Idly wandering...

...how any of you would rank Chairman Mao, Josef Stalin, and Adolph Hitler in the 20th century triumvirate of, oh, let's just call it evil.

And why, please.

I'd say Mao, followed by Stalin, then that piker Hitler.

Mao by sheer numbers, also because he fostered an image of beneficience to disguise his utterly 'managed' slaughter and starvation of his own people.

Stalin is number two (barely) because he was slightly less murderous numerically (Mao-lite?), and also because he really didn't care if you saw him as "Father Russia" or not...less deceitful, if you will.

Hitler basically didn't have the patience or long-view to compete, but he had bigger numbers than Pol Pot, so.

Well, then.

I guess my view prevails.

As it should.

I'm just waiting to see how you work Obama into this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

I'm just waiting to see how you work Obama into this discussion.

---

He just did, and I think it was too easy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

I'm just waiting to see how you work Obama into this discussion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

I'm just waiting to see how you work Obama into this discussion.

---

He just did, and I think it was too easy

---

Suckers.

No, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

I'm just waiting to see how you work Obama into this discussion.

---

He just did, and I think it was too easy

---

Suckers.

No, really.

---

That should be singular. I either read you like an open book or you are taking credit for something unintended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

...how any of you would rank Chairman Mao, Josef Stalin, and Adolph Hitler in the 20th century triumvirate of, oh, let's just call it evil.

And why, please.

I'd say Mao, followed by Stalin, then that piker Hitler.

Mao by sheer numbers, also because he fostered an image of beneficience to disguise his utterly 'managed' slaughter and starvation of his own people.

Stalin is number two (barely) because he was slightly less murderous numerically (Mao-lite?), and also because he really didn't care if you saw him as "Father Russia" or not...less deceitful, if you will.

Hitler basically didn't have the patience or long-view to compete, but he had bigger numbers than Pol Pot, so.

---

You missed a few Kev. Pol Pott, Idi Amin, Attila The Hun etc or are they friends?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

He just did, and I think it was too easy

---

Suckers.

No, really.

---

That should be singular. I either read you like an open book or you are taking credit for something unintended.

---

No, my reference was accurate.

You both expect an ulterior motive, and while there is one, your sensibilities have pointed you in the wrong direction.

As usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

...how any of you would rank Chairman Mao, Josef Stalin, and Adolph Hitler in the 20th century triumvirate of, oh, let's just call it evil.

And why, please.

I'd say Mao, followed by Stalin, then that piker Hitler.

Mao by sheer numbers, also because he fostered an image of beneficience to disguise his utterly 'managed' slaughter and starvation of his own people.

Stalin is number two (barely) because he was slightly less murderous numerically (Mao-lite?), and also because he really didn't care if you saw him as "Father Russia" or not...less deceitful, if you will.

Hitler basically didn't have the patience or long-view to compete, but he had bigger numbers than Pol Pot, so.

---

You missed a few Kev. Pol Pott, Idi Amin, Attila The Hun etc or are they friends?

---

Not at all, Bob.

I mentioned Pol Pot but not Idi Amin, but left it at M, S and H because I was attempting a "big three" theme.

If you like, we can include them - I would put Amin in fourth (because he was fucking psychotic) and Pol Pot in fifth.

The Hun fellow doesn't make the "twentieth-century" cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You both expect an ulterior motive, and while there is one, your sensibilities have pointed you in the wrong direction.

As usual.

---

Given my defective sensibilities I doubt I'll ever manage to discern what your ulterior motive is, so just spare us the suspense and get down to it.

What - you desire a segue?

Okay-

SHITHEAD.

There you go - now back to the thread, eh?

You missed Bush too.