Can you name a 'good guy' dictator?

Yes we have had some bad guys as leaders, but compared to most every other country, our worst is usually better than their best.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

A "benevolent despot"? Hmm... you know, probably... there are a few in history, right?

I mean, even in the lineage of the Kings of England, there were some, that
people kinda considered to be "good", 'cause they did some good things, and
there were some that people considered to be "bad", 'cause they were
tyrants or something.

But I mean, you know, any of these guys - didn't Marcos in the Phillipines,
start out as kind of a "benevolent despot" of sorts?

And then, you know, the "benevelont" guys, sometimes turn "not-so-benevolent",
when they feel "threatened" in some way -

And that's the whole wierd thing about it, right? I mean, on a "good" day, these
guys are trying to bring "good" things to the table - and then on a "bad day", they
end up clobbering people over the head, 'cause they're getting the perception that
"people" aren't letting them bring good things to the table.

So, it's like, "we're gonna bring good things to the table, whether you like
it or not", right?


Yes, agreed. Our "bar" is pretty high in that regard. And I mean, I'm kinda proud of that. You are too, yes?

I just think we gotta be kinda careful, with "foisting that standard upon others". 'Cause, I mean, some people just can't jump that high.... "yet".... right?

Bushie's foreign policy thing, is kinda wierd that way, 'cause like, look at Pakistan for instance. Their "dictator" over there, is "kind of" a good guy, right? He's like, trying to navigate this middle course between extremists on both sides, and plus he's got the issues with india on the other side, which is a whole different kinda thing that involves religion too, and I mean, you know, the US is kinda sittin' there "encouraging democracy" and kinda "hoping" that Bhutto would get in there and smoothen things out a little bit, in terms of their "internal" politics -

But I mean, the thing that Bushie's not doing, is traipsing in there like he did in Afghanistan, and taking apart the Taliban in the northwest, right? And it also seems, that he's not forcing Musharraf to do that either, right? 'Cause the reality there, is that the Paki mil was taking very heavy losses up there in the northwest, and that's why Mushie had to sign an agreement with those tribal leader guys. You know, so I mean, he could have just said, "Bushie, help", and next thing you know the Taliban would be gone, forever - but he didn't do that, right?

See what I mean?

So name one.


Hitler was kind to animals, and therefore wasnt all bad. Is that your argument?

Yeah, they did some good things...BFD. None of it makes up for the fact that they basically enslaved their population.


Yeah...as long as it didnt involve giving their people freedom.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Thought Nonsensitur was just a lib - turns out he's a dictator lover.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Hating dictators would require having morals, and he has said he hates moralists.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Exactly - to a lib relativist, all moral systems are equal, all governments, all cars, all ice cream ...

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Okay - good guy dictator - King Arthur. There ya go.

SS, your model is so incorrect, that you're even using the wrong vocabulary to describe what you're trying to talk about.

You don't "have" morals. You "apply" morals. You "have" a value system, though.

Jesus - SS - you REALLY need to hit the books, dude. You are totally spouting nonsense. You're disregarding LOTS of constraints that "other models" bring to the table. And I mean, that would be typical of moralist thinking.

SS, do yourself a favor and go look this up on Google - "forward looking Markov process". If you can't find that, look up "Brownian motion". THEN, once you understand what that's all about (it's pretty easy), then go look up what a "stochastic generator" is.

NOW, you have a slightly better model of "morality". SLIGHTLY better. There's still more to it, though. LOTS more.

Morality is a CHOICE, that you and I make, each and every second, of every day. Morality is the CHOICE, that constrains the question of, "what am I going to do next"?

So, you know, out of ALL the possibilities, in the spectrum of what I COULD do next, what are the "constraints" in that regard?

That's what morality brings to the table.

In that sentence there, what you meant, was "values".

Really, dude, go hit the books for a while. You got a LOT to learn.....

King Arthur was a myth, perhaps you would do better with Sir Lancelot, he boinked Guinevere just like Clinton boinked Lewinsky.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

What type of morals would dictate Edi Amin's values? Morals and values are both subjective, al qaeda has their set of morals and values, is that what you support?

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.
In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.
In its second, normative and universal, sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism.[1]
In its third usage 'morality' is synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.[2]

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.