The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on August 12, 2012, 06:28:36 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021119935
Oh my.
Grave Grumbler (26 posts)
If you could eliminate one person from history...who would it be?
The rules: You can use your time machine (once only) to go back in history and prevent the conception of any person. Example: You want to stop Hitler from being born, so you go up to Klara Pölzl (Adolph's mother) in 1880 and give her 10,000 marks to emigrate to the USA. She never meets let alone marries Alois, so voila...no Adolph. This will have the incidental effect of preventing his brothers from being born as well, of course.
After you prevent your target from being conceived, you snap back to 2012 and enjoy living in a world made better by your actions. Bear in mind, though, that removing someone from history may not have that great an effect. If you prevent Thomas Edison from existing, someone is still going to invent the telephone and the light bulb. They may be called by other names, and they may be delayed by a decade or so, but things tend to get invented when it's time to invent them.
I would note that some individuals would be exceptions. If you took out Isaac Newton (heaven knows why, but it's your choice), modern science as we know it may be delayed by half a century. Prevent Jesus Christ or Muhammad from existing, and history may change so much that the present day would be virtually unrecognizable.
Anyway, that's the setup. Who do you pick, and what do you think would be the result of this person not existing?
(My pick is to take out Hitler)
cantbeserious (524 posts)
1. Ronald Reagan
RagAss (12,144 posts)
2. DU Trolls.
rug (39,449 posts)
3. The idiot standing in front of me who can't decide what kind of donut he wants.
DainBramaged (34,982 posts)
4. Richard Nixon
franksolich wouldn't eliminate anybody--what's done is done, and can't be undone--but wouldn't especially be bothered if the brain-damaged primitive were eliminated from Skins's island, having been flattened by a runaway semi-truck.
No loss to humanity there.
-
Who can say that the person who rose to power instead of Hitler wasn't a better tactician and less of a crazy person.
I like how so many DUmmies blame Ronald Reagan for their personal failures.
-
Columbia University professor John Dewey.
-
Robespierre.
-
You know what this is, don't you? This resembles the way they look at conservatism. They like to think that if they could just pinpoint the one person or thing driving conservatism and do away with him/it, they could have all the political power they wanted. "Oh if we could just get Limbaugh/Fox News off the air..."
-
Think I'll have to go with Frank's plan on this one. Even taking out Hitler could have dire consequences of its own, such as a Stalin/Beria-led USSR with an unbreakable hegemony from Spain to Japan and the resources of half the world at its disposal.
-
Think I'll have to go with Frank's plan on this one. Even taking out Hitler could have dire consequences of its own, such as a Stalin/Beria-led USSR with an unbreakable hegemony from Spain to Japan and the resources of half the world at its disposal.
I vote for Jane Fonda.
-
I wouldn't do it for anyone (Though there are certainly people I wish never existed, such as the Aurora theater shooter and the Sikh temple shooter), mainly because I've seen 'Back to the Future' and similar time- travel movies and shows enough times to realize that attempting to change the past in any way, even with good intentions, can have potentially catastrophic effects on the present and future.
-
I vote for Jane Fonda.
Hm. What if Walter Cronkite wasn't around to stoke the stoke the anti-war flames? Would the US have actually won the Vietnam war?
-
I could go with any one of the DUmpmonkeys, past or present.
They are so insignificant, so devoid of worth or effect on mankind, the risk of unintended negative consequences would be minimal.
-
I could go with any one of the DUmpmonkeys, past or present.
They are so insignificant, so devoid of worth or effect on mankind, the risk of unintended negative consequences would be minimal.
Even the DUmbass Alan Grayson.
-
cantbeserious (524 posts)
1. Ronald Reagan
Knew this before I even clicked.
-
craigmatic (2,659 posts)
20. George Washington
We'd still have gotten independence eventually but we'd be more like Canada with less gun crime and universal healthcare.
(http://www.makemechuckle.com/images/funny-31-08-11/theres-the-door-now-get-the-****-out.jpg)
-
Who would I go with? Mohammed, but even that's short-sighted.
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h228/burnsk73/muslims2.jpg)
-
I wouldn't do it for anyone (Though there are certainly people I wish never existed, such as the Aurora theater shooter and the Sikh temple shooter), mainly because I've seen 'Back to the Future' and similar time- travel movies and shows enough times to realize that attempting to change the past in any way, even with good intentions, can have potentially catastrophic effects on the present and future.
Disagree here, If one can alter the past it would have no effect on us living at the time of the alteration, it would just cause an alternate world, the old world would go on a different level and ours would stay the same.
Still an interesting subject, one discussed over 50 years in Dorm rooms full of Pot smoke and beer.
We still marvel at marages and give all kinds of reasons for them, yet how do we know for sure what we see was not there a milion years ago ?? Light refraction and the mind we say but how come some people who have never seen a palm tree can draw pictures of one or in the Jungle of the Amazon Animals that have been extinct for eons.
When someone can tell me why some children at the age of 2 that sees a piano for the first time can sit down and play Wagner and the child is Chinese, or an Eskimo child at 4 in 1889 can draw a picture of a camel, then I will start thinking that all has an explanation .
-
Eve, as in Adam and Eve, and maybe Adam as well.........(http://www.conservativecave.com/Smileys/default/rotf.gif)
-
Robespierre.
Marat , just so we get them both :cheersmate:
-
As was mentioned before by Frank and others. There is a reason you don't mess wit hthe past timelines. You might end up getting something worse then what your attempting to change for the better. Time flows for a reason like it does. I can't explain it but if someone was able to change that flow there would be no end to how peopel would try and make it thsie own little version on how they see things and that just can't happen. All anyone has to do is watch the movies and TV shows that have time ttravel as theme and most of them are warnings against fooling with it.
-
(http://www.makemechuckle.com/images/funny-31-08-11/theres-the-door-now-get-the-****-out.jpg)
Because the British Empire would just let those thirteen colonies go? What a retard. Without George Washington and the Founding Fathers, there would not be a United States that spanned the continent (even if Britain eventually decided to let them go out of the goodness of their hearts) and there would not be a country providing for the defense of these other countries. So all of those socialist paradises don't exist either, since those countries are spending all of their money on their own defense.
-
Because the British Empire would just let those thirteen colonies go? What a retard. Without George Washington and the Founding Fathers, there would not be a United States that spanned the continent (even if Britain eventually decided to let them go out of the goodness of their hearts) and there would not be a country providing for the defense of these other countries. So all of those socialist paradises don't exist either, since those countries are spending all of their money on their own defense.
That's not far from what actually happened, though. The Brits sued for peace because when France joined the side of the Americans, the American revolution all of a sudden became a small part of a much larger conflict. The Brits let the American Colonies go because they were bleeding money here, and they were neck deep in fighting the French trying to pry their - much more lucrative - colonies in India, Africa and the West Indies out from under them. George and his boys were certainly motivational in in encouraging The British Crown to cut it's losses, but to truly understand the calculus involved in the British quitting the American Colonies, you have to look at the larger picture.
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021124572
And the results are in! The person DU most wants removed from history is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1119935
It's interesting to see which historic figures are despised the most (at this forum, at least!). I'm not including obvious joke votes, but am including posts where someone says "+1000" or words to that effect. Here they are, in order (as of 329 responses).
At #1, the person whose removal from history would benefit humanity more than that of anyone else is:
(drum roll)
Ronald Reagan
The rest:
#2: Adolph Hitler
#3: Various members of the Bush family
#4: (tie): Adam, Constantine, the Apostle Paul
#7: (tie): Abraham, Milton Friedman
#9: (tie): Lee Harvey Oswald, Ayn Rand, James Earl Ray, Phyllis Schlafly, Joseph Stalin
#14: (tie): Dick Cheney, Jesus Christ, Christopher Columbus, Oliver Cromwell, JC Bancroft Davis, Franz Ferdinand, Muhammed, Richard Nixon, Gavrilo Princip, George Washington
Bringing up the rear and fighting it out for 23rd place with a single vote each are:
Edward Bernays, John Wilkes Booth, Johnathan Edwards, Thomas Edison, Alexander Hamilton, Katherine Harris, Rush Limbaugh, Gengis Kahn, the father of the Koch Brothers, Vladimir Lenin, Moses, Thomas Midgley, Grover Norquist, Sarah Palin, Mitchell Palmer, Pol Pot, Maximilien de Robespierre, Joseph Smith, Theodosius, Theophilus of Alexandria, Hong Xiuquan, Mao Zedong
:thatsright:
-
DUmmies (on average) think Ronald Reagan was worse than Hitler.
Of course they do. Hitler was a fellow big government socialist, and almost as racist/antisemitic as the average DUmbass. Hitler is everything the average DUmbshit aspires to be, mostly because Hitler acquired the POWER that the nameless, faceless denizens of Skinner's Island of Misfit ****-ups dream of having.
-
Bringing up the rear and fighting it out for 23rd place with a single vote each are:
Edward Bernays, John Wilkes Booth, Johnathan Edwards, Thomas Edison, Alexander Hamilton, Katherine Harris, Rush Limbaugh, Gengis Kahn, the father of the Koch Brothers, Vladimir Lenin, Moses, Thomas Midgley, Grover Norquist, Sarah Palin, Mitchell Palmer, Pol Pot, Maximilien de Robespierre, Joseph Smith, Theodosius, Theophilus of Alexandria, Hong Xiuquan, Mao Zedong
Sarah Palin outranked Dick Cheney?! Really?! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
Yeah...that's no real suprise, even my cat knows that DUmmies hate Raygun.
I guess what caught my eye (still no surprise) is that the DUmmies would like to wipe out the bible.
-
Sarah Palin outranked Dick Cheney?! Really?! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Cheney was in a tie for 14th.
-
#14: (tie): Dick Cheney, Jesus Christ, Christopher Columbus, Oliver Cromwell, JC Bancroft Davis, Franz Ferdinand, Muhammed, Richard Nixon, Gavrilo Princip, George Washington
And they wonder why people think the left are anti Christian.
-
Cheney was in a tie for 14th.
Thanks for the correction!
-
What a bunch of nasty, evil people.
Proud Public Servant (521 posts)
354. Saul of Tarsus (a/k/a St. Paul)
Pretty much everything wrong with Christianity stems not from the teachings of Jesus, but from the embellishments and interpretations of Paul. Misogyny? Paul. Homophobia? Paul. Emphasis on Christ's divinity rather than his humanity? Paul. Emphasis on faith rather than good works? Paul. And all of the atrocities committed in the name of Jesus throughout history (which, taken together, make Hitler look like a piker) tend, theologically, to be traceable back to Paul's take on things. Saul/Paul, definitely.
-
Bringing up the rear and fighting it out for 23rd place with a single vote each are:
Edward Bernays, John Wilkes Booth, Johnathan Edwards, Thomas Edison, Alexander Hamilton, Katherine Harris, Rush Limbaugh, Gengis Kahn, the father of the Koch Brothers, Vladimir Lenin, Moses, Thomas Midgley, Grover Norquist, Sarah Palin, Mitchell Palmer, Pol Pot, Maximilien de Robespierre, Joseph Smith, Theodosius, Theophilus of Alexandria, Hong Xiuquan, Mao Zedong
Hmmm, wonder what brought that on? :whatever: