BF2S Forums Glenn Beck : Anita Dunn Favorite philosopher Mao Tse-Tung 10.15.09

Kmarion wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It's a very shallow view you have, imo. Naturally if you are singling out an individual you should look at his entire character and the goals they strived for.. Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung, whoever..

By that same logic you could totally discount the entire lives work of Elvis because he did drugs or MJ because he touched kids and so on and on.

Sure they should not be role models, if there is indisputable evidence to back it up. The murder of millions isn't excatly an apples to apples comparison. Elvis killed himself.

Kmarion wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Sure they should not be role models, if there is indisputable evidence to back it up. The murder of millions isn't excatly an apples to apples comparison. Elvis killed himself.

Well within the point of the speech, Mao fit the role of somebody with inner personal strength. Since you brought up Hitler, if you were giving a speech about creating a successful economy out of a depression economy you would say Hitler was a great planner and manager.

Yes I brought up Hitler. Because by your logic he is admirable also. Hitler spent and spent and spent on his war machine. Of course that employed people and helped the economy (temporarily), so did using that military to force jews into labor camps. I'm glad you decided to talk about his economy. It emphasizes WHY it is important to look at the entire character of a person. His accomplishments uniting a disgraced German state and building an economy were undone by the other aspects of his character.

Was Adolf Hitler a great man? Yes. To say that he was not a good man is easy, but greatness transcends the boundaries of good and evil. According to the Oxford English Encyclopedia, there are 33 major definitions of the word "great" as an adjective, and only one of them implies goodness. By almost any definition one can be great without being good.
The word great, however, does imply superior mental powers, something that Hitler certainly possessed. To be able to take over the government and democratically establish a dictatorship is something that shows clear mental prowess. Although some 'semi-legitimate' means were used in gaining control of the government, such as the SA, overall it was a legitimate legal takeover of the government in a democratic fashion. To takeover and become a dictator without really breaking the rules is an impressive task and to lead Germany to so many military victories early on in the war are such clear signs of intelligence that nothing more is needed. He also had a knack for memorization, and obviously had a very strategic mind.

The next thing to take into account is the possession of special skills or abilities. Once again, this can be seen in his skills as a military strategist. Hitler also had incredible ability as an orator, being able to capture audiences with his words, and to sway them at will. His charisma was so intense that people who would normally side against him were drawn to his side. Hitler also made use of new technologies such as radio broadcast to be able to influence as many people as possible with his presentations. Hitler had a way of using emotion rather than logic to bring people over to his sides, and this technique greatly helped in increasing the popularity of the Nazi party.

A great man must achieve more than what is normal. To ask whether Hitler did that is almost absurd because the answer is so obvious. Hitler took a country in turmoil, unified it, and proceeded to use it as a military machine. There were some dissenters, true, but to unify the country to the extent which he did alone is beyond normal. Incredible, however, are his military success, and almost complete takeover of Europe. As well, although it may be unsettling to consider it such, his concentration camps were definitely beyond normal especially as far as efficiency is concerned. To say better, however, would be highly difficult.

To be great, a man's accomplishments should benefit more than just him. For Hitler, this is an interesting question. There are groups that Hitler most definitely did not benefit (the Jews for instance...) however, for the most part Germany did gain from his leadership. Hitler brought Germany out of depression, created massive industrial growth, and raised Germany into the spotlight as a world power. He also managed to destroy the remnants of the Treaty of Versailles, which had been harming Germany, and to restore their pride.

The only point of being a great man at which Hitler fails is in personal ethics. Hitler's moral character was lacking, and there can be no denying that. His sordid relations with woman, and the mass executions at the concentration camps alone are more than enough of an indication of this. It is also fairly evident that Hitler went a bit 'insane' by the end of his rule, and no longer thought in a logical manner. He was not a moral man. Still, morality is only one part of greatness. He is immoral enough to make him an evil man, but no lack of ethics can stop someone from being a great man.

Overall it can easily be seen that Hitler is a great man. Although he is lacking in the ethics category, it is not an essential one, and he more than makes up for it in the others. A good man? No. But, a great man? Most definitely.

Kmarion wrote:

I've read much more than that regarding the subject of "Hitlers greatness". I stand by my points. Everyone has character flaws, but when you are judging a persons legacy you must weigh these flaws against their accomplishments. A point you have yet to understand.

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Hitler was a great community organizer... and pretty charismatic...
but the whole killing 6 million jews thing put an asterisk on his career.

The woman in the video is coo coo for cocoa puffs... and hopefully she steps down soon....
or is asked to...

Kmarion wrote:

She said two of my favorite political philosophers. .. the two people I turn to the most.

Last edited by Narupug (2009-10-17 14:11:46)

Macbeth wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

She said two of my favorite political philosophers. .. the two people I turn to the most.

White House communications director Anita Dunn fired back at criticism from TV commentator Glenn Beck on Friday, saying that a Mao Tse-tung quote Beck took issue with was picked up from legendary GOP strategist Lee Atwater.

"The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don't get my progressive friends mad at me," Dunn told CNN.

As for Beck's criticism: "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony, but clearly the effort fell flat -- at least with a certain Fox commentator whose sense of irony may be missing."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/16/ … index.html

Narupug wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

She said two of my favorite political philosophers. .. the two people I turn to the most.

She's making a speech, she is emphasizing the point that these quotes are good.  No one speaks absolute truth when making a speech, what she said is simply rhetoric meant to say that she follows these quotes, and so should you.

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-10-20 22:00:41)

Kmarion wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Hitler was a great community organizer... and pretty charismatic...

Catbox, seriously....that is a stupid analogy to Obama. Bush was more of a hitler than obama. Hitler was a conservative. Obama, a liberal. /argument

They're both pretty stupid.

Spark wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

They're both pretty stupid.

I wouldnt say Hitler was stupid. Brilliant is actually a good way of describing him. His and Albert Speers' design of Germania was fucking incredible. If he didnt go the way he did to aquire his land, and made Germania a reality, It wouldve been a marvel of the world.

I think he meant both analogies are stupid.