Would would you vote for?

[jahannam]

is it saddam hussein or something? lol

[Anonymouse]

Well no Candidate B is actually Hitler, and Candidate A is what the forefathers of America were.

Do you see what this dilemma poses? As omniscient pointed out usually 75% of students end up voting for B, and then you have people like Hitler who come to power.

Candidate B describes everything Hitler was. And then we vote for that. Do you see how democracy leads down to the path of tyranny?

[xBaron Dants]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well no Candidate B is actually Hitler, and Candidate A is what the forefathers of America were.

Do you see what this dilemma poses? As omniscient pointed out usually 75% of students end up voting for B, and then you have people like Hitler who come to power.

Candidate B describes everything Hitler was. And then we vote for that. Do you see how democracy leads down to the path of tyranny?

Well Hitler was also about blaming all of the Germans' problems on the Jews, and the creation of a superpower that would control the world for 1000 years while everybody else would be its slaves. Should that not be mentioned anywhere?

[fIReBuRntInHeLL]

I knew it was Hitler, thats why i voted for the guy.
yes iran shatem sirum, KYANQQQQ(=hitler)

[sSsflamesSs]

99% of people are sheep.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Baron Dants Well Hitler was also about blaming all of the Germans' problems on the Jews, and the creation of a superpower that would control the world for 1000 years while everybody else would be its slaves. Should that not be mentioned anywhere?

His personal philosophy is not incorporated into his political platform rhetoric. His party points identified here are strongly indicative of being 'socialistic' and of 'centralized' rule, most modern 'States' are along these lines or at least use the same rhetoric. You will see that many of them sound familiar in todays political drivel as they are doing the 'will of the people'. Anytime the 'will of the people' is mentioned, you better believe the real powers that be are not the people.

[Shahumyan]

that was a dumb experiement, it presumes that the public no nothing about either of them except those 2 little statements

Do you expect the people not to know why the people have taken such decisiosn?

If you are refering to fascism as tyranny, then you are wrong in suggesting that democracy leads to tyranny.

Bourgeoise democracy (ie the dictatorship of the bourgeoise) leads to fascism, it is the last tool used by the bourgeoise against the workers, and it has been used time and again, and i fear in the next 5-10 years it will be used again, and it already is in many places.

[Anonymouse]

You apparently cannot weigh this objectively since you are looking at all history through the lens of Marxism, an "ism" that came out of the Enlightenment. Remember an "ism" is an idea with already established structures of thought, so one can literally cherry pick anything from history and place it in that "ism", and support your case. That is what you are doing, looking at the past, through the lens of the present, not the past through the eyes of the past, in and of itself, without any present prejudices.

"Democracy" is "democracy" there is no difference, the underlying idea is all the same, but it leads to many horrible results depending on the individual involved. Remember democracy is based on "mob rule" and Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all loved it for it gave people like them a chance to control and tame the mob. The Soviet Union held silly elections, what made it different from the ones here in the U.S.?

You are doing exactly what Mr. Arveztaked was doing, creating ideological schisms in order to justify your own little way of thinking, which essentially springs from your support for that certain ism.

My example simply deals with the political platform, Hitler's party was a National Socialist party, and example I use, simply highlights what their party aims were, and that is simply the way it goes, I cannot change it, that is the way it is. Hitler himself didn't like "bourgeoise" and Mein Kampf is riddled with negative references to it.

Actually, this experiment presumes exactly that the public knows as much as they are told. They don't need to know more less, since no one will know the complete truth or background of any politician, or what secret deals they are involved in, since that is not what politicians will talk about, instead during an election they will lay out their agenda, not the secret funds they took from a certain interest group, or signing into effect laws that curtail civil liberties ( Patriot Act ).

Face it you Marxist from Manchester, your ism you are protecting is a failed theory that has only lead to disaster on a grand human scale. Living in the past, to mold yourself a future, is not a healthy thing, essentially that is the syndrome left on the world from the Enlightenment thinking. Time to recognize lame ideas for what they are, lame.