enemy to unite them. If you take a classroom of third graders, and tell them that the children with blue eyes are better than the children with brown eyes (assuming there are more blue-eyed children), you will see the blue eyed children opress the brown eyed children. Hitler got the majority to stand with him.Nevertheless, what he did was WRONG. Even that experiment with school children would not be performed these days. Had Hitler been soft in acomplishing his goals, he would have had such minds as Einstein on his side (Who was Jewish). He was caught up in his ambition and carried it too far.
Guest $iLk Posted November 5, 2001 Report Posted November 5, 2001 He was brilliantly evil. Not a good combination. He did many good things which were overshadowed by the evil deeds he did. While it is justified that he is demonized, it is done to the point where the waters of history are muddied and people believe the goal of National Socialism was the genocide of jews. Before Hitler - it wasn't. Ah well, nice to see you guys vote
Steve Schacher Posted November 6, 2001 Report Posted November 6, 2001 quote:What Adolf Hitler did was brilliantly evil. He took a minority (Knowing that a majority usually has more power) and made them scapegoats. He gave the people a common enemy to unite them. This sounds a lot like Clinton's triangulation strategy. Clinton would pit one group against another and then claim the middle ground.
Guest dnoyeB! Posted November 8, 2001 Report Posted November 8, 2001 Not surprising. Candidate C was the most commited to his purpose in my opinion. His habits reflect his self respect and discipline. But none of the information reflected his bent ideology.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now