Empire of the Iguanadons

Theo van Gogh, a noted filmmaker from The Netherlands who made a short film about the terrible treatment of Muslim women in Islam, was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam. Van Gogh was shot down, and as he lay pleading for his life, was shot again. The assailant, one Mohammed Bouyeri, then took out a knife and slit his throat, leaving van Gogh to bleed to death. Afterward, Bouyeri took out a 5 page manifesto threatening most Western countries.

So when exactly did this happen? November 2, 2004. Yes, that's right, 6 years ago this happened. Though it is mentioned on Wikipedia, there was apparently no coverage of any sort in US media.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear your local news whitewashing something involving Islam. It is not a religion of peace, it is a religion of cruelty and war. They are not directed to live among us in harmony, they are directed to kill us as infidels if we do not convert. They will stab you through the chest and attach manifestos to your body if they think it will serve their ends.

Yes, for those who are wondering, Theo van Gogh's great uncle was Vincent van Gogh, the famous painter.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

Either A or B. The candidate Fury is describing is Adolf Hitler.

Oh, wait candidate B. A is stalin and C is Hitler. B is Roosevelt.

Is that where he's going with this, Dallen? See, Samson and I knew it was way too little information to make an informed decision. :sigh:

I believe so, Conner

This changes what exactly? Roosevelt and Stalin were both disastrously bad for their countries.

Well, given the choice between those three, I'd take Roosevelt, as despite his worst faults he wasn't as bad as Hitler was. On the other hand, if we're going to credit the man with anything, he did expand his country remarkably at the time and he did have near total control of his country in many ways that were actually positive, its just those little pesky details (like: killing 6 million people; coming up with all sorts of remarkable discoveries in medicine and psychology, albeit from human experimentation that every other nation at the time and since considered atrocious; trying to conquer the entire world through force including atomic weaponry - if we hadn't beat him to it; etc) that marred his leadership...

Well yes, the whole left wing fascist philosophy was a huge problem, but that just goes to prove you don't need to be a drunk in order to be bad for your country.

Now we wait for Fury to smile and laugh that we fell into his hideous trap even though both of us knew there was a catch before Dallen ruined his fun

Uh, #1: Fascism is a right wing conspiracy, which is Fury's point.
#2 FDR was great for our country.
#3 I knew Fury's trap because it's an excercise that's done @ the tolerance museum in LA.

Then Fury is wrong, all one needs to do is read Hitler's own writings where aside from the nationalism angle, he and Stalin were in lockstep. Right up until Hitler decided to backstab him that is. Only progressive propagandists and historical revisionists believe Hitler was anything resembling a right winger.

Roosevelt was absolutely devastating for this country. BOTH of them actually. Flaming progressives, both of whom wielded frightening amounts of power. It's no coincidence that Congress and the nation acted swiftly to amend the Constitution to restrict presidents to two terms in office. Something they should have done for representatives and senators too.

Fury's "trap" is too easy to see through. There's not enough information to go on to make a proper decision. He asked us to pick one based on blind nothing. Factor in everything else Hitler was about in Germany at the time and add that kind of information to the pseudo-poll and I guarantee you it becomes much simpler. Genocidal maniac, or mad drunk with power but still somewhat constrained by the system that elected him.

The tolerance museum in LA btw is anything but.

A. FDR
B. Churchill
C. Hitler

None of us will disagree that FDR and Churchill did great things for their countries and that Hitler was a monster. I guess what it shows is that the personal flaws one person may have, does not mean they are not fit for office or even achieve a lot for their nation even tho our current societies want to throw someone out of office because he/she had sex with the janitor.

Of course not, the whole point of it is to show how your biases effect the decisions you make, sorry i droped that game and ran away, i was just too busy with work to look in and respond earlier.

Actually, Fury, Samson just did. Personally, I think Roosevelt had some serious flaws but did manage some very noteworthy things for his country at a time when they were badly needed, regardless of whether or not I approve of his methodology. Churchill was a great man in a number of ways, as was Hitler if you're honest about it, but like Hitler, Churchill had some darker aspects that are, unlike Hitler, usually hushed for the sake of his achievements. On the other hand, I do think you're correct that few would argue for Hitler even over Churchill or Roosevelt on their worst days.


Current societies?? This has always been the case. Royalty, or leadership in general, is somehow elevated and expected to maintain higher standards than the rest of us, not necessarily to be moral all the time but to not mingle with their subordinates.


Yes, but the problem with offering up that particular type of game here is that you already know that some of us don't simply let our biases color our decisions that way, we require enough information to make an informed decision as best we can before we're willing to commit to one. Thus, your whole point is a bit academic in this situation as we were only willing to, for the sake of your game alone, offer that, without any other details we'd go with C but that we'd need other details to actually commit.